User talk:NukeofEarl

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	As you know your way around..and still have decided to stay on, this seems to be better than a welcome :)) Lectonar (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Duke Nukem 3D, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incubator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As some of these albums have extensive reviews, and most of the rest have reliably sourced information, they don't include less than most of the album articles. As such, I don't think PROD is the way to go, so I am going to object them all. I emphasize that I am not saying I believe they all deserve articles, but I think this should be discussed in AfD and not removed without discussion by a faster deletion process. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NukeofEarl, sorry I didn't get your message earlier - my Internet connection has been spotty lately. I've responded to your requests and points on the Wolf3D talk page, under the Ports/Version details and differences section. Apologies for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walker222 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you essentially undid my edit to Spear of Destiny and referred to the Lost Episodes enemies as "palette swaps" of those of the original game. Granted, my edit was rather poorly worded, but it was true.

I disagree with your edit, and would like to call you to the talk page of the article for a discussion. In the meantime, I have changed the text of the article to be neutral and to not claim it is or is not a palette swap.

Thank you! − Elecbullet (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NukeofEarl . From Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide in the Personnel section: "A personnel section should be included under a primary heading "Personnel" and should generally be formatted as a bulleted list of names and forms of participation" (emphasis added). What made you think otherwise? This guideline may need updating if it's been superseded! Nikthestoned 09:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing made me think otherwise. That's exactly the editing practice I've been following. It souns like you're reding something into the style guide that isn't there.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I just didn't read the entirety of that section, for which I apologise! Nikthestoned 14:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is going around undoing your edits. I reverted one where they undid a code fix. I would like to assume good faith, but I don't know if they are doing this for any particular reason. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. NukeofEarl is a WikiVandal that was well aware of why this occurred having wanted to start an editing war with me. Him feigning ignorance and claiming he couldn't guess what this was all about is completely dishonest, but that is what you get from a lying hack! The paragraph in question in the Ys article was original and entirely written by me (yes, without explanation) before it caught his attention, before he decided to monitor it like a hawk ever since and keep swooping down to excise and edit it... At least 3 times he excised several sentences from it and his "atrocious" grammar/spelling fix was to lowercase a job title and selectively declare comments "inappropriate" and self-references along with excising relevant links. Even his description in his edits were subtle insults. He waited a few weeks this time before reimposing his 3rd edit, hoping to sneak it by me would be the only explanation. Not exactly somebody that wanted to communicate with me to resolve it civilly. Since he was mostly excising the aspect of what fan translators have felt in terms of legality and what it means that a corporation actually purchased fan translated scripts, that was relevant/interesting information and history he kept trying to excise, not edit for improvement, so I don't see how I could've "worked" with him on that particular issue. Declaring yourself by implication to having superior writing/grammar skills doesn't exactly help either.

Mr. NukeofEarl, poor fella, claims pessimism in that if he had communicated with me, that it would've never led to a resolution. If the only resolution was him imposing his edits and mostly excises on my paragraph, and ignoring all other problems with the article, showing particular bias and animus against me and what I said in particular, yeah, I'm probably not going to be willing to let him have his way. But, how does insulting me here (declaring me unreasonable, a brick wall, even before ever speaking to me, and that I'd be the one to make personal attacks when he already made them here before I even got here!) and getting an admin to insult me as well, how was that ever going to "solve" the issue which he instigated to begin with? It's laughable. He only used this opportunity to report the incident and add further insults in addition to the subtle ones he made with his first edit. He goes on to thank an admin for "illuminating" the situation for him... Please, you knew full well you started this, NukeofEarl, ~3 times you swooped down on *just* that paragraph to impose your excises/edits to it. You've been monitoring just my paragraph like a hawk ever since you saw it and I guess you don't like a taste of your own medicine, so you ran running to an admin to waste more of my time on something that was rather minor frankly to begin with (not to someone with a grudge of course, as in your case)! Anyway, you might fool somebody else with the innocent routine, but you don't fool me for a second... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysfan (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, looks like Ysfan is suffering from brain damage. I've edited down his insanely long section heading; the rest, I think, merits no response on my part.--NukeofEarl (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that maybe some explanation is due for the sake of anyone happening to browse across my talk page: Ysfan is the editor referred to in the above "Reverts" section. He was indeed blindly reverting my edits and did not respond well when the situation was reported. Also, as a hopefully final update to this situation, Ysfan has since been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Not the happiest ending that could be hoped for, but at least it means I can resume making improvments to Wikipedia in peace.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

