User talk:Tenebrae

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

Please note: Postings that end with unsigned comments will be deleted. Wikipedia policy is to sign all comments.

For the most recent postings, through January 2, 2009, please see Archive 9 (at right).

Happy New Year

You too, brother. And btw (and sorry to possibly start it off on a sour note but), since you were previously involved with his ArbCom, I figure I should inform you that I (along with Daniel Case) started an RfC regarding further uncivil behavior by Asgardian. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks! You too! :) BOZ (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thanks. I hope 2009 is a good year for you too. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Doing good, thanks! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And to you

Let us hope it is a good one. On a Wiki note, I've subscribed to Cameron Scott's point of view for all the reasons noted on his Talk page. I'm hoping that this will free me up from having to backtrack and keep fancruft out and actually get on with revamping some articles that badly need it. Regards Asgardian (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated in response to your comment here.

Naturally the problem with that is that you (Asgardian) are very enthusiastic in describing instances wherein Galactus continued genocides of sentient beings are described as "necessary" or "unavoidable", which is fine, and I've added a few of those myself. The problem is that you and User:TheBalance have continuously been attempting to censor the instance wherein the counter-argument is presented, that it is in fact not necessary, or excusable, and simply driven by a "monstrous short-sighted egotism and feeling of entitlement" on Galactus' part. Stripping down this instance to the bones while allowing the rest/excuses to stand shows an incredible manipulative double-standard on your part. You have not "come around", you've been trying to censor this instance all along (i.e. taking it out entirely rather than rewording it while keeping the context accurate obviously suits your purposes equally well), while I've written mentions such as keeping the universe safe from Abraxas in the cosmic entities section and not attempted to take out other justifications. Meaning: To be fair both sides of the coin need to be shown. Dave (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thank you for the new year's wish. I hope you have a good year too. :) Stephen Day (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Jc

Happy New Year! Hope it's off to a good start. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and to you as well : ) - jc37 03:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And a merry January to you! Thanks. Doczilla _STOMP! 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Daredevil

Daredevil's mixing of the PH with the FCB is part of the approach taken by User:Cameron Scott. Now collaborating with Asgardian, you can see how this results at Abomination (comics). I get where Cameron is coming from, but I think this approach definitely needs some work before I'd want to see it applied wholesale on comics articles. See Psylocke for an example of where this idea seems to have been better refined by User:Hiding. BOZ (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions on this. We seem to have reached a mile stone and should discuss where to go from here. I think there's still a place for some FCB, it is just a question of how much. Asgardian (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It definitely is the way we should be moving; however, I think the approach could stand to be refined a bit more. It is about the only way we're going to get articles like Iron Man and Captain America to the levels they deserve to be. It will probably stub the hell out of a lot of minor characters, but that's what lists are for (see conversations I had with Emperor a long time ago). Daredevil and the Punisher to me are pretty clunky reads at the moment, while Spider-Man, Psylocke and Storm (Marvel Comics) are far more elegant reads, with fairly consise FCB's. I still maintain that a concise FCB is not a bad thing, but that it should be smaller than (and ideally no more than half the size of) the PH. I think this merits further discussion on the project talk page, and/or maybe an RFC. BOZ (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Stubbing would seem to be unavoidable for some, but as long as there is a solid image and accurate information - with sources - it should be OK. I wish you hadn't mentioned Psylocke...gah...that article needs some cropping. Oh well, onward. Asgardian (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, everything after the FCB is overlong, but I was referring more to the PH and FCB themselves in this case. :) BOZ (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

On this note, your input would be welcome here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abomination_(comics) and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics

there's a degree of hostility from one user that may be able to be neutralised by several voices. I think he needs to grasp that I am open to change and that this new style is a work in progress. Asgardian (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Belated Happy New year

Thank you for the holiday greetings, sorry to be so late in reply. I Hope everything is okay your end pal. I've actually proposed merging the ph with the fcb, I rewrote the style guidelines quite extensively at User:Hiding/X7. Myself and Jc were hashing out categories and I was hoping to get J Greb to tweak the infobox area, but I've pretty much played with it as much as I should. See what you think. The idea is to deprecate the exemplars in favour of this. Hiding T 11:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reinforcements on the way

Whoa...the fancruft has definately overrun this part of the castle. As soon as I finish Klaw, I'll go there. After a quick glance got to also re-write about six others (sign). As for the other editor's comments, I don't know why he even said anything. The reversion was to a sub-standard effort that from another user who loves excessive fan detail and has been told. No matter. We will move on! Asgardian (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As promised, Ms. Marvel has been revamped. It may seem brutal to the person(s) who added all that, but it was bad as you indicated. I've really come around to just having a comprehensive PH as it solves so many issues, including keeping the fancruft at bay. I think some of these revised efforts should serve as templates somewhere so beginners can see how it should be done. Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? Ms. Marvel, Rhino (comics) and Abomination (comics) are horrible articles and shouldn't be held up as examples to anyone (I hadn't seen the Klaw reworking before but it is no better). The only good point is that they don't contain any out-of-universe material, they also don't contain much else of use beyond lists of issues which are better done in other formats. I can't think of many successfully converted articles except for Punisher. I'm hoping Final Crisis will be one that has largely been kept under control from the start but it has been a struggle (and still is). (Emperor (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

