W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Nightscream

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome to my Talk Page. If you're new to Wikipedia, you can leave me a message about a new topic by placing it at the bottom of this talk page, under a new heading with a title that refers to the article or topic in question. To create a header, just put two sets of equals signs on each side of the section's title. Please sign your message by typing four tildes <nowiki>(~~~~)</nowiki> at the end of the message, which also automatically time stamps them. Thanks. :-)

{{archives|banner=yes|list=|small=yes|prefix=|root=}}
right|50px ↗


Belief in God and credulity


''Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything.'' — C. S. Lewis ↗ &#126;2026-97769 ↗ (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|~2026-97769}} Untrue. There is no correlation between degree of credulity and belief in God or lackthereof. You can easily find people who "will believe anything" among both the most die-hard religionists, and the most die-hard atheists and agnostics. As an adherant of scientific skepticism ↗, I certainly do not "believe anything." I give credence to ideas for which there are robust evidence and reason-based arguments, and which can survive the scrutiny of critical analysis.

:But in any event, what does your message pertain to? Does this pertain to some article you or I have worked on? Nightscream (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Red-light district ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Red-light district ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Nightscream&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Red-light district}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1332298338 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

:I do not see any date error when I look at the diff of the edit, so perhaps whoever programmed this bot should consider doing so in a way that highlights or describes the error in question. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Jubilant Sykes ↗ and section headings


{{User QAIbox
| image = Crocus meadow, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.9
| bold = story · music · places
}}
Thank you for expanding and fixing Jubilant Sykes ↗. I don't know what you mean about section headers by "consistency with other biographical headers, - there is little consistency across Wikipedia, and I know many biographies with level 2 headers for life, work and others, and level 3 headers within those major sections, such as Mozart ↗. Why change such things? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} You're welcome. And thank you for the kind message. As to your question, there is certainly not ''total'' consistency across ''all categories'' of articles, but that's not to say that there isn't ''some modicum'' of consistency ''within'' certain categories, such as biographical articles of modern entertainers. Those typically separate Early life, Career, and Personal life sections. You can see this by looking any number of the Featured articles in the Media biographies section ↗ of the FA list. Nightscream (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:: Thank you and understand. I come from opera (Jessye Norman ↗), and he did both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} I'm sorry, I'm not following. Nightscream (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:::: I tried to explain that I see more opera singer articles, which look like Jessye Norman (as an example for what I tried to describe in my comment). He did both, opera and "entertainment", so it takes a decision to be consistent with one format or the other. Both seem valid, and I see no reason to switch from one to the other. Can you follow? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Gerda Arendt}} Oh, okay, I get it now. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series) ↗ edit


I felt that was too much. It for instance lost why Caleb stayed behind, making it seem it was simply something he wanted to do rather than begging for it and being allowed.<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span> talk 18:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Doug Weller}} The passage does not "imply" anything about why he stayed on campus one way or another, though a reader could certainly infer that he did so because he chose to. Whether he begged for it and had his request granted is not needed for a reader's understanding of the plot, which is what these capsule-sized reviews are for. Even in an article dedicated to the episode, it would not be necessary to specify this, beyond simply mentioning that he ''requested'' it. Far more relevant are characters' thoughts, motivations, conflicts, etc., like the fact that he is worried about Tarima, and is reluctant to compose a message to her. To be fair, I did omit that bit, which would illustrate how the fact that he eventually does so serves as the payoff, so I just added that setup now. Hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Jim McCann ↗


Hi Nightscream. Thank you for your work on Jim McCann ↗. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol ↗ and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Thank you for your work on this article. Please establish notability as per WP:NSPORT ↗. Thanks and have a great day!}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|<nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Mariamnei<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. <small>(Message delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small><!-- Template:Sentnote-NPF -->

Mariamnei (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Mariamnei}} Thanks, but I have no interest in that article's topic, or in establishing notability for it, as my only involvement with it was to disambiguate it from Jim McCann (writer) ↗. Nightscream (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
::Ok, I will nominate it for deletion. Have a great day! Mariamnei (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">48px|alt=|link= ↗</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Jim McCann ↗ is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗ or whether it should be deleted ↗.

The article will be discussed at '''Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim McCann ↗''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div>

Mariamnei (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

":Topps Appliance City ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗


30px ↗
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topps_Appliance_City&redirect=no Topps Appliance City]</span> has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 20#Topps Appliance City}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> Michael Greiner 01:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hypocrisy regarding accusation of edit warring


Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please ''stop editing the page'' and use the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ such as a third opinion ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection ↗ while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

'''If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing ↗ Wikipedia'''&mdash;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&mdash;whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time&mdash;counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash; if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> Polygnotus (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Polygnotus}} Please explain how you yourself are not guilty of this. Nightscream (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
::Because I didn't editwar? Did you really need to have that explained to you? See also WP:TALKHEADPOV ↗.
::And you haven't answered here ↗.

::Please read WP:EDITWAR ↗. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

::: I have. You should try it yourself, since you're the one who tried to strong-arm the split, even after another editor made it clear to you that he was against this. 20:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

::::Are you OK? Polygnotus (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

::::: Yes. Are you? Nightscream (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS ↗ is satisfied


{{Thread retitled|Potential canvassing}}
Please be careful when sending a large amount of notifications to user talk pages soliciting input for the discussion at Talk:List of suicides ↗, because it could be seen as canvassing ↗. Thanks. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|SuperPianoMan9167}} It cannot, because I adhered to all four criteria specified at WP:CANVASS ↗. But tell me, which of those four standard do you think it "could be seen as' violating? Nightscream (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

::Just checking. I apologize for the inconvenience. My main concern is that it's not immediately clear what connection to the article each editor you notified has, which would violate the first point's prohibition against notifying {{tq|users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.}} I would make sure to indicate why you chose to notify those specific editors (expertise, contributors to the article, etc.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

:::{{ping|SuperPianoMan9167}} If it was not immediately clear, then why didn't you just ''ask'' me? Nightscream (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I could have worded my initial message in a better way. I'm sorry. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|SuperPianoMan9167}} No worries. But in case you wanted to know, I went through the page of most recent editors to have worked on the article in its page history, and just selected those. I did not contact anonymous IP editors, nor any account whose username was displayed in red. I think I then went to the next page after that, and selected one or two more editors. It then occurred to me to look at who the most frequent contributors to the article have been, using that edit count page I posted in the discussion, and contacted one or two more. The only editors I contacted that I recall interacting prior to this were (and I'm going off memory here) are User:ExRat, User:Gavia immer, and I ''think'' User:Neozoen and User:Davidgoodheart. I have no idea how they would "vote" in the discussion, and Gavia immer and I actually had a conflict when we last interacted, since I wanted each entry in the list to have citations, and remove those that did not, and as I recall, he opposed this. So there was no attempt on my part to steer the discussion through select contacts. Nightscream (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the explanation! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

MfD nomination of :Talk:List of suicides/unsourced list ↗


30px ↗ :Talk:List of suicides/unsourced list ↗, a page which {{user link|Mahanga}} created, I substantially contributed to, and you contributed to a small extent, has been nominated for deletion ↗. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of suicides/unsourced list ↗ and please be sure to sign your comments ↗ with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of :Talk:List of suicides/unsourced list ↗ during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:Mfd notice --> PK2 (talk; contributions ↗) 12:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

":AntiSemite ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗


30px ↗
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AntiSemite&redirect=no AntiSemite]</span> has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 10#AntiSemite}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 20:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)