User talk:Tenebrae: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:21, 27 July 2008 editNtnon (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,157 edits →Fifty Who Made DC Great: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:46, 28 July 2008 edit undoScott Free (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers2,322 edits →Fifty Who Made DC Great: FYINext edit →
Line 401:		Line 401:

	...and I'm not done yet: One down, etc., etc..! Hopefully I can get to a couple more of the fifty before I become too otherwise-ly busy. Thanks, though. :o) ] (]) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)		...and I'm not done yet: One down, etc., etc..! Hopefully I can get to a couple more of the fifty before I become too otherwise-ly busy. Thanks, though. :o) ] (]) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

			== FYI==

			http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FJohn_Buscema

			--] (]) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:46, 28 July 2008

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Orphaned non-free media (Image:StrangeAdv207.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:StrangeAdv207.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Phantom Eagle

FYI, some links were removed:

Jess Nevins' The Golden Age Heroes Directory
Jess Nevins' A Guide to Marvel's Pre-FF #1 Heroes: Phantom Eagle
Jess Nevins' A Guide to Marvel's Pre-FF #1 Heroes: Freedom's Five
The Grand Comics Database
Comic Art Fans: Frank Robbins (Ghost Rider #12) Three pages of story art —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Iron Man

The edits on Iron Man (and to a lesser extent, articles like War Machine, S.H.I.E.L.D., and Iron Monger) have been coming fast and furious ever since the movie was released. To be honest, I stopped trying to keep up with the Iron Man article because I just don't have the time! Good luck. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AirboyVol2No2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AirboyVol2No2.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

S.H.I.E.L.D.

Well, I did not find any information on "a U.N." on the page, but I did find "a U.S." at the bottom, which is more than good enough for me. Thank you for pointing this out. Rau's Speak Page 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup on "a U.N." Much appreciated. MMMMMMMM (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MMMMMMMM (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ted Key

Hey Tenebrae, I think the gent who is adding the info about the Shirley Booth bio really is trying to be helpful, rather than blowing his own horn. I edited his contrib so it doesn't stick out as much. Later... Konczewski (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am too trusting. Good job digging into this. Now if we can just get this dude to stop reverting your reverts. Konczewski (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We both might have to eat our words, Tenebrae. I found the listing for the book at the BearManor website . I thought that pubisher sounded familiar; they publish a lot of books on old film and TV stars. I have books published by them on Paul Frees and Daws Butler. The Shirley Booth book came out May 1st. I'm not sure why Amazon is not carrying it. I did read recently that Amazon is not going to carry print on demand books published by anyone other than their service, so that could be the reason. Konczewski (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I bow to your superior Wikiknowledge. For what it's worth, "TedKey2" is working himself up in a lather on his talkpage. It's obvious he's a n00b, and you might want to visit his talk page with the points you've made to me. Otherwise, he's just going to keep reverting your reverts. Thanks for your explanations. Konczewski (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ted Key2 is not giving up without a fight. He posted a rather arrogant response on my talk page. I responded on his, and probably not as diplomatically as I should have. I also reverted his nth reversion at Ted Key. What a sore loser! Konczewski (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I was a disappointed with myself for loosing it with TedKey2, however much he may have deserved it. I'm just glad I found a compromise that, I hope, will stop this knucklehead from screwing up the article. Konczewski (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hulk Powers

that section was added during the big mess between david A and I. At the time, I was trying to figure out how to get hulk from GA to FA, and that was one item I'd decided to add, then David A hit the page, things went nuclear, etc., etc. That was part of what I'd added in terms of RWC, and consensus was that it was a good add. They only address a few dozen major heroes, and the real world content of it's worth adding. It's not like every hero COULD have such a section. No Magic heroes, or heroes based on 'Alternate universe physics', and so on. He's also one of the few for whom an alternate explanation was provided, making it a more in depth section than many,(for whom i'd simply have to say 'Gresh and Weisberg say no', lol.). ThuranX (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I went in and deleted that section, as I felt that it was unnecessary and quite silly. I agree with you that if you put something like that in the Hulk (a science fiction character) then that is essentially opening a can of worms for every science fiction article in Misplaced Pages for empirical "invalidation." --Kontar (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a can of worms; it's a valid investigation of the character, and further, it's a relatively unique approach to the RWC related to the character. Remember, this source doesn't just say 'no it can't happen', they say, 'No, here's the science for why not, but here's a potential way for it TO happen'. As such, they disassemble AND redeem the material. Finally, keep in mind this sort of holistic downside and upside is not common to scholarly works in the field of comics. ThuranX (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (Also, Tenebrae, no need to apologize. I don't mind defending the addition.)