The fundamental things that those articles are missing include commentary, analysis, and criticism from an out-of-universe perspective... granted, they were missing before anyway, but now you've got little more than a list of appearances with a few notations on their significance. If we're going sans FCB, we really need to be looking more like Spider-Man and Fantastic Four, and less like the articles Emperor is pointing to. BOZ (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you might like to offer an opinion when ready. Yes, I see what these two editors are saying, but nothing more can be done until some third-party material such as Marvel Masters is sourced. What is presently in place is still better than reams of poorly written fan cruft with POV. The bones are there, now we need the meat from third-party sources. Asgardian (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Commentary requested

Hey there. :) Could you have a look at my thoughts and see if there is any commentary you would like to add? Maybe if I'm not alone in this, we can get some action going? BOZ (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchman film

Well that is encouraging.

My big concern is the space squid scene at the end and there were hints and whispers that they were considering changing it - which would be a crying shame and lose it 2 points on the Empometer. (Emperor (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

For that, tonight Alan Moore's serpent god will turn your most private parts to coal!!

Yes tricky beast with the interviews - what I'm looking for is their take on the characters, what their inspiration was and confirming things that might "obvious" to the reader but could have the whiff of original research about them. (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Twin series

Tenebrae, is there a term for two limited series about a story published simultaneously? There were once two Terminator series, one a sequel to T2 and another a prequel to both films, and this year there are two Transformers comics set before and after the film. Is there a proper term? Alientraveller (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article drive

Hello,

I have started a new section on the comics talk page for a start of discussion on bringing more comics articles to Good Article nomination. Please provide any input you think will help. BOZ (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Hi. As you appear to be one of the major contributors to the Spider-Man article, I'm alerting you to the fact that I have nominated this article to become a Good Article. If you are able to have a look at the article and fix up anything that needs fixing (sourcing, grammar, etc), feel free to do so before the review starts, or feel free to wait until the review starts to see what concerns the GA reviewer may bring up. Good work on helping to get it to where it is so far. :) BOZ (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man has been picked up for GA review, which can be viewed here. There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you'll have a pleasant surprise awaiting you upon your return. ;) BOZ (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Alex Raymond

Following your suggestion I'm going to nominate Alex Raymond for GA soon. If you have any ideas on where the article can be improved then feel free to throw them in. (Emperor (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (File:AmazingAdventuresV1no4.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:AmazingAdventuresV1no4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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) 05:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Wolfmanscript web.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wolfmanscript web.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 Wikipedia'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 description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

sup!

hi ten! long time no hear buddy =] ive been very busy with my youtube account and i cant find time to edit wikipedia now. happy new year! †Bloodpack† 12:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four

Hi. As you appear to be one of the major contributors to the Fantastic Four article, I'm alerting you to the fact that I plan to nominated this article to become a Good Article. If you are able to have a look at the article and fix up anything that needs fixing (sourcing, grammar, etc), feel free to do so or discuss anything that needs fixing. Good work on helping to get it to where it is so far. :) BOZ (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Tenebrous

So are you really "dark", "gloomy", and "shut off from the light"? ;-) GentlemanGhost (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ethelbert.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ethelbert.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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) 05:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:HalleBerryStorm promo-image.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:HalleBerryStorm promo-image.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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) 05:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War Mediation

Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:FF15 1960s.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:FF15 1960s.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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) 05:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Graphic novel Delisted

An article you significantly contributed too, Graphic novel, has been delisted as a Good Article following an individual WP:GAR as part of the GA project quality task force GA Sweeps effort. This reasons this article was delisted have been detailed at Talk:Graphic novel/GA1. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:EvergreenReview v11n47 June67.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:EvergreenReview v11n47 June67.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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) 05:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Tenebrae. I'd ask you if you can rollback (or suggest me someone to ask to, I'm fairly new to the en version) this modification, since is only redundant information I put there by mistake. Thanks a lot --Webwizard (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmyolsen

I was on the Comics Project notice board, and saw you had posted some concerns about a User:Jimmyolsen; however, it doesn't appear the discussion is still current. I was wondering if you felt the issue was resolved enough for the RfC to be removed? -Sharp962 (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ST146.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:ST146.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" 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) 04:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DitkoDrStrange,Clea,Dormammu.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:DitkoDrStrange,Clea,Dormammu.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" 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) 04:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:TalesOfSuspense41.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:TalesOfSuspense41.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" 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) 05:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DrStrange178.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:DrStrange178.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" 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) 05:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've created a page with advice for improving articles such as this one - let me know if you're interested. :) BOZ (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jeffrey Leiser

