Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 13 February 2007

unblock

Hopefully I've got this correct.

It seems I've been blocked under an autoblock as follows:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Bobet for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Robot ambulance". The reason given for Robot ambulance's block is: "sockpuppet of indef blocked user". Your IP address is 24.66.94.140.

Evidently this occured sometime after the 25th of August, 2006, as this was the last date of an actual edit I made.

I have only accessed Misplaced Pages as an anonymous user (to read/search only) and under this account to edit.

Is it possible to get this account unblocked?

Thanks,

-J Greb-

Nuklon

J Greb,

Indeed Nuklon is not a member of the JSA...thank you for correcting that categorization. :) NetK 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Gotham City

Both are valid. I'm fine with you finding another labelling system for differentiating the two media versions. I'll unlink the second link myself. ThuranX 04:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I blanket reverted because you did a metric assload in one single edit, thus forcing me to either cut and paste left right north and south, or just revert nd thus make you edit one section at a time, so that others CAN revert and work with you. doing one massive edit and then complaining is about as bad as doing four or five bad edits and then covering it with one or two good edits, which many editors are known to do. I liked the police force add a lot. I'm glad you even took the time to section by 'other media' and it was great. I'd like to see it added back. However, you've conflated 'other residents' with 'other heros of gotham'. perhap the section needs a better title, but ultimately that's what the section's wuite clearly about. The two are clearly different. Honestly, while I like a lot of what you're doing, your actions in 'being bold' are going to provoke reactions. Try using the talk page instead of revamping the entire article, especially since the article jsut went through a huge revision from in-universe to -out-of-universe. ThuranX 17:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, now you've got it. If you made 3 edits, and a subsequent editor liked edits 1 and 3 but not 2, he could've cut and pasted the 'offending' section back in, using edit 1 as a source, and after edit 3 as his target, thus leaving an article with 2/3rds of your improvements and one section to bring up on the talk pages. Major revisions aren't bad sometimes, and are occasionally needed. I've done some myself. but I think that checking the talk page and the recent edit history can help you figure out if a page needs or doesn't need, a major revision. I like your style, though, and your editorial behavior (I.E. talking not freaking) so I hope we'll get to work together more. ThuranX 20:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Comic book team categories marked CfD

Well, I think so. I think we can add them all in there as the subject is DC Comics group members. Cheers —Lesfer 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Spectre

Y'know I first got the impression of two separate individuals in All Star Comics, when Corrigan mentioned he was now alone as Spectre travelled to Earth-One or some such. And then the Adventure Comics run seems highly ambiguous. That said, I agree with your assessment of where the character is now. NetK 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shadowpact=

Yo man the only reason why I did that was because all the others had links in that section. It looked nicer in my opinion. Brian Boru is awesome 01:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

DC Comics

Hi! Thanks for writing to get my input; that's civilized editing!

Not sure I follow about the link box. The only change I made was to bring up a widow in the Action Comics #1 caption. No image sizing will be consistent with every screen resolution at every text size, of course. The one thing that we can consistently affect (other than making sure image subjects aren't looking off the screen!) is images' relative sizes. Making all images the same size in this or other articles isn't really communicating in the best way possible — an historically significant or groundbreaking issue-image loses "weight" and it connotes inadequately if it's the same size as every other image.

I actually didn't edit the other image-captions, but just that of Action #1. I wasn't able to find anything in Wiki MoS that indicates all images in an article need to be the same size, and I'm sure, given the above (which is standard publishing design/editorial "agenda-setting," they call it) that you'd agree about that comic's importance. What do you think? I guess we could ask for other editors' opinions on whether the image of Action #1 should be bigger than other comics' images on the page.

In any event, I'm kinda knocked out by all the effort you made testing out those resolutions, etc. You are the kind of serious, no-nonense Wiki editor I wish more people were. --Tenebrae 04:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh, the "link box" is the enlarge icon! Y'know, I hadn't even thought to wonder what that little symbol was, since whenever I wanted to link to the larger image's page I just clicked on the image itself. Thanks for pointing that out!

I'm using Firefox on a PC laptop at 1024x768. I've just now looked at the DC Comics article in IE, and the Action Comics #1 image and caption look the same, with a three-line caption. If it's OK with you, what do you think about leaving the other three images as you had them and leaving Action #1 (which really is the Ur-comic as far as superheroes go) at the size it is?

