User talk:TFowler86

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Brian Wood (comics)

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Brian Wood (comics), as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted for the following reasons:

Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. There are indeed such citations for the material in the passages in question, and they do not support your edits. In fact, you changed the passages so that they say the opposite of what the cited sources say, in particular the Bleeding Cool and Altantic articles. The former does not support the quote about Wood being called a "dick," while the latter says that Scherbina was not described by name; only that her identity could clearly be inferred, yet you changed Wikipedia passage to say that she was named.
Per WP:CLAIM, Wikipedia prefers to use neutral wording when referring to disputes or matters of controversy, such as said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to, rather than words that can carry loaded implications, such as asserted or claimed. This is why the passage on Laura Hudson's August 2019 comments used "stated", and why your change of that word to "claimed" was reverted.
Your change of the section heading from "Accusations of sexual misconduct" to "Accusations of unprofessional behavior", which explained in your edit summary was because "the accusations do not describe 'sexual misconduction', and are mostly verbal," was was reverted because in the first place, sexual misconduct can indeed be verbal, and in the second, if the two principle people in that account were at a bar at comic-con, as is explained in a passage, then it was presumably not a professional meeting, so professionalism is not an issue.
Referring to Rich Johnston as a journalist rather than by reference to Bleeding Cool, which the uninitiated may not be familiar with, is more clear.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thank you for the material you added to the Brian Wood (comics) article, as it definitely adds more value to the topic. However, in your edit, you also removed a paragraph and the citation for it (specifically the mention of the tweet by Tess Fowler), but without providing a rationale for this in an edit summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by imposing your personal whims on the Brian Wood article, as you did with the numerous policy violations (some of which have been described above) you committed in here, here, here and here, you risk being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary.

You're obviously capable of making legitimate contributions by adding source-supported material, but much of your content deletion and other changes, in particular with regard to the material on the accusations against the article subject, reflect personal opinions, and not Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. The personal opinions, analyses or commentary of editors cannot be added to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

If you feel you have a legitimate grievance or problem with the article content, the proper course of action is to address them with the rest of the editing community by discussing these issues transparently on the article's talk page, and not making unilateral deletions of content based your personal viewpoint. If you continue to delete content, especially when another editor disagrees with this, Wikipedia requires you to cease doing so, and discuss it on the talk page. Continuing to make such reverts without discussion is considered edit-warring, and is a blockable offense.

Some examples:

Brian Wood's own website is not an "invalid source", as you claimed. A subject's own website can be cited in limited fashion, as long as it adheres to WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB.
In a similar vein, the sources cited for the material on the sexual harassment allegations are not "invalid" as you claimed. They are considered reliable source for information pertaining to the comics industry, in keeping with Wikipedia's policy on source reliability.
All or most material in articles concerns "past" events. The point does not need to be emphasized simply because you state that the participants resolved the conflict.
Whether the accusation in question does not constitute sexual harassment is your opinion, and not reflected in the cited sources. No one editor "owns" any Wikipedia article, even one that is about them or mentions them, and thus they do not have the right to blank source-supported content from articles simply becuase they opine that a given act does not constitute sexual harassment. Doing is considered disruptive editing. If you wish any material to be removed, then you must show that Wikipedia policy calls for it.
In addition, you claimed in the edit summary in question that "The offending person was Rich Johnston." The cited sources do not reflect this. Johnston is not the author of the cited Atlantic article, nor the cited Luthorville article. Making such accusations without citing a reliable source is clearly indefensible, apart from violating Wikipedia policies such as WP:AGF.

Regarding the valid additions you've made to the article, I've been endeavoring to restore them and bring them in line with Wikipedia editing practices. Some tips I may suggest to you:

Bare external links should usually not be placed in the article text. Any webpage that is cited as a source should be formatted as an inline citation.
Only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized in headings, as explained WP:SECTIONHEAD.
Captions should only end in a period if it constitutes a full sentence, or if there are multiple sentence fragments that need to be separated. A single fragment does not terminted in punctuation. This is explained at WP:CAPFRAG.
Photos should not be placed arbitrarily into an article if they are not directly related to the article subject. When they are placed, they should not be excessive in size, as more than one of the photo you placed in the article were. If you have trouble with this, ask another editor for help.
The Infobox photo (that's the sidebar in the upper right corner of the article) should not be changed unless you can provide a rationale for it. The photo you selected is not a better choice for the Infobox portrait. It's out of focus, the subject's eyes are half-closed, and he is not exhibiting a better facial expression. Since photo choice is more subjective, we can have a group discussion on this if you prefer, in which he invite other editors to weigh in. Let me know if you want to. Nightscream (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some helpful pointers

Hi. I respect the industriousness and hard work you've displayed in the material you've added to the Brian Wood article. I don't know if you're going to read this or acknowledge it, but since I've noticed you've made some changes to things after I mentioned certain practices on the article talk page, I thought I'd give you a few for what it's worth:

1. Unfortunately, websites with user-generated info, including IMDb, Patch Media, and other wikis, including Fandom, are not considered reliable under WP:USERG. The other sources you have employed like CBR.com, Bleeding Cool, etc., are perfectly acceptable. If you need sources for the publication of a book other than simply using that book itself as its own primary source. I suggest using the book's page at Comic Book Roundup, or reviews for that book that are linked on those pages.

2. There's no way that that image of huge image of that DMZ cover is going to remain at Wikimedia Commons. The Commons is solely for free material -- that is, material that is in the public domain (like the Mona Lisa) or which is free-licensed, like I do with my photos of notable people. I notice you not only uploaded that pic but marked it as your "own work." I don't think that's going to fly with the editors on that project.