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jeffrey Leiser, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Leiser. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Don;t know if you're still out there, but just thought I'd say hey! Hiding T 22:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. We will now draw up a list of things that require your urgent attention. ;) (Emperor (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Welcome back indeed! I'm an admin now! :) BOZ (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You're laughing now but you ain't see the list!! (Emperor (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Hey, have you met User:Stoshmaster? He is big into working on comics creators articles, among other things. BOZ (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice how I got Spider-Man up to "Good Article"? :) I also worked on Fantastic Four but got stumped; I requested a peer review in case anyone ever wanted to get back to work on it. BOZ (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:All-AmericanMenOfWar89.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:All-AmericanMenOfWar89.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello back

Hey there man, it was good to hear from you. If you check out my recent contribution history, I haven't been all that active either. I got a little frustrated but have decided to get back in the game recently as well.

And look where I am, involved in an AfD with the first new article in months that I decided to add. Such are the ironies of life I guess. lol Stephen Day (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi. I've nominated Warp!, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Bruce1ee^talk 13:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the hook, mine often tend to be a little too concise. --Bruce1ee^talk 07:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Improvements noticeboard

Hi there - trying to get your attention is tough when everyone is vying for it.  ;) Did you notice the Improvements noticeboard I started? :) BOZ (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I also pointed it out because I know a number of articles I had on there are some that you like to work on. :) BOZ (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I probably would have gotten to Sinnott and Simon eventually, but I started to feel like I was abusing the peer review process. :) Did you see my note in a section above about another user who likes to work on comics creator articles? BOZ (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant your talk page, about five sections up from here. :) Hey, have fun! BOZ (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just want to bother you one more time and then I'll leave you to your work; I need to get going anyway. :) Take a look and see how much this list has grown in 2009! There was quite a push to get more comics articles into quality shape earlier this year, but the momentum dropped out when I got too busy to do much more. BOZ (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Warp!

On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Warp!, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that Warp! attracted 8,300 hits while on the Main Page yesterday. See Wikipedia:DYKSTATS. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tenebrae,

I recently recalled your correspondence to me from April 2009 in which I paraphrased your remarks below.

Just wanted to let you know that I have completed a book about Vinnie and will put up a web site that will either provide Pay Per View access to the material or just promote the publication. I will let you know if I am successful in finding a publisher for a 150,000 word book with over a hundred pictures in it.

Much of the content includes positive quotes and remarks people have made over the years and I included yours as follows which I hope you don't mind. Contact me at franklincolletta@gmail.com if it is against your wishes.

Tenebrae (Wikipedia Senior Editor): And once more with feeling, as a fan, Vince deserves his own Web site, like that of Gene Colan or, for maybe a better example, that of the late Don Rico. With my best regards, as always, --Tenebrae

Take care and thanks again for your encouragement.

Franklin222 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Franklin Colletta

Gary Gruber

Noted you changes over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gruber. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the subject of the article appears to be gatekeeping the content, and he quickly reverted your changes. I've had similar problems there as well. I'm not very experienced in dealing with this kind of situation. Any help/direction you can offer in order to help release that page from his control? Transmissionelement (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued help at Gary Gruber. I'm learning a lot from watching how you handle the issue, and I just wanted to let you know that your efforts were appreciated and informative. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man peer review

Hey there, just wanted to point you in this direction. Maybe there will be something useful there to help this one on its journey to eventual FA? :) BOZ (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Got two peer reviews on this one now! :) Pretty cool... lot's of advice to look at - no idea if or when I'd find the time to actually use it, but it's there if you can find the time at some point. :) BOZ (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! If there's anything I can do to help, let me know and I'll see what I can do. :) BOZ (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Hiding/X7

Hey Tenebrae. Hope you've not been and gone. I've tried to address all your thoughts you left ages ago at User talk:Hiding/X7, but the one I can't get is where you say "Couldn't we treat comic books as publications?In other words, just as we might cite "Article title," Time magazine, November 15, 1999, page 10, I can really see no reason not to cite, say, Fantastic Four #48 (March 1966), p. 10." Can you clarify what you mean for my dense brain? Glad to see you back and well. Hiding T 14:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

SPI case

First off, who is the sockmaster? Second, don't copypaste the page from the form onto the main SPI page. Every SPI case gets placed on its own page when you hit the "Save page" button after following the form instructions on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Submitting an SPI case. Please let me know who that sockmaster is so that we can move that case to its own page. Thank you, MuZemike 01:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I get the regular edit page with the instructions and everything when I click on it. Did you replace SOCKMASTER with the actual name of the sockmaster (the account controlling all the sock puppets) in the box? MuZemike 01:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. It's supposed to be self-explanatory when you click on the button. The top of the page you mentioned has the instructions, and the actual edit box where you place the suspected sock puppets and your evidence is on the bottom. Again, I don't have a clue what you're looking at, because I don't get anything that you see. I can't tell you what the problem is. MuZemike 01:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Asgardian and Awesome Android