Kirby's Marvel artwork

In progress, here. I've basically copied over what I originally put, read through it for possible bias (maybe it doesn't represent Marvel's side very well. Which was even at the time pretty vague and hard to fathom, but seemed to boil down to "we don't think we need to give it back, but we will, out of generosity... IF he promises never to talk about it, touch it, sell it or otherwise do anything with. If he'll give it back to us whenever we feel like it, promises never to sue us, support anyone ELSE suing us, and..." which is quite hard to rended into sane statements, let alone try to detail even-handedly!) and tried to tone down the potential (for the hard of reading) "Marvel is evil/DC were wonderful" semi-undertones. Also made a half-hearted start at beefing up the "this is why it was an issue, because previously no-one got their work back" angle. Thoughts/comments/clarifications/sources/alternates/etc. welcome. :o) ntnon (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandman

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alice'sRestaurantCD1997.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Alice'sRestaurantCD1997.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllySloper.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:AllySloper.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

Speedy deletion of Talk talk:Dave Sim

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Plrk (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Astonishing4 p2.gif}

Thank you for uploading Image:Astonishing4 p2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AstralMan bySamGrainger.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:AstralMan bySamGrainger.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackmark paperback.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackmark paperback.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BlondePhantomDetail.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:BlondePhantomDetail.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

Will Eisner

I nominated Image:The Plot by Will Eisner.jpg for deletion. I would have nominated the other one too except that is also used in another article. The omission of for instance this cover in the bibliography section is not even remotely "detrimental to...understanding of the topic". See also the criteria and the guideline. Garion96 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The other image will have to go too though. There is indeed some dispute about significance, but I don't think there's any doubt that in a bibliography of 20 or so works it will not be detrimental to the reader if it misses a cover. If if is moved to the part of the article discussing the book, or even better, discussing the artwork of the cover than it would be different. But it looks like article already has got plenty of covers. Garion96 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care on way or another about the specific cover. You know much better than I what covers should have to included in this article. But right now there are 5 fair use images in this article, which is too much. Three is already much but an improvement. If a "A Contract with God" is so significant, it should definitely stay, but then another cover could and should go. Garion96 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Top Chef

Easy or not, it's unnecessary to cite uncontroversial public information. The way Bravo re-runs that show, they've been spashing those names up on the television screen fifty times a week. Removing it and demanding sourcing is just silly and was certainly never the intent of WP:BLP. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And seriously, who is this mystery admin that you think is going to intervene in a content dispute? I'm an admin and I clearly don't agree with you. You probably can find some that will, but many others will not. You shouldn't be invoking mystery admin authority to shore up your weak argument. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually seen the show that you're edit warring on? As I said, the information in question (names) is presented on the show. Both stated by the individuals and also printed on screen in caption boxes. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? You're lecturing me about invoking admin status to influence a content dispute when you're the one who keeps saying "An admin would agree with me?" I'm only mentioning that I'm an admin to show what a silly argument that is. Oh and feel free to bring this up at ANI, if you feel it is merited. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Now I don't even know what you're talking about. It's verifiable by watching the show. A source doesn't need to be available on the internet in order to be valid. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

International availability to the masses is not now and has never been a requirement for sourcing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's verifiable by watching the show. The availability of the show is not relevant as to it's value as a source. And no, I don't think such a disclaimer is a good idea. 1) Because it's not accurate. 2) Because it's a disclaimer. If you really insist on continuing to unnecessarily cite uncontroversial public information, I note that Bravo credits all of the chefs by the full name when it puts their recipes on their website.] -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, other peopl need to be able to check the information, but that doesn't mean that everybody has to have instant access to it. Yes, a television show is more difficult to check than a web article. But that doesn't affect it's validity as a source. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question. Let's say that, a year from now, Bravo removes the recipes from their website. Would that then mean that you would against start edit warring to remove the last names of these people because it was no longer instantly verifiable information? -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think this is personal. I think that your understanding of policy is incorrect and I was having a discussion with you about it. I'm sorry that upsets you. You didn't really respond to my question, so I'll assume that you aren't interested in having this discussion. I'm not campaigning for unsourced information. I advocate common sense. Something which I often find is sorely lacking here on Misplaced Pages. Policy exist for a purpose - improving the encyclopedia, not for its own sake. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what it says. I was asking what you would do. I'm not even sure what bad faith assumption you think I've made. At no point did I think that you were editing in bad faith. Simply misguided good faith. I guess I apologize, but again, I don't know what you're talking about. Okay, maybe the common sense crack was a bit snarky and I certainly apologize for that, but your removal of the information to me certainly defies logic to me. I really do not comprehend why you think that a source cannot be used unless everybody the world over can access it. That doesn't comform to my understanding of our policies regarding sources. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. I love arguing about policy, but as the issue is settled, there's no real reason to if you don't want to. As you say, no hard feelings. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