It's nice discussing this like two professionals! -- Tenebrae 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Beetle

Good question, I don't recall anything specific. Most of those appearances outside of comics were made at the time when there were no other Marvel characters named the Beetle. It seems to be a safe bet that we are supposed to assume that it is Jenkins in the armour. Stephen Day 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

It seems this edit was inadvertently placed in the wrong section, based on the content of your comment. I think the section edit link works relative to its position from the top, so that when someone adds a new section before you've reloaded the page it causes the link to open the one prior to the section you were aiming for. Cheers, Postdlf 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bludhaven

Can I ask why you fixed the links to lots of things, but dropped Atlantic City and DC Universe? ThuranX 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I was just wondering why the choice was made. Thanks for the reply. ThuranX 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Rider and Spectre

Please stop removing the section on the Spectre as it relates to the Ghost Rider. This information is accurate and counts as a part of the character's information. And it is getting annoying seeing this information constantly removed, when it should not be.

Warwolf 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wonder Woman

Yeah, I put a note on the person's talk page and he seems to have stopped. If he does it again, you can report him for too many revisions in too short a time. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Already commented. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing changed my mind. Obviously a straight revert-war causes issues, so I'm attempting a compromise that doesn't 'undercut' as you pointed out, but also allows that sometimes she loses too. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: American television series by decade rename.

I supported the rename in the earlier section before it was relisted, so the closing admin will consider all the comments together (hopefully:) ). Tim! 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dates

I was using the ISO formatting. ] to become 2006-12-24. The page does need uniformity, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Blue Devil

Well, thing is, the same could be said of a lot of things. That is, what an article details and what it may be implied to detail by links. Simply put, the article can't be expected to "live up to the hype".

My reason for removing it was simple: It was in the way. Two templates taking up about a third of the page? Yikes. The "" taps, for example, wouldn't be in the right place. That's never a good thing. Plus, it didn't really have any vital data. The series was cancelled after a year or so.

Anyway, I'd appreciate you doing more than supposedly "assuming good faith" next time. No offense, but think. You may have seen anything wrong with the excessive use of boxes in the article, but I did. At the worst, this is a content dispute. I can't expect you to know my track record, but have the self-control not to bring up the "v" word. I've been in your shoes and made similar mistakes when discussing changes I didn't agree with. Believe me, vandalism is the last thing a registered user should be accused of subjectively. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, if you check my contributions, I used edit summaries religiously at one point. When I lessened to an apparent stop, no one seemed to care. You're the first to bring it up, albeit with proding. Be more direct in the future. I could argue that you're perception of my edit lacks neutrally. Vandalism, as I learned the hard way on WP:AIV, is not the same as a content dispute. You might not like a change, but unless it's blatently inappropriate, try keeping your less than perfect faith to yourself. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally, I just try to ignore it. The little, almost semantically problems, I mean. Series, characters and teams never converge. Usually, one just precedent over the other. Usually, the team or character. Oddly, Ultimate Spider-Man was a major exception. Still, comic series articles are rarely created, especially if its sametitled. I can appreciate the good intentions, but it might be best to leave this be. Until there's a Blue Devil (comic), people are just...outta luck. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hawkgirl

I've removed because it's obvious, it's self-explanatory. If a word is wikilinked, it has an article about it. Simple as that. Regards —Lesfer 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, cheers :) —Lesfer 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talk

Yes, all of the pages you listed there were problems. To avoid that, put the code for the section infobox at least one header below the code for the first (sometimes there are still issues unless you put it two down). It doesn't matter whether or not the boxes appear to touch on the finished page. I've fixed the examples you linked. BookishAcolyte 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

EJBanks

Since you've nominated some of EJBanks' category work for deletion, you might be interested in his article Spider-Man characters in film. Doczilla 10:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Superaliasbox

done! --Exvicious 06:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Robin/Dick Grayson (Earth-Two)