There's not much I can really do as an admin at the moment, except perhaps to issue an umpteenth warning about edit warring. It's been stable for a few hours, so I'm going to leave it (for now). If you're going to go for an RfC, I can protect it afterwards if edit warring resumes. In fact, rather than just an RfC on that one specific article, you may want to continue reviving the discussion on J Greb's talk page that seemed to be going somewhere but kind of dropped off? BOZ (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic Four again

After I finished getting Spider-Man up to Good Article, I felt I would do the same with Fantastic Four. Boy was I wrong; I realized before too long that I just didn't have the kind of sources I really needed to get that one into shape. I did some work over a couple of weeks, and some more after that, but I kind of gave up. I later requested the peer review that you'll see on my improvements page, if you think that will help at all. :) BOZ (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed - which is why I mentioned it. :) BOZ (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Curious

See you've made me curious now. I'm younger than you, but not young enough to call you granddad. Although I don't see myself as anyone's mentor. I get as frustrated as the next person. Hiding T 20:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but please note

I've no objection to the changes to Doctor Strange, as you've obviously picked up on some small stuff that needed changing. Could you, however, refrain from comments like As Asgardian has been told... in the Edit Summaries, as they seem a tad personal. We are not as opposed as it might seem, as I would like your input on other matters. Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I'd rather not have to barter for civility. The only thing about the Guidelines is that they are just that. Guidelines. There was a discussion in the long ago on this and we went with abbreviated forms. The problem with Wikipedia is that you can gather a gang and argue most anything, something that may never be worked out. Long, short, back again. The demoralising part is that there is only quality control on a few monitored articles - the rest is a wilderness where anything goes. For now, I've no objection to the longer version. Asgardian (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that following the same guidelines the rest of us do is "bartering for civility." -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop generalising. I'm just asking that you stop making the personal comments in the Edit Summaries. I didn't think that was unreasonable and required anything in return. By the by, there is still an ongoing discussion about Guidelines here [1]. Asgardian (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As you tend to quickly erase responses on your talk page, I'm responding here. You are the only editor in WPC who uses those abbreviations. The section-title discussion is misdirection; it has nothing to do with your years-long, consistent insertion of non-standard edits, and, after they're removed, slipping them back in.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

True! I was still doing it the old way. A lot happening here at present. Apologies. Asgardian (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What to do?

David A, as you can see, gets a tad too involved and becomes upset when editors like myself remove edits backed by the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe or what I call subjective "power match-ups", between what are always going to be fictional characters. The pattern seems to be "arrive, insert, make inflammatory comments, reinsert, more comments, then disappear until the next round". Now Dave has admitted to having a medical condition, so I try to be tolerant, but at the same time if we walked away from what he worked on those articles would be very fan-orientated overnight. It's also not like we can politely suggest "go and work on the Marvel-wiki which doesn't matter". He's been advised repeatedly, but would sanctions help, or only make it worse? Thoughts? Asgardian (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I guess you saw at Celestials, I did remark to him that his comment to you was highly uncivil. I've found David A can be difficult; regardless, I've tried to phrase his disputed edit (which appears to come from an annual, not a Marvel Handbook) in a way I think may serve as a compromise between your two positions.

Claims of medical conditions may or may not be true; there is no way to confirm. Assuming it is true he has some condition affecting his behavior, edits and civility, I would argue that a person who may be genuinely unstable should not be editing a collaborative encyclopedia. While there is no way to know for certain, I would put great weight in someone claiming so about oneself. I would seek the advice of an admin in WPC. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe I've tried to be friendly and helpful with you just now, above, when I afterward found that you've reinserted many of the same disputed edits at Awesome Android that our RfC is about!

I can only begin to give a list of the non-standard edits you've made. Publication history is not present tense -- that's for in-universe history only. In US English, "features" as a verb is not used as you continually write it, and which I have frequently noted to you. You insist on using the word "cover" twice in the same tight caption; that sort of redundancy is bad writing. You misuse the word "perennial", or stretch its meaning unhelpfully. These are only a few of the issues that the RfC is addressing.

It is ironic to me that the sort of behavior of which you accuse David A is the same behavior you exhibit that many WPC editors have issues with. Please stop making disputed wholesale edits to articles, particularly when they involve poor writing, examples of which I've given in the previous paragraph. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A few things. First of all, the RfC has prettymuch fallen by the wayside, yes? I am sure we can resolve this between us. Past tense for a PH? Fine. If you want to cull a word for repetition? Fine. As to perennial, well, that's possibly POV. Toby Ziegler isn't on hand to arbitrate that one. I will make the necessary changes, and then take a look. Try if you can to retain the valid information as opposed to blindly reverting it out, as it is justified in being there. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, all the recommended changes added; mistakes corrected and additional appearances retained. Looks pretty good. Asgardian (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

???

You're not going to believe this: [2].