En dash vs hyphen at Celestial (comics)

I know that issue ranges use en dashes. That's the precise reason I changed the hyphens to en dashes – these are not the same beasts. Witness:

Hyphen -
En dash –
Em dash —

--Pie'n'gravy (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Towel service

Thanks! I knew such a great detail must have come from a good source. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		The WikiMedal for Janitorial Services goes to Tenebrae for ongoing efforts to clean things up around here. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't added anything to your awards cabinet recently enough. Here. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will second this, as we've had a rash of "fancruft" edits of late, and T has been one of those helping to corral these little efforts. Also, noted on dates.

Asgardian (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing comic books

I agree with you 100%; factual details of character biographies should be source-able from the issues themselves. Except the more deletion-minded elements of the community do not agree with us, and the fact that comic book characters and elements are sourced only to the books themselves is being used as a generally acceptable excuse for deletion. Arguments I've been having at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability and Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (fiction) and, perennially, at WP:AFD, have convinced me that for the time being the best hedge against deletionist pogroms is to source comics articles from whatever published sources possible. Stuff like Melter and Ego the Living Planet have survived when they went to AfD, but other stuff does not, and the fomenting consensus of a very loud, vocal, active minority, is that articles sourced only to comic issues, no matter how many issues or how long they've appeared in the books, are non-notable. Which is bullshit, as far as I'm concerned, but it is a thing that is happening on Misplaced Pages and I don't feel comfortable ignoring it.

I get that it may appear I'm spamming comics articles with sources from that guy's book, but all I'm doing, what I've decided is the simplest solution, is acquiring whatever published sources I can find, starting at page 1 and going through them page by page, line by line, and sourcing whatever I can. Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Clennon Washington King, Jr.

Thanks for the help! Шизомби (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hulk (2008)

Just a note: the indent in the cast section for Ferrigno is based on the fact he has a minor part, but it's shared with the star of the film. The section is so prosy, bullets are inappropriate, but check out examples at Star Trek, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and X-Men Origins: Wolverine about roles shared by multiple actors. Alientraveller (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making me chortle with this comment! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hulk in other media

Please give me a minute. I undid your revision to add references for the content in the article. Just wait a second while I add them.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started a topic on the talk page.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Claw "khan"

What I've been editing is the wikilink that "khan" gets piped to. Just make sure that the link doesn't go to "khan" because that will get changed. There is no article for "khan". If someone keeps changing that back to point to "khan" that could be causing the problem. I'll check it by hand now and make sure it points correctly. --AnnaFrance (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked, and it was pointing to "khan" again. I fixed it. There's no problem with the display text, "khan" is just fine, but it can't be wikilinked to that word. If there is any further problem, just let me know. --AnnaFrance (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just occurred to me that there might be a massive misunderstanding and what I did would be very irritating. I really didn't mean it that way. When you said that I had been changing "khan" to upper case, I realized that you didn't understand, because I never changed the word to upper case, as is evident from the history. All I changed was the piping. OK, so I will do what I should have done before—I'll take the piping out and put a disambiguation tag on the word, allowing you to pipe it wherever you want. I've also put a message explaining the issue on the Yellow Claw talk page so others won't wikilink "khan" either. Thanks, and I'm very sorry if I've been a bother. --AnnaFrance (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo

Yes, I see what you mean. I'll help where I can although you seem to be on top of it. There seems to have been a great increase in "fancruft" in recent months, and the regulars seem to be spending more time hosing these edits down (eg. film-fuelled passion for the Avengers) than getting on with the business of improving articles that need work. Oh well, we will persist.