A couple of months ago, a whole lot of info was removed from the Chthon article for being unsourced (and probably way too long). Since you are good at finding sources, and it looks like you are working on the article anyway, I wanted to let you know about that in case you can find sources for any of it. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Unfortunately, I'm actually not that good at finding sources. It only seems that way because much of the time, instead of going to specific articles and trying to find sources for the info in them, I read specific sources and then go find articles that they can be used as sources for. But I do have a few issues covering Chthon, so I'll do what I can. One thing I'm uncertain about is the "powers and abilities" section. Were I creating the article from scratch, I wouldn't have created this section because, as with most dark gods in fiction, Chthon's powers aren't very well-defined. Any thoughts on that?--NukeofEarl (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per here, we need to know if the source said 'free reign' or 'free rein'. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "free reign". Thanks for checking this; I hadn't even thought of the need for "sic" to be placed there.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. 24.12.74.21 (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justice (New Universe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archie Goodwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egads, how did I make a goof like that after I must have visited (and linked to) Archie Goodwin (comics) at least a half dozen times before! Oh well, I've gone and fixed it now.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I saw that you have uploaded a picture of the Spider Woman (Jessica Drew), but you can add to article picture of Ultimate Spider-Woman? I just can't upload pictures correctly because of this, I blocked and error I can't make more! If you help me I may help you with something in return! Here is a link to pictures of Ultimate Spider-Woman can choose to your taste! http://shawnee-smith.ya.ru/replies.xml?item_no=1133 And if you don't look Russian article in the Department of Ultimate Spider-Woman!--Youtube2014 (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• HELO?--Youtube2014 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry, but I'm new to uploading images myself (the one on Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) is the first I've done), so I need to set aside a considerable time slot to get it done in. I'll try and upload it sometime tomorrow evening.--NukeofEarl (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't hurry I just wanted to make sure that you have read my message! Thank you for responding!--Youtube2014 (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. It's at File:Ultimate SpiderMan 98 cover.jpg --NukeofEarl (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And you didn't put in the article or do I decided to let me do that?--Youtube2014 (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! About the image where the Ultimate Spider-Woman portrays Julie Carpenter, don't download! Of course this picture should be in the article Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) and Julie Carpenter, but to burden you don't want to you and so much useful did! If there's something you need to contact me and ask something such as a club to create or find a picture of you or in any wiki help you! And that picture where Ultimate Spider-Woman portrays Julie Carpenter looks like this: http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/shawnee-smith/view/581275?page=0 --Youtube2014 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, brother. And don't sweat it. For my part, I apologize if my edit summary came across as more accusatory or incivil as it should have. Nightscream (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Blue Devil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dr. Strange

Plop! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to House of Secrets

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I've gone and fixed both of those.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to say I'm glad to see you took my advice about not wasting your time trying to reason with Jack Sebastian. To confirm that you made the right decision, let me inform you that Jack Sebastian just deleted the claim about the animated Robin being based on Jason Todd himself! What's more, here's his accompanying edit summary: "get a cite from a RS that makes that claim. You cannot be the one noticing similarities". It looks like Jack Sebastian is not just a standard destroy-any-facts-I-don't-like editor, but a verifiable nutcase. And if you're fortunate enough to not know this first-hand, believe me, you don't want to nutcase editor on your case.

Best wishes for your further editing.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is kind of creepy. I'm not 100% sure it means "nutcase", though... It could be that he kept himself signed on on a computer, and someone sharing that computer with him made that edit. Very unlikely coincidence that that person would basically revert one of his edits, but it's possible. In any case, it's good to hear that that little falsehood was removed from the article.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's not 100%, but it doesn't hurt to be wary. There are a lot more nutcases on Wikipedia than you might think.--Martin IIIa (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The warning I posted to that editor's talk page was appropriate; using a source to advance a position not explicitly said in the source is original research, hence the OR warning. Instead of reverting me, consider commenting on the content with respect to the guidelines. As for my tone to Y45ed, the editor is a genre warrior who in fact reached for a questionable source to support their genre warring. Dan56 (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply posted to Dan56's talk page.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have edited Jack Kirby in 2013 that there is a discussion on its talk page regarding the article's infobox image: Talk:Jack Kirby#Photo update. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We veteran editors all gotta look out after each other!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I love the work you have been doing on character articles. Would you have any source material to add some out-of-universe info to articles like Atlantis (Marvel Comics), Massachusetts Academy (comics), Department H, The Raft (comics), or anything else listed here? BOZ (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not as of yet, unfortunately... Indeed, looking over the list, I haven't even heard of some of the article subjects. But I'm still looking through my magazines, so hopefully I'll find something.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, and good luck. :) BOZ (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Marvel Comics characters: J may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Jackhammer (comics)|Jackhammer]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I've fixed that now.--NukeofEarl (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Marvel Comics characters: D may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Demolition Man (comics)|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