And yes, saw the other thread. I'll respond when I have a spare hour as that's not the work of five minutes. Regards Asgardian (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, a close look at [3] reveals that there are several ways to write an article. It's all there. Asgardian (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What I see there is a bright-line demarcation between publication history and fictional history, as separate sections. Do you see something different? -- Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh. First of all, there is no mandate to spell out a date in full. An abbreviation is clearly fine. Second, and this is really interesting, the Guidelines state:

Section titles can include Publication history, Fictional character biography, Creation and concept, Legacy, Characterization, Reception, Development and description, Depiction, In the comics or Character overview. Please feel free to create your own section headings.

There's no one way to do this. Asgardian (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure what you're saying by "An abbreviation is clearly fine." I haven't said they are not. In fact, the examples given in the WikiProject guidelines abbreviate the long months as "Sept." (not "Sep.), "Oct.", etc., though not the short months, like "March." This is for project-wide consistency. You haven't adhered to that, despite it being pointed out numerous times. It seems a strange thing to want to insist on — abbreviating months your way and not the WPC MOS way.

The guidelines give Publication, Teams and Fictional objects as distinct sections. As I and other editors have repeatedly pointed out, Publication history and Fictional character biography or Fictional team history are not blended into a single section. You can adjust the subhead title's wording for particular cases, but the guidelines spell out that we don't blend fiction and real-life. -- Tenebrae (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence states:

The structures suggested in this section are intended to serve as a starting point for writing a good article; they are not meant to enforce a single, binding structure on all articles, nor to limit the topics a fully developed article will discuss.

So, with the wording above in mind, the suggestions presented are just that, and are a starting point. Asgardian (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And you read that to mean you can do anything you want, including non-standard abbreviations, throwing out established sections in a manner that no other editor espouses, and mixing real-life and fictional history? And you wonder why you have been blocked from articles, given a year's probation following an Arbitration, and have an action pending against you now? -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You are making a number of assumptions with a strong dash of hyperbole. No, that does not mean "And you read that to mean you can do anything you want". Also, let the "non-standard abbreviations" business go. It has been resolved and by holding on to it and appears as though you have a grudge. As for blocks, you've been there as well, yes? For the record, there is no "action" against me, it is a request for comment. Just as I have improved, please show me that you have as well by not making inflammatory claims. Speaking of said claims, we have our answer here: [4].

You and I don't have any problem that matter. Asgardian (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Horror characters

Nice work on Morbius the Living Vampire and Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics). Have you had a look at Dracula (Marvel Comics) and Werewolf by Night? I see you worked on Zombie (comics) in the past. BOZ (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang in there! The best advice I can offer is, if things get too tense, the best thing to do is step back and do something else. BOZ (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man Cultural influence

Hello. Please explain why you deleted reference to "the world's tallest building" and added "to promote his cause". Thank you.

Mimiken 13:55, 25 October 2009

Removal of prod from Milking The Rhino (Dangerously Funny Lists)

I have re-removed the prod tag that you added back to Milking The Rhino (Dangerously Funny Lists). The instructions at WP:PROD#Objecting make it clear that a prod tag should not be added back to an article once it is removed, even if it is removed by the article creator. Anyone is allowed to remove a prod tag from an article for any reason, and it is not required that you improve the article first. If you still think the article should be deleted, feel free to nominate it for deletion at AfD. Calathan (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also now removed the prod tag you added back to First Rush. If you added prod tags back to any other articles where they were removed, I ask that you please remove those prod tags as well, so as to follow the policy at WP:PROD#Objecting. Calathan (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Those were the only two. Thank you for pointing out that the policy allows even a page's creator to remove a deletion tag; while that seems so antituitive to me that I hadn't thought to check, I'm now aware of it. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Heads-Up Re: Revert

Just wanted to give you a friendly heads-up to let you know I reverted your punctuation changes on Batman. You're actually mistaken as to what WP:MOS asks on this. If the punctuation is part of the original quote, then you do end the sentence with the punctuation inside the quotation mark. See "inside or outside" heading of WP:LQ. In the punctuation you altered, the punctuation was part of the quoted text and so was fine as is. Happy editing! WCityMike (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a subtle one, but I'm glad to know it. Having to put (so I thought) the punctuation outside the quote marks went against all my instincts. Glad to know my instincts were actually going along with Wiki MOS! So this is a relief ... thanks again! -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem! Yeah, it is a little tricky. WCityMike (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man Cultural influence # 2

Thank you for your response. As a big supporter of Wikipedia my goal is to be at all times encyclopedic and your assistance is very much appreciated. Perhaps you can provide some additional assistance. A user with the name, Methusedalot, has deleted 'our' combined wording: "Spider-Man influenced high-rise firefighting and rescue advocate Dan Goodwin, who, in 1981, donned a Spider-Man suit and scaled the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois, and the Renaissance Tower in Dallas, Texas, to promote his cause." Unfortunately, it is not possible to contact Methusedalot via User Talk. My sense is if I 'undo' his change he will delete it again. Do you have a suggestion?