Asgardian (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheSpirt n6 Feb1975 detail.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheSpirt n6 Feb1975 detail.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Noticeboard page

Hey, jc. Tried to join the RfC you posted in May, and found the link outdated; I tracked down the relevant page, and it looks like discussion was concluded last month. Don't know specifically this is so, but I didn't want to do clean-up maintenance on that Noticeboard item without checking with you first. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.

As you may have noticed on my talk page, I've been "away" for a bit, so several discussions that I was involved in have concluded (or drifted off...) - I'm still not anywhere near "caught up" on my reading. (And possibly may never be. The wiki continues on and on : )

Anyway, the "short" answer is probably that Doctor Fate is also listed on the noticeboard, and probably should stay there for a little longer. But the specific talk page discussion has "wound up" for now.

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Perhaps you can offer an opinion on the sales figure argument at Ultimates? The article is almost there, but I see this as opening to the door to POV, and as indicated on the Talk page there some editors that seem to be using some quirky figures to make some kind of case. Anyway, over to you.

Asgardian (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

List of African-American firsts‎

Hullo, hullo

I've seen that you have erased the second reference to our good friend Bill Russell in the above-mentioned article. I think that it is notesworthy enough to stay, however, inter alia because it was the first title win for any African-American in a major sports league. So the positive (notability) should IMHO outweigh the negative (redundancy in a short space within the article...but you cannot really blame Russell for winning so soon!). Kind regards. Mrbluesky (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Vertigo counselling

Could be worthwhile. Thanks for the heads-up. :o)
Hold on... I thought this was an issue over the article itself, but... it appears not to be. How odd. Oh well. We'll see, then. ntnon (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So what am I meant to do...?! Pepper the page with my comments and disagreement/concessions, or wait for someone else to let me know what's what..? Is this for us to thrash out any disagreement away from the Vertigo Talk Page, or for someone to arbitrate and tell either or both of us who had the right of it..? I'm all confused! ntnon (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

jc37 wanted a summary of what this disagreement is all about, so I've written a take on it all from my perspective, but thought it would be (marginally more!) courteous to run it past you first. :o) I don't want to attack you, since - as you say - this has all been pretty civil, but I want to try and explain why I think you were "wrong" over some issues..!! Would you care to see my - likely horribly subjective - thoughts prior to my forwarding them to jc37, or would you like to synthesise an impartial summary, or would you prefer to put down your side of things, or..?! ntnon (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A hundred?! Sure, hamstring me where it hurts, why don't you... :o)

(Incidentally, I saw your compromise suggestion over mini/maxi, and replied there. Shortly, though, "limited" refers to BOTH, and is the umbrella term. "Maxi" is the specific - and therefore most accurate - term, so I still favor "maxiseries".) ntnon (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

After you. :o) ntnon (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to paragraph (2):

Puts some perspective on things, doesn't it, having the real world impinge on things in this way? My own current troubles don't really come close, so, at the risk of this turning into a mini-soap opera(!): I'm sorry to read about your mother, and you have my sympathy, thoughts, etc. I do hope and trust that >this< isn't making things worse... If it's adding undue stress at a troubling time, I'll drop it. I don't want to act like a complete ******** about all this, after all.

That written, this continues to be a great debate - perhaps even an important one - but, really, if it's in any way impacting on personal issues, it's done. :o) (If not, I'll reply later.) ntnon (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

DC Comics

Just for a change of pace...! Good sourcing on DC, but can I respectfully take slight issue over the change of this sentence:

"The following year, Infantino managed to convice Jack Kirby to defect from Marvel to DC, and event which is often cited as the end of the core "Marvel Age" of comics (in which Kirby played such a large, integral role) and even of the wider Silver Age itself."

to this:

"The following year, Infantino convinced Jack Kirby to defect from Marvel Comics to DC, an event sometimes cited as the end of the Silver Age of Comics, in which Kirby's contributions to Marvel played a large, integral role."

(Which I suspect may have been something I wrote, just to add that extra layer of argument..!)
The "Marvel Age" is subtley different from the "Silver Age," even as the two overlap and are almost synonymous, so it clouds the issue slightly to revise that section, in my opinion. The Silver Age was the resurgance of the superhero; the Marvel Age was the "feet of clay"/"soap opera-tising" of them. Showcase #4 began the SA; FF #1 began the MA, a key SA event, but not synonymous. Kirby leaving the Marvel Universe drew the curtain over the Marvel Age, but the Silver Age ending is more murky, even if it's seen as closing at roughly the same time.
Does that make sense?! ntnon (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"The Marvel Age" is a marketing phrase promulgated by Marvel Comics! Comics historians talk about Golden Age, Silver Age, etc., but not the Marvel Age. Some mainstream journalists have used the term, but as slangy shorthand and not in any literal sense.