J Greb,

Please do not assume bad faith, I can honestly state that it was not to muddle nor to confuse. It was stated during the course of the various dialogues, on Wikiproject and/or Talk: Robin that a case could be made for a character with multiple codenames. I was unaware there was a specific place to make such a request before a page move, and have witnessed over the years several pages moves. I will not judge which ones were appropriate and which were not...however I will restore Robin (Earth-Two) although I feel in hindsight it should have been listed as Dick Grayson (Earth-Two) for two reasons: 1.) this character used multiple aliases during his career, 2.) the request to merge was to merge Robin (Earth-Two) into Dick Grayson which wouldn't necessarily correspond since the parent article, if you will, is on the individual rather than the alias. I'm unsure why there is such a vehement surge against one character with more appearences than another (Batman (Earth-Two)) when both have large characterization and plot point deviations from the Earth-One versions. NetK 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there is and has been (since 22:16 on 2 January 2006) a paragraph in the article that directly addresses Robin using the Batman identity, which I thought you had read when you mentioned having reviewed the article. Here is the quotation with reference:

"Grayson left Gotham after this incident, returning years later when the Joker came out of retirement to attack several prominent Gothamites including Police Commissioner O'Hara. Assuming the garb and identity of Batman, his presence mesmerized the Joker long enough to be apprehended by the Huntress. He proceeded to track the criminal mastermind behind Gotham's organized crime. At this point, he developed unexpressed feelings towards the Huntress, though leaving Gotham once more before pursuing them further."

This leads me to wonder if those objecting to the article haven't read it indepth to evaluate its contents fairly. NetK 00:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

J Greb, I sincerely apologize for doing anything that wasn't procedurely correct, i.e. making a change before posting to your talk page...if that was done. Please note that with various suggestions I've attempted to incorporate several. For instance, relating to other characters who should get equal treatment, I consider that. Adding content to attempt to round out a subject, done. Observing reactions to adding said content back into the main article, okay. I feel there is a slippery slope that, despite my attempts to accomodate, will be perpetually perceived in a different manner. Good day. NetK 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Defaultsort

Yes it does. If you change it back you'll notice that the Defaultsort tag was showing as a red link at the top of the page.

Iron Ghost 13:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Robin (Earth-Two)

i agree. i wasn't trying to change info, it just said it's back history first appearance or whatever was 1938. (which i think is because netk copied the batman earth two article and tweaked it), so i just switched the year to 1940.

personally, i think it should only mention his actual actual first appearance in 1967. that is, if i thought the article should exist at all. --Exvicious 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Who's Who images

The reason images from comics are fine, but those from Who's Who and OHOTMU are not is because those are reference works, something that Misplaced Pages can be said to be competition for. We aren't changing the context of the image's use if it was always intended to be an image for a work of reference. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Robin comic book series article

I see you're the one who added the comic book infobox. Do you think the Robin comic book series has enough to warrant an article on its own? (like Batman (comic book), Astonishing X-Men, 52 (comic book)or even a less notable example Sentinel (comic book)) There has been 4 miniseries and an ongoing. I think at the very least, I'm going to create a "Publication history" section on the main page. The article does kind of need reorganizing. --Exvicious 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Rating

I suggest you also read those same guidelines...assigning all of them "low" i.e. "trivial" across the board with such long established characters that transcend comics, such as Uncle Sam (comics) and characters that are still active players, such as Obsidian (comics) and Hourman (Rick Tyler), is questionnable. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Blue Beetle

Do you think that their should be a Garrett article? Personally, I don't know the significance of the character other than he was the first. I don't think Jaime Reyes has made that much of an impact (except for Infinite Crisis, of course), so I think Garrett is more important to comic history. You're probably more qualified than I am to do the split. --Semidelicious 05:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical/Retcon 1st app. (DC Characters)

What do you think of:

Historical:
Detective Comics #27
Divergence:
Justice League #70

As you said, they were the same character until that point. --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 06:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

NOGALLERY

Hello! Please do not remove the NOGALLERY tag from categories. Categories are not covered by our fair use criteria, point 9. There are exceptions when it is considered necessary in order to advance towards a "freer" encyclopedia, you can learn more at Misplaced Pages:Fair use exemptions. Currently, only pages that are inside Category:Misplaced Pages fair use exemptions can have the NOGALLERY tag removed, all others must keep it. Thanks for understanding. -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

super alias box

I thought it looks better than when people try to force multiple characters into one super hero box. I didn't put in the Superboy one, but whoever did kept the original box for the silver age Superboy AND had a super alias box, which i think is a decent compromise. If you don't like that feel free to change it back.