Mimiken 31 October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimiken (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Tenebrae. The world is better off with Wikipedia and your efforts in that regard are very much appreciated! -- Mimiken (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just saying hi

Hey, Jc. As you probably surmised from my contribution history, I've been away for several months. I plan to return to Wiki-editing regularly (if not often), and it's good to see some of my old and treasured colleagues still here fighting the good fight. With kudos and regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I too am just returning from a lengthy WikiBreak.

Thank you for the message : ) - jc37 16:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Combat Kelly

G'Day Tenebrae. I was wondering about the item of Sgt Fury #104 that said the two redheaded Combat Kelly's are not one in the same. Could you elaborate please? They seem to look alike and I believe the Atlas Kelly was a WWII vet. To tell you the truth, I've never read either version.Foofbun (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I checked the citation re: Sgt. Fury #104 with my actual copy of Sgt. Fury #104, and you know, the Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe is actually incorrect — the letters page actually says nothing one way or the other about Combat Kelly in WWII being or not being the Combat Kelly of the Korean War. I'll keep investigating — I found my old Fury and Capt. Savage comics but not yet Combat Kelly — but thanks for getting me to compare the cite with the cited! -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Crikeys! That was Quick!!! Thanks a LOT for checking on this. I've found that if something is repeated 3 times on the internet it is taken as gospel. Can we restore the bit about the controversy on whether the character is the same? I think there's enough ammo for both sides. After all aren't Human Torch and Sub Mariner both Atlas comics? There also was a backflip about Percy Pinkerton's sexuality going from David Niven playboy to gay when it suited Stan Lee. Great hearing from you, and thanx for your great comic workFoofbun (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Williamson

Want to help me work on this one? :) It's likely to pass GA after I work on the lead, and if there's anything you can add to the article in general that would be helpful. BOZ (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) You always make me curious, dropping hints like that, but sometimes I feel it might be better not to know! :) BOZ (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is something that might pique your interest. :) BOZ (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't count 'em - that's what bots are for. :) See the category page I linked to in that thread to see how I came up with the numbers! BOZ (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not good

Greetings. Unfortunately you didn't play your cards very well with the reversion on the article Juggernaut. Once again, you've removed a great deal of valid information and restored poorly worded; under sourced and erroneous information. The fact that you didn't even look before reverting is disapppointing. I'm also trying to deal with a problematic editor who may be another sockpuppet for a repeat offender here. I also note your comment to another editor, and would advise you once again that there is some grey in the Guidelines, and that several editors have differing views, which has been discussed previously. The changes in titles don't seem to be offending anyone else.

So, I will now have to go back and change a few titles in the downtime so that the valid and accurate information can be retained, as opposed to staying with an inferior version. Asgardian (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There's an arbitration being prepared by another editor, not me, about your consistently anti-consensus behavior. "The changes in titles don't seem to be offending anyone else." is patently untrue. You tried to push your idiosyncratic, non-MOS format onto Awesome Android, and the RfC consensus there was not to blend fictional in-universe material and real-world material. If we need to go to RfC again, that's fine: That's the proper first step in the mediation process. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the Talk Page for said article, I initally opposed a PH and then supported it. You didn't help the process by repeatedly reverting out additional and extra information, or my attempts to trial other titles. Your claim as to anti-social behaviour is also inflammatory and only opinion. A recent attempt at comment failed as it was demonstrated that all that is being offered up is opinion. Asgardian (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What recent attempt at comment? Awesome Android? What discussion ensued there went against your edits. I believe you are being disingenuous about the arbitration case being prepared regarding your behavior. That case exists, and stating factually that this is so is not "inflammatory and only opinion." -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Look further up your Talk Page. You are the one who mentioned "an action against me". Asgardian (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Al Williamson image

I'd suggest not cleaning up the background and making it clear that it is not replaceable unless someone can find a free image which also delineates Williamson's style, as well as Williamson himself? Make it very clear the image serves two purposes, only one of which is replaceable. Hiding T 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks/Taking a Break

Hey, thanks for that information about enforcing a break. That probably would have been useful when I had my old user name, but no use complaining about what can't be fixed/changed. My break in editing from October 29th to November 10th was personally enforced, but tough to do. --Spidey104 (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 03:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction

My congratulations on your auspicious launch of an article for Marvel's Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction, a b/w title that deserves coverage despite its short run. A lovely job. I sincerely hope that my minor and technical touch-ups do not offend.