But don't worry: There are ways you can upload Fair Use images relevant to an article on a creator or a book, so long as it's relevant to that topic, and above all, not too large a file size, so that it doesn't infringe on the copyright holder's ability to profit from it. Fair use files should never be uploaded to the Commons, but should uploaded directly to Wikipedia, and only when they meet a strict set of criteria.

An example I would put to is this image of cover to Saga #1, which you'll notice when you scroll down provides individual rationales for its use in two Wikipedia articles: Saga (comic book) and List of Saga characters, both of which use it at the top of those articles.

An example of an image used in the middle of an article is this panel from an issue of Saga, which is used at the bottom of the Publication history section of the Saga article. Please note that there is a specific reason why that image is used, which is justified in the rationale.

An example not from comics would be this image of a movie poster, which is in the Legal issues section of the More Demi Moore article, its function and relevance being pretty obvious.

To upload that DMZ cover, please reduce it in size (or create a version of it) no larger than a few hundred pixels on either side. Then use the Upload file function in the lefthand sidebar on any Wikipedia page. Follow those instructions, making sure to provide the requirements in the rationale so that it conforms to Fair Use.

Hope this helps! Nightscream (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop insulting me, Nightscream I'm on the spectrum. It's upsetting. I'm doing my best. TFowler86 (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for losing my temper. I can see that you're trying to conform to Wikipedia's practices, even if unevenly, but I should've been more understanding, in part since you're a newbie. I'm sorry I failed to do so as fully as I should have. Let me know if you need any other pointers. Nightscream (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while I am autistic, I am not learning impaired. I am not a stupid person. I have held jobs at a writer and a copyeditor for thirty years. I am still learning wikipedia, but I am a very experienced editor and organizer. Wikipedia has a lot of unfamiliar rules that are not like the newsrooms I'm used to. TFowler86 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream I am going to bed. The page is not done. I will finish my work on it tomorrow. If you could please leave it mostly alone until then, I would be grateful. TFowler86 (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought you were learing impaired, nor was I under the mistaken belief that people on the spectrum were necessarily learing-impaired. One of my nephews is on the spectrum, and what underscores this is the fact that even though he just started high school, I was not aware of this until another member of my family told me, much to my surprise. But I apologize again if I came across as cruel in this regard, which is not something I want to do. I don't ever want to make someone feel that way, and I take responsibility for doing so nonetheless because I did not exhibit enough patience.

I was a bit frustrated at being asked a "why" question after I had already explicitly answered it, but I should've been more understanding. I hope that now that we're having a bit more of a direct one-to-one dialogue, that I can explain to you various policies and guidelines more fully.

As for that article, while I have reverted uncited info and material that violates WP:NOR, you may notice that I have left alone the material sourced to Fandom, IMDB and Patch. This is not because that material can stay, but since it's less serious of a policy violation than the other stuff, I wanted to hold off on addressing it, much as I said I'd do, so you can find other sources, like the ones I suggested to above. Perhaps if it's still up by Monday, and I have time, I'll find some sources myself. Sleep well, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream I am fine with the quote you mentioned, but what is wikipedia policy on the posting of private correspondence? Wood had emailed Fowler and, I assume, did not consent to her reproducing it in public. Is wikipedia allowed to reproduce it here, again? Honest question. TFowler86 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The governing criterion, apart from whether it has encylopedic reference to the passage/article, is whether it is supported by a citation of a reliable, secondary source -- though primary sources can be used in a limited fashion, so long as the article is not primarily derived from them, they are not used to establish the article's notability, etc. Aside from this, their use should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

While one may object to a biographical subject's decision to publish private correspondence not intended by one of the participants to be so published, this is not a criterion for exclusion. A number of Wikipedia articles exist on material whose publication was or is considered unethical, illegal, or controversial, such as the Pentagon Papers, 2014 celebrity nude photo leak, Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present), etc., but does that usually mean that Wikipedia does not cover it once it becomes subject to public scrutiny. Nightscream (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. The thing that makes me a little queasy is the mention of his daughter. Based on Wood's instagram and what I know from following him for years, she appears to still be underage. I wonder about the inclusion of that line? Overall, it seems like what you're trying to communicate with that section is that Tess felt this more recent, separate apology was not genuine, so why include the daughter crack? It all starts to feel very gossip-y and tabloid to me. That's just me. TFowler86 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Employing a direct quote is sometimes needed, in my observation, to avoid problems of interpretation that can arise among editors with paraphrasing. Since the passage in question concerns a very nuanced and sensitive topic -- one person's reaction to another person's apology for inappropriate behavior --- using the direct quote is apt. Since the daughter's name or any other identifying information is not given (per Wikipedia guidelines), this should not be a problem. Nightscream (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was the thinking behind removing so many of the books in the bibliography? What I mean is the 12 DMZ books, the 7 Northlanders, the 2 Black Roads, etc. They are still in the marketplace and available for sale in those formats. I planned on working on the biblio next, and wanted to properly organize and fill it out. TFowler86 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit was this? Was this something I did, or another editor? Can you provide the diff? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't. It was a while ago. I just assumed, since I didn't notice anyone else but us paying attention to this page, and I didn't want to step on your toes. Sorry to assume. TFowler86 (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if at some point you're feeling rather industrious, and you want to go into the article's edit history, just click the "History" tab at the top of the article, which shows you each and every edit made to the article since it was created. When you want to show a particular edit, just use the radio buttons to the left of the edit to compare that edit to the version of the article that preceded it. This is called a "diff", because it shows the difference between the versions. For example, this diff shows your most recent edit to the article. Hope this helps. Nightscream (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Nightscream (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas and/or a Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Nightscream (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]