I appreciate your discussing an edit and not automatically reverting it. I hope my answer satisfies you. In all honesty, I'm struggling to get a handle on what if any journalistic or research-paper background you may or may not have, because so much of what I'm trying to express is basic, basic, J101 stuff. I'm sorry if I'm sounding exasperated. I think we should wait for a mediator before continuing.

Please note: I haven't changed anything in Vertigo (DC Comics) while awaiting mediation. I'd appreciate the same courtesy with my edits until we've had a chance to work things out in mediation. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Several comics historians use "Marvel Age," since there's a handy differentiation shorthand between Silver being superheroes; Marvel being angst. But...

In any case, I thought I'd wing by again to offer some uneqivocal praise for your work on Dick Sprang. :o) When I saw it show up on my watchlist I was a little wary, but my fears were allayed..! Good work.

(One very minor point - it looks like you might have changed a page reference in my second Batman Archives footnote - page 222 becoming 223, since this was referring to Desris' biography of Pat Gordon, not Sprang. Also, does your work there imply that you have easy access to multiple issues of Alter Ego, or..?) ntnon (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the removal of notability explanations from the images at DC Comics, to " captions consistent with WikiProject Comics MOS"/"remov uncited WP:NOR & POV from captions," and wondered which reasoning applied for the notability reasoning removal..?

I assume you're suggesting it's original research to label Action #1 as the first golden; GL #76 as a likely first bronze and Watchmen as an integral/early/first dark age comic. Is it a lack of footnotes that made you make those decisions, or something more pedestrian..? (i.e. If those were sourced descriptions, would they still violate style guidelines - since New Fun #1 and Showcase #4 aren't sourced, either.) ntnon (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Challenger (comics)

Hey, thanks - you really spruced that one up with the images and the publication history! BOZ (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I'll admit that I too, often feel a pang of dread when I see that I have a new message, but more often than not (lately at least) it's good news, or someone just dropping a friendly note. :) BOZ (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Baily

Thanks for your note, kind offer of help, and for maintaining the integrity of the page on my grandfather, Bernard Baily. My father and uncle, Bernard Baily's sons, just drew my attention to an error in the account of how Bernard Baily spent the 1970s. The confusion on the source page cited may have resulted from the name of his Mahopac business, The Country Press, but, while Bernard Baily was the editor of dozens of magazines, including the men's magazines Ace, Caper, Escapade, Cavalcade, High, Ho!, Man's Action and Intimate Confessions, along with magazines about boxing and movie monsters, my uncle Stephen Baily, who worked closely with him for many years, including throughout the 1970s swears he was never involved with any farm periodicals. While I'm not too savvy a wikipedian yet (I thought my first edit hadn't taken, which was why I edited the second time), I thought this information might be of use. Thank you. Amy Baily (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Baily (II)

Thanks also for this very helpful note. I feared I'd worn out your patience with me after seeing I'd put my message in the wrong place on your page and then edited my own comments so many times (only noticing after doing so that is also discouraged), and I'm so glad you wrote back because I wanted to tell you I also saw afterwards you were the originator of the entire entry, which was indeed wonderful for our family to happen onto.

I will pass your suggestions on to my father and uncle -- I'm sure they'll be interested. I noticed that the remarkable and comprehensive Bails page (which, as far as I can tell, gets a great deal right) was not being updated since Bails's passing, and I worried that would be the final word on my grandfather's later career. Also, I have already written to my father to ask for a scan of a photo of his father, if that's something that can be used here. As to the mastheads of those magazines, I only have copies of a few of them but will ask my father and uncle to start looking into the others. The ones I have are Ace and Man's Action, both of which list Bernard Baily as Editor; High, which lists Bernard Baily as Editor and Art Director; and Escapade, which lists Bernard Baily as Editor and Publisher, but I don't have dates for his tenure at these magazines, so I don't know how useful that is. Meanwhile, as I say, I'll pass on your very valuable suggestions. Thanks much again, Amy Baily (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Fanboy