Thanks! I wasn't on Wikipedia this Christmas so I didn't get the chance to see this note and pass the WikiLove on to other users... Will try to do so next year.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Snowbirds Don't Fly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Denny O'Neill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, looks like I put an extra "l" in his name. Fixed now.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation has begun at Talk:Nick Fury#"Reportedly" that you're invited to join. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to North Western Area Campaign may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

jpg|thumb|left|No 1 (Fighter) Wing radar tracks for the 2 March 1943 raid against Coomalie, N.T. (From Australian Archives File [http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/NAAMedia/ShowImage.asp?B=3087055& a night raid on Darwin. The bodies of nine Japanese were later found near the wrecked bomber.(Australian War Memorial ID number 013716 [http://cas.awm.gov.au/screen_img/013716]]] image number PH0401-0665.jpg| Temporary Japanese graves in cemetery opposite old Qantas Hostel. (Source: [http://www.territorystories.nt.gov.au/handle/10070/11685 N.T. Public Library image number

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is a pretty handy bot. The bracket errors were actually brought over during an article merge, but they do indeed appear to be errors, and I have fixed them.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your opinion could be very useful in this discussion. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wilde and The Dragon: Blood & Guts are up for deletion so if you wish to participate in the conversation for or against deletion or improving said articles be my guest. I thought you may be interested since you were in a previous discussion about said subjects. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll be sure to weigh in on the discussions.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I noticed yesterday that you reverted a number of changes by User:Gregkaye to the lead sections of character articles. I saw that the user subsequently changed the lead sections of several articles which originally said something like "Superhero name (real name) is a fictional character" to something like "Real name, also known as Superhero name, is a fictional character". Was not sure if you had any input on that. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, dang. I had a feeling I should keep an eye on Gregkaye's edits, but I didn't want it to seem like I was going after him personally. I'm guessing what he's doing here is using the model of articles on living persons, which do generally open with "Birth name, better known as Pseudonym, is..." For instance, Sting (musician) opens with "Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner CBE (born 2 October 1951), better known by the stage name Sting, is an English musician, singer-songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, activist, actor and philanthropist." The difference is that fictional characters don't actually have legal birth names, so their birth names are just another fictional element and shouldn't be mentioned in the lead sentence. It just seems dangerously like treating the subject from an in-universe perspective. At any rate, I assume there is a good reason why, for example, Tarzan opens with "Tarzan ("...the Apeman") is a fictional character..." and not "John Clayton, better known as Tarzan, is a fictional character..." But maybe we ought to bring this up at WikiProject Comics. I could just contact Gregkaye and try to convince him to stop, but I'm very bad at broaching such matters diplomatically.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a thread there, thanks. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You seem to have some skill at coming up with sources. Do you have anything you could add to improve Cerebro? BOZ (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anything off the top of my head, but there's a decent chance that I overlooked something useful in Wizard: X-Men Turn Thirty. I can't check it right now because I'm not at home, but I'll flip through it in a few hours and post back here.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! BOZ (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I couldn't find even one mention of Cerebro in there, though I did find on some useful Danger Room info that I'd missed the first time. I'll keep it in mind, though; I might stumble on a good Cerebro reference elsewhere.--NukeofEarl (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! BOZ (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edits may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! —Sadat (Masssly)❤Talk☮C☺Email☯ 14:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already noted this in the summary for restoring my edit, but the edit you reverted is quite uncontroversial; it removed blatant WP: Original research and fixed horribly mangled quoting of a source (including lines that ended mid-sentence!). You've clearly made some sort of mistake; linking me to what Wikipedia is not in particular clearly makes no sense in this context.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Stewart (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Adams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably just do the merge later today. I'd forgotten about that merge tag (LML NV+Stella (scooter)) that I made a few years ago now. — Brianhe (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Brianhe's talk page.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Naguanagua Municipality may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Naguanagua is the home of the main student campus of the University of Carabobo (''Spanish:Universidad de Carabobo'' (UC). The administrative offices are in Valencia proper. The
• Road transportation inside the city is provided by the Centre Regional Highway (Autopista Regional del Centro (ARC) and major arterials such as University Avenue, Salvador Feo La

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kenneth Johnson, 2007.jpg, which you've attributed to subject. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. It would be nice if the Image Upload Wizard let you know that photos of living persons have such stringent requirements; I'd never have guessed it from how few articles on living persons lack infobox photos. Unfortunately I think I'll have to just let this one be deleted. The e-mail I got from the owner giving his permission naturally doesn't have the legal language required, and I wouldn't feel right about asking him to type up such an e-mail.--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