However, my primary purpose here is to ask a question, given the strong implication that you possess copies, which I am sorry to say I no longer do. In that post-regular run special, there was near the back a vertically rectangular box among ads apologizing for the absence of a supposedly promised story/feature: "Man-Gods From Beyond the Stars." This is quite problematical:

1. I had seen absolutely no advance promotion for this special whatsoever that identified any specific content, and certainly not that.
2. Said feature had previously appeared in Marvel Preview #1, drawn by Alex Niño, who seems to be responsible for the bit of art included here (BTW, the cover scan you'll find at the top of the MP article is for #9's "Man-God," a never-completed adaptation of Philip Wylie's novel Gladiator, not #1's "Man-Gods...," a knock-off of Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods? theories; I can see how somebody might get confused).
3. IIRC, Roy Thomas had acknowledged in the opening editorial that this special was primarily an inventory clearer. It cetainly looked like one, with four of the nine stories written by Bruce Jones!

Can you confirm that these two text pieces are mutually contradictory, and if so do you think the fact belongs in the article? I'll put your talk page on my watchlist pending the resolution of this discussion, so you can reply right here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tbrittreid, for your very kind words. No need to worry about offense — the article belongs to all of Wikipedia, and any good faith effort helps this wonderful, free encyclopedia become better. (And after writing this, I went to scope them out, and certainly, sir, they are most excellent edits!)

I agree with you that Thomas' published explanation for how the annual came about is relevant, and I'll take you up on the suggestion to add that information. I've also dug up some preliminary info that writer Mat Warrick may actually be Mal Warrick, "a fanzine and science fiction writer of the time", according to the site Marvel's Black and White Horror Magazines Checklist by Richard J. Arndt, who (with his Warren Checklist and creator interviews etc.) is an authoritative historian in the field.

I have two issues — #4 and the special. I did see the ad, with Niño art (perhaps from "'Repent, Harlequin!'..."), which said that the Man-Gods art was lost in the mail; I don't know offhand if it was ever recovered. (I do know the Gladiator adaptation you speak of — I bought that issue when it came out, which tells you something of how old I am and how long I've been reading and writing about — and occasionally for — comics.) I'll nose around.

Thank you for your excellent work! I hope and expect to see you around WikiProject Comics often! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting updates, but I suggest taking Richard J. Amdt's information with a grain of salt. He obviously does his credibility no favors by consistently misspelling Ruben Yandoc's first name. His description of the never-published Vampire Tales #12 is well off the beam as well. A house ad at the time included VT #12's cover, blurbing a multitude of features, including a Blade, the Vampire Slayer story that matches what was published in Marvel Preview #3. However, despite him listing it as a single 56-page story, it was clearly broken down into chapters, with obvious splash pages/panels (no titles, but still obviously splashes) for each. This was definitely intended to be serialized in VT from #12, not, as Amdt asserts, that one issue's entirety. What really surprises me is that no comics authority/historian that I'm aware of has ever acknowledged the fact that Marvel's b/w line suffered its own version of the infamous DC Implosion. Subscription ads were for a while carrying a rather long list of titles, most of which were published either as one-shots (e.g., Marvel Super Action featuring the Punisher, Marvel Movie Premiere) or under the Marvel Preview umbrella (Star-Lord, Sherlock Holmes). It's very surprising that Amdt did not pick up on that. There's one point about UWoSF #2: He states that Mike Kaluta's cover illustration (Iwo Jima in outer space) did not originally include the robot. IIRC, the editorial states otherwise, and that it inspired the internal story, "War Toy."

As for the editorial "apology" in the back of the special, if your suspicions about the art being from the adaptation of "Repent..." are correct, the waters become even more muddied. Does the box not say "Man-Gods From Beyond the Stars" rather than just "Man-Gods"? I have strongly suspected that this thing was the result of some gross miscommunication between staffers and Thomas' name was put on it because he was the mag's editor, but he actually had nothing to do with it. I really doubt that there is anything to recover. Unlike a Dennis O'Neill/Howard Chaykin Dominic Fortune story announced for Hulk #25 (I believe that's the number), but left homeless when that title went all b/w (that series was fully painted). A real shame, but this is not a forum. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The box does just say "Man-Gods," so a clarifier might or might not be needed. I agree that anyone's cites should be treated with a grain of salt — I did indeed note Arndt's misspellings, though that can happen to anyone .. see "Amdt" above  :-)  But we're just required to give a properly ID'd, reliable source (which the Arndt site on the whole is), and the reader can look up the cited source and judge for him/herself. (I did catch the "War Toy" discrep; I think Arndt got it confused with the background planets, which I believe were added later.)

It's nice, BTW, to meet someone else with a fond memory of the old Marvel magazines. If you create any related articles, let me know; I'd love to collaborate. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

While I now note that you do have it "Arndt" in the UWoSF article and in your ref cite to his page there, what I see on his own page (in the intro at the very top and the legal notices at the very bottom) is "Amdt." Take a look for yourself. I'll wait for you to do so and comment here rather than go change the article now. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just the letters running together, due to the small type. Do a word-search for "Amdt" and you'll see what I mean. No biggie. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading your post and before adding my own, I went back and looked (same way I found your spelling in the article), considering that a possibility. Couldn't see it. If his name really is Arndt, then he is using one incredibly lousy font. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside for Tbrittreid : the last Dominic Fortune is in #25, 'Slay Bells'. There's a leader for #26 on the inside back cover for DF in #26, but as you know it didn't happen ... only one issue out. No if only I could find the box with the UWofSFs in ... Archiveangel (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Stan Lee Later career