Hi, I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me with an article I'm working on for the comic book website Project Fanboy

I've created the article here on my sandbox and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to give it a look and let me know what you think. (whether the site is notable enough for an article or not yet) All the best, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Tenebrae. I've made some changes and chopped out a lot of the stuff you described as chest puffing (mostly the name dropping stuff) and rewrote portions of the history trying to make every word count as you suggested. I think I just may be having trouble understanding exactly what makes something notable by wikipedia standards and I thought perhaps some of that stuff may make it more notable, making it "wiki-worthy". Millennium Cowboy (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So you think it's wiki-worthy as it stands now? Or does it need more still? If you think it's notable enough to stand as an article, would you mind posting it for me? I think an admin posting the article might give it a little more clout and people wouldn't be so quick to tag it for speedy deletion. There are a lot of wiki users whose only contributions it seems are to reverse people's edits and tag articles for speedy deletion instead of helping to clean up the article. All the best, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kirby

Good catch. As I hinted at some while back, I've picked up a good few more TCJs from around that time, one of which has a transcription of a Stan-speech (which is fascinating in its own right, and probably not much help for the Kirby art side of things, but a great piece on the actual Marvel collaborative process) as well as comments from Shooter and Marvel. Certainly goes some way to providing some balance, since most of the actualy reportage is, naturally, biased towards Kirby. Likewise the very-many letters from fans, pros and companies almost entirely side with him, so while they add insight and context... I'm sidetracking down fandom-routes at the moment, but when I have a better chance to absorb all the Kirby relevant materials, that will be "next," and the lawyer's name may well help somewhat, thanks. ntnon (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your most recent comment regarding this. :o) We will indeed get back to it, once our other differences-of-opinion/style/language/interpretation - I've been wondering for a while now if we're not really arguing two sides of the same coin and getting bogged down in semantics and hypotheticals. Certainly various input from all sides seems to be dragging us back down into the mud of new side-issues to misinterpret each other over rather more frequently than anything gets "properly" addressed... - are over and done with.

In a couple of weeks I'm either going to have quite a bit more time to be able to devote to Misplaced Pages or very little indeed (...far too complicated to go into...!) but hopefully there'll be Kirby-time before, during or after that. I certainly should get round to compiling/digitising (read: "typing in") my TCJ &c. source materials soon. (Famous last words.) ntnon (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Vertigo (DC Comics).

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#John_Buscema

--Scott Free (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Killraven supporting cast

Hey, thanks! :) Glad you appreciate it. BOZ (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex Nino

Well quite. I have to say I was disappointed there weren't more samples of the artwork because (as Smith says) he can really draw boats and the sea. I don't usually buy comics just because of the art but I am tempted, even though it is "Zombies on a Boat" (and I am a big fan of zombies but I do wonder how many times you can go to the well on that one - where do you go after you've already seen a zombie fight a shark?). I'll keep an eye open for more news. (Emperor (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Ultimates

I appreciate your assistance on this one. When I started editing the article, I really didn't think it would get to ths level. Passion for the characters is a fine thing, but as you always said the Wiki-standards are there for a reason, so it doesn't become a case of Aladdin and the 40 fan pages. The buildup to the Avengers film is only going to spark more of these debates, but I suppose that's part of the fun. Asgardian (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Ain't it fun when we agree? Nightscream (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, what's "WPC MOS", and where/when was it decided that we don't use volume indicators? Why is this, and how do we distinguish between different volumes of series when mentioning issue numbers? Nightscream (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. And yeah, I do wanna learn. Intellectual curiosity and a desire to know all the pertinent guidelines has always been a part of my m.o. Btw, I notice that you had almost 29,500 edits under your belt (GodDAMN!), but there's not administrator insignia on your User Page. Are you not an admin? Are you not interested in becoming one? Has no one ever nominated you before? Nightscream (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Eagle Awards

...wholly coincidentally (honest!), I've been meaning to provide some source information for the setting up of the Eagles for a few weeks, and got round to it today. I now see that you flagged it as needing sources recently/yesterday, so please see what you think now, phraseology- and other-wise. :o)

Also, if you have any thoughts on how best to present the Award winners (not sure whether there'd be any grounds to hive off that part into "List of Eagle Award winners"), it's a bit of a mess at the moment. Not helped by confusion over what years what happened, since there's definite discrepancies over whether the "19xx Eagle Awards" applies to the year comics were released (no) or the year the votes were cast and winners announced (yes). I don't have to hand a complete list of winners for every year, so I can't check or add to those I've now tried to invisibly-tag as being of uncertain date.