Your recent editing history at Supertramp shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This situation was resolved before the above was posted here, but just for the record: I wasn't posting to the article talk page because there was nothing for me to post there. I fully explained why I was reverting the other editor's changes in my initial summary; he simply ignored this and continued to repeatedly cite WP:OWN, despite my patiently explaining to him that WP:OWN is not a rationale for edits. If he wasn't listening to my edit summaries, he certainly wasn't going to listen to talk page posts.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind words, Nuke. I'll keep an eye on it. If I may ask, would you keep an eye on Superhero? It's a long problematic article with an enormous amount of fancruft, and now one particularly fannish editor is obsessively adding to that problem. Keep up own good work — I know we've been colleagues for years! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit on Supertramp. I think some of what you did on the article was a good job in tightening things up, but you also removed a number of bits that were well cited and seemed to me to be relevant information. You may have had good reasons for doing this, but since you didn't provide an edit summary, I don't know or follow what they were. Happy to have your thinking explained to me. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. My edit was actually basically reverting recent edits which are the latest in a seemingly endless series of attempts to turn the article into an advertisement for Roger Hodgson's solo tours. These attempts have been going on ever since I added the article to my watchlist several years ago, and Martin III has told me they've been going on for years before that. I agree that the statements are mostly well-cited (I hardly think the webpage of Roger Hodgson's record label qualifies as a neutral source), but the statements themselves run the gamut from long pointless Roger Hodgson quotes to obvious violations of WP:POV ("Three of Hodgson's songs were the standout singles from the album", "thus making the band name a brand"). On top of that, in most cases they were added carelessly, such that they disrupt the flow of the prose or even create mid-sentence contradictions. Also, I don't blame you for overlooking this, but in many cases my edit actually restored sourced information which was removed without explanation. I salvaged what I could from these edits, and I'm working on trying to integrate useful information from the sources into the article, but for now I think the highest priority is restoring WP:NPOV.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that the Hodgeson/Davies divisions is a touchy subject for many fans. Much of it revolves around who wrote what. Since they officially, for most of the band's work, adopted a policy of join credit, it seemed bad practice to me to attempt to assign songs to either individual. Yes, you can make a good guess who wrote what, but that's not good enough. However, this cite here seems to do a credible job of clearing this up in an official statement. So I don't think it can be ignored. What's needed is even-handed accrediting of the plaudits, credit where credit is due. By all means list Hodgeson's thoughts and achievements, but equally give Davies his due. When it comes to their falling out, there is undoubtedly two sides of the disagreement to be neutrally reported. Otherwise I fear this article will continue to teeter from one side to the other. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a first glance, yes, it would seem to, but the statement from Hodgson's management doesn't hold up to examination. For starters, several of their credits (e.g. "Even in the Quietest Moments", "Crime of the Century") contradict extensive commentary from Davies and Hodgson themselves on how those songs were written. Then there's the claim that Davies and Hodgson had a contract stipulating individual rights to the songs, which goes against Hodgson's repeatedly emphasizing in interviews that it was strictly a gentlemen's agreement between them, not to mention the fact that Hodgson hasn't been making use of the legal rights accorded to him in this supposed contract despite his very publicly complaining about Supertramp using his compositions in their shows. The fact that Hodgson's management hasn't posted an actual scan of any part of the supposed contract is also suspicious.

In any case, song-by-song credit of who wrote what falls into the domain of the articles for Supertramp's albums and songs, and would weigh down the main Supertramp article. Besides, I don't know where you get the idea that that would appease the people trying to turn the article into an advertisement for Roger Hodgson's tours. If you look through the history, you'll find that numerous times editors (or one editor under different names; it's hard to tell because they're all Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts) have removed all mention of "Goodbye Stranger" and "Bloody Well Right" from the article under the claim "Those songs were not hits", and that's without any mention that Davies wrote those songs! I've even seen people remove sourced information from the album articles just so they could replace it with claims that Hodgson wrote all the songs by himself.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we want a song by song credit list. Just that if the article is going to go down the road of crediting individuals, in the general history of the band, it should do it in an even-handed way. That way we may reach a compromise that all can live with and the editing dispute can be resolved. I don't think this is making anything an advert. If, as you suggest, there are still contradictory claims surrounding authorship of songs and agreements, then the article should neutrally explain that dispute, using cites to both side's claims. It certainly shouldn't be in the business of trying to determine who is right and who is wrong, or ignoring one side or the other. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to amicably resolve this via Roger Hodgson:Talk. Well-cited information was removed without any reasonable explanation other than calling it as Rv vandalism, which term should be used with more careful consideration. I am hoping to hear your in-depth reasoning so we can both present facts accurately on the articles. QuietestMoments (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NukeofEarl, calling edits you don't agree with "vandalism" is not helpful and is treated as a failure to follow behavioural guidelines. No matter how much you may disagree with QuietestMoments's edits, they are not vandalism, and you cannot use this as an explanation for reverts. Please try to discuss and resolve this dispute constructively. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shockwave Assault is just the expanded version of Shock Wave. Unless there is enough content specifically about it to grant its own article, it is only the original version that must have an article here. --Stormwatch (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the heads up on the talk page, but please, let's avoid engaging Stormwatch in debate, at least until the thread on the Administrator's noticeboard has been closed. We don't want to give the responding admin any possible basis for thinking that the antagonism over this article runs both ways.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Sorry about that.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute at Talk:Spider-Man and the X-Men over whether a redlink editor's edits violate WikiProject Comics guidelines as fancruft and issue-by-issue synopses. A comparison of two versions is here. I am writing to some longtime Project editors individually, since Portal talk:Comics appears to have very little traffic and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice board has had no postings in years. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already cited my sources and said what i needed to the Anon who seems to be someone who likes pestering me. Beyonder (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod[reply]