In retrospect, I understand and agree with your reversion. Question. As you know Stan Lee was interviewed on VH1 with regard to Dan Goodwin's scaling of tall buildings. Stan Lee also has written the foreword to Dan Goodwin's forthcoming book, SKYSCRAPERMAN. In addition to commenting on Mr. Goodwin's emulation of Spider-Man, Mr. Lee states, "Aware of the fact that America’s skyscrapers are, and always will be, vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, Dan Goodwin has devoted his time and his fame to sponsoring the world’s first Skyscraper Defense Act. Its goal is admirable, its purpose clear, its need painfully apparent. The Skyscraper Defense Act would fund the creation and training of super elite rescue teams throughout the United States capable of rescuing victims from burning skyscrapers through the use of specially designed hovering helicopters, cables and highly trained professionals able to scale the exteriors of such buildings." Obviously, Mr. Lee has gone public in his support of Dan Goodwin's actions and goals. Should this not be reflected in some manner on Mr. Lee's Wikipedia page? Your comments in this regard are very much appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Mimiken (talk) 9:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Spider-Man

Hey I noticed your work on the article on Spider-Man. And I was wondering if you would want to join and expand on this on this project Wikipedia:WikiProject Spider-Man. Thank you! Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• And you are free to do that. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Stan Lee Later Career

Per your advice, I'll put up a sentence regarding Stan Lee's Forward to SKYSCRAPERMAN after the book is published. Enjoy your Thanksgiving.

Mimiken (talk) 3:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To a successful New Year! SKYSCRAPERMAN, which includes Stan Lee's foreword, has now been published as an e-book on Amazon. With this in mind, I am requesting your opinion regarding the following as an insert on Stan Lee's Wikipedia page. "On January 1, 2010, the book SKYSCRAPERMAN, by Dan Goodwin and D. B. Guidinger, with a foreword by Stan Lee, was published as an e-book on Amazon." The insert would cite two sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Goodwin and http://skyscraperman.com/ Thank you in advance for your comments.

Mimiken (talk) 3:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I have not heard back from you, I will put up, "On January 1, 2010, the book SKYSCRAPERMAN, by Dan Goodwin, edited by D. B. Guidinger, and with a foreword by Stan Lee, was published online in an e-book format." Two sources are cited on the insert... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Goodwin and http://skyscraperman.com/

Mimiken (talk) 3:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Boys' Ranch

Got anything to help out? :) BOZ (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Small comics companies and other stuff pre-1970s, but actually chit-chat

partially a quick thanks for getting involved in my revision of Avon's publications quickly, mainly a recognition that having someone shadowing my work is a bonus. Clearly you are a knowledgeable person, and one with more than just a sense of comics history and able to be objective. I'd appreciate if you'd keep tagging me and comment as brutally as required - I try to get things right first time, but accept that doesn't always happen, even though I sit on stuff until I'm happy with it rather than 'fire and forget'. My personal target is to tighten up what's been laid down before, because I've spent most of my bloody life finding out for myself from a myriad of sources and it's unfair to expect people nowadays to be able to source much without a random Google selection, but anything not done before is game ... I have access to far too much material for a sane person Appreciated, Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC/U

I know I've said it before, so prepare to roll your eyes... ;) but hopefully I will have the time to start putting something together. The idea is, I want to lay out the "charges" one by one, so that Asgardian and the community can clearly see what other editors think of his behavior, so that he and they can respond clearly to each point as needed. I'm going to try to word everything as neutrally as possible while still being factual and getting the point across (rather than "he edit wars a lot" it will be more like "other editors feel he gives the appearance of edit warring here, here, and here") to leave the judgment up to (hopefully) mostly uninvolved editors. Diffs are a big help in that regard, because then it's not just people making claims. Also, I'd like to point out the most contentious articles, such as Juggernaut, Rhino, Abomination, etc. BOZ (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, feel free to use my list over at the Juggernaut Talk as a small starting point, and check with User:Nightscream as well. Dave (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do - I'll let some of the more involved editors, as well as the general public at the comics project, comment and add before I take it live. In fact, lest some emergency happen, I'm going to put some time in on it right now. :) BOZ (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. You're going to need it. Asgardian is nothing if not tenacious and argumentative, and has a loooooong list, that will be really hard and disordered to check through, so be prepared to put down an awful lot of work. I lost almost all energy and interest in him long ago, and most others do so much quicker. I think he may find it funny to see just how much he can get away with for how long, and how many buttons he can push in a hint-hint-nudge-nudge manner. Still, 1/10th of his actual offenses should logically be more than enough to get him permanently banned, but you'd be hard-pressed to prove most of them, or know which temporary ips that are his or not. Of course, then he'll simply return with another sockpuppet, but