I wonder if a table would be a preferable format? I presume (and certainly since c. 1986) that the "also rans" are in order, and thus would slot neatly into a: YEAR/(Country)/AWARD TITLE/WINNER/Second place/Third place/etc. style table. But I don't know if that would be a better idea than the current, hard-to-navigate list. ntnon (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proofreading

I'm glad to know writing the bio helped ease your mind in a tough time. It was back on my mind because a writer contacted me and said he happened to be working on an article for Alter Ego, and was looking for some information. You had mentioned that magazine to me, so I thought that was a positive turn of events. Wishing you all the best Amy Baily (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Julius Schwartz

Thanks for watching over the re-insertion of the sexual harassment allegations. I actually knew Julie well. In fact, he was perhaps my closest friend until his death which might seem odd given our age difference. I met him just after his wife's death and he was instrumental in facilitating my rise up the publishing career ladder and then into film. He played a similar role in the careers of numerous young female professionals I know. In my experience, for a man his age, he had an unusual understanding of the obstacles we faced in those days (1980s). When I say I was close with Julie, I mean that I travelled with him for over 20 years, often sleeping in the same room (separate beds) because of his terrible fear of falling in the night on the way to the bathroom. He had several such "minder" companions over the years both male and female and none of us ever saw him behave even remotely the way described in the allegations but we did see professional women and fannish women behave incredibly inappropriately towards Julie both in public and in private. Part of our role as a Julie-minder was to keep those types at arms length!

There was an earlier version of the allegations in the article that I felt I could live with but other editors removed it and I agreed with their decision then. I was well aware of the allegations, having been present in the Comics scene during the initial broohaha which led to an investigation that resulted in no lawsuits (that I am aware of), no actions and no diminishing of Julie's stature within comics. In 1996, Gary Groth, an acquaintance of mine via Gil Kane, sat me down at WonderCon for a lengthy discussion on the subject because he said he was planning an article on the allegations. One of the alleged victims had told him some appalling things and he wanted to hear directly from someone who was in a position to see if any such behavior was typical of the man. He knew through Gil that Julie & I were close and that Julie had helped me get my first job and I suppose he thought I would have been a prime target for sexual harassment under those circumstances. I was happy to describe at great length the harassments I'd received from other figures in publishing known to both Gary & I and that while Julie had ample opportunities to dish out the same or worse, he was never anything but a loving grandfatherly figure.

Since no article was published until after Julie died, I can only assume that my in-depth and frank comments may have given Gary some pause. I also spoke to Gary after Julie's death from my hospital bed (freak illness) just before he published his article on the allegations . I came away with the impression that the issue was going to be raised somewhere because the alleged victim wanted to be heard and Gary being Gary, well, he had already done his research, had some perspective and was in the best position to publish. I had a few issues with the piece Gary eventually did publish but in light of the extreme and unsupported allegations flying around, I feel he did as good a job as anyone could have under the circumstances. Gary didn't publish the article to be mean, he did it because it was news at the time. The people who made it news by rehashing an old and often-told salacious story are the folks with whom I have issues. Gary actually invited me to respond to the article via a letter which he promised to print but I had just didn't ever get around to it.

If you like, I will go back and find the earlier version of the sexual harassment paragraph that had some inline citations. You can look at it and decide if you feel it merits inclusion. My own feeling is that is was an issue that was raised and settled as groundless during his life. It was only dug up and kicked around some after his death because his corpse could not be. I don't blame Gary for publishing the claims because the woman involved would have gone elsewhere. In fact, her claims had been blogged about ad nauseam within hours of Julie's death.

I'm sure this is far more info than you needed and I apologize for going on at length. My love for Julie (and Gil Kane) are so strong and my continuing grief over their absence from my life sometimes turns me into a storyteller when I should be more succinct. Forgive my expansive mood! - Lisa Feerick Pollison LiPollis (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fifty Who Made DC Great

...and I'm not done yet: One down, etc., etc..! Hopefully I can get to a couple more of the fifty before I become too otherwise-ly busy. Thanks, though. :o) ntnon (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FJohn_Buscema

--Scott Free (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)