Hey there,

Do you have anything to improve Master of Kung Fu? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, I'm afraid. I'll keep an eye out in the future.--NukeofEarl (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are as gracious as you are dedicated and responsible. I'm so proud to be working with the core bunch of us veteran WPC editors. It's been years, man!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral notice of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to Martin IIIa on my talk page to learn why changing "minimalistic" to "minimalist" is incorrect from an English point of view. In journalistic standards, it is acceptable to fix a blatant English mistake in a quotation. You have done exactly the opposite: By changing the wording inside a quotation you have made it arguably inferior at expressing the writer's intent, in addition to introducing a factual error to the Wikipedia article itself. :) Gibbousmoon100 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In journalistic standards, it is acceptable to fix a blatant English mistake in a quotation." Um, that's exactly what I did. Not only are you stubborn, you clearly don't pay attention.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did the opposite. I reverted your change.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/minimalistic

and

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/minimalist

are two different words with two different meanings.

You insist that the author must have meant the latter meaning, evidently because of your ignorance of the existence and meaning of the former word. And then you accuse another of being stubborn and not paying attention, after (deliberately!) misquoting a writer in order to demonstrate to everyone that you are "right". I would humbly suggest that you confirm factual data that exists in articles before changing text that is directly cited. Gibbousmoon100 (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, talk about digging up ancient history. You're really so desperate for a flame war that you have to resort to trying to stir up an edit conflict that has been dead for over six years? I don't even remember what this is about anymore, much less care. NukeofEarl (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at an article you have edited, to which you may wish to add your input: Talk:American Flagg!#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Classic X-Men, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Limited series (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Shockwave Assault for Windows.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Daredevil cover - number 184.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Young Miracleman is a very good page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NukeofEarl. Thank you for your work on The Amazing Spider-Man: Soul of the Hunter. User:Voorts, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 16:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Thanks. I'll try to remember that, though to be honest I rarely create redirects. I only created this one because there was an existing redirect for Soul of the Hunter with incorrect capitalization. NukeofEarl (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just took a look at Dan56/Teflon Peter Christ's user pages and thought I should warn you that you were mistaken about Dan56/Teflon Peter Christ's indefinite block; it's indefinite, but it's a topic-specific block. Though I've been fortunate enough not to have run into him since, old Dan is still exercising his bullying ways on Wikipedia. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud, aren't WP admins ever going to learn their lesson with this guy? I guess so long as he's smart enough not to pick fights with admins, they don't really care how often or how flagrantly someone violates WP policies on consensus and civility. Anyway, thanks for the warning. NukeofEarl (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An update, since you may have been wondering why I've returned to editing music-related articles. I looked at Dan56/Teflon Peter Christ's user contributions page to track down what happened with an issue he was involved with, and noticed he hasn't edited in over four months, and his last dozen or so edits (most to his own user talk page) seem to suggest he has completely lost his marbles. I realize he could still return at any time, but if he does, I doubt his priority would be to check out every edit made to articles on his watch list in the months he's been gone, so this seems like a good time to get in some constructive edits to music articles. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're back here almost a year to the day, and with good news! Sadly I haven't had much time for Wikipedia of late, and what time I have is focused on things other than music articles, but I know you're not the only good editor who has been driven from music-related articles by Dan56, and hopefully they'll all be taking advantage of this lull. If I remember any specific names, I'll pass the word along to them. NukeofEarl (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]