I might edit the box to have every character and first appearance for every version and similiar powers... what do you think? --Exvicious // + @ 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I mostly created it for aesthetic reasons, so if you feel the info suffers just change it back. All that stuff is in the actual article anyway, and I don't think it's anything to worth arguing about. --Exvicious // + @ 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Category sorting

I've been doing a lot of category editing recently, and, yes, there's quite a bit of debate about how categories for people should be ordered. There are basically two main camps: alphabetically (as Frank Miller's cats were ordered) and by relevance (the way I tried to order them). There are positives and negatives to both systems (for a sample of the debated issues, see Misplaced Pages talk:Categorization of people/Archive02), but the prevailing opinion seems to favor relevance, and that's what I've come to prefer, also. However, it's just an opinion, not a policy or part of the Manual of Style, so if you prefer alphabetic ordering for the Miller article, feel free to undo my ordering. --ShelfSkewed 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexual objectification

sexual objectification

I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

You're a new editor, and I don't think we've been introduced so I'm introducing myself to you here on your talk page. --Basique 01:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Off*beat

I've been tidying up the ratings section in line with other projects, and rating those articles for which one was requested. With this article, I've nominally rating it as a B-Class, but I think it may well be A-Class. I'd appreciate your view of it at Talk:Off*beat/Comments. Steve block Talk 14:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics/Peer review

You don't fancy adding the peer review page to your watch list, do you? You have a good eye for articles and your input would be welcomed there, if it establishes itself as a process. Steve block Talk 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Avengers/Mighty Avengers

If you are looking for sources, they are all over the place. I get that it needs to be a paragraph on it, and it should be changed, just i don't have the time to do that stuff right now. But on the issue of sources there is a whole page on the might avengers, and it is stated later in the avengers article that it will be released so now my question is, why didn't you delete that part of it also. So now my real question is, since there are sources and since there is all this other info, why didn't you "wikify" it instead of just deleting it.(note: i see the irony that i typed all of this up and yet i can't type a simple paragraph, but in my defense i am switching between this and homework.)Phoenix741 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am cool with that. Thanks Phoenix741 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Howdy

If you show up as the second edit in a page i've just created and am still working on....it means you're crowding me and might need to back off before I become uncomfortable enough to do something like post on your talk page. I'm going to assume good faith here. --Basique 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain

I think Sargon might now be public domain like Ibis. If the pattern holds all the Charlton characters recently rehabilitated by DC might also be in the Public Domain now. --69.136.111.100 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on it. IIUC with DC you are looking at characters from 6 companies:

• National Allied Publications
• Detective Comics, Inc
• All-American Publications
• Fawcett Comics
• Quality Comics
• Charlton Comics

The first 3 had merged by the mid `40s into what would become DC Comics. There is a good chance that any character held by those three were routinely put up for copyright extensions. That would include Sargon, and All-American Pub property.

Fawcett sold its characters to Charlton in the `60s with DC licensing Capt Marvel starting in `72. DC had purchased all of the characters by 1993. IIRC there was a problem with the "Shazam's Squadron of Justice" that appeared in a JLA/JSA cross over: licensed the use of the Marvels but not the other characters. That implies strongly that Charlton had valid copyrights on all the characters. Those would have been transferred to DC. This would include Ibis.

Charlton's own character, IIUC, also had valid copyrights as they were created from 1960 and later. DC would have acquired those in 1983 for the characters Charlton had owned outright.

Quality's are the only set where there is a bulk that are held up as having gone PD. And this was after DC bought them in `56.

In any event, unless there is a source that can be cited listing or commenting on a particular character actually being in the PD, a notation in the article isn't a good idea. And if the only citation that can be made is actually going through copyright records, that would likely be considered original research.

— J Greb 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What a tangled mess, thanks for the heads up. So that public domain cat in the Ibis article is incorrect? --69.136.111.100 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes... at the very least it would need support in the article with a citation. I wonder if tou can add {{fact}} to a call for a cat... — J Greb 20:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

May have to ask someone on the project chat page, i've never tried it.--69.136.111.100 12:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Fate

I think you got all the tense issues, good work. The text is still a little clunky in places, but that might be my ear. :) Steve block Talk 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Robin (Earth-Two)

See we have an anonymous editor who is restoring netholic's version of the page. I would keep in mind the 3RR policy. It's on a few people's watch lists. Steve block Talk 08:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop. If you continue to vandalize pages as you did to "Gail Simone" your IP address will be blocked from using Misplaced Pages. 69.92.184.84 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Wonder Woman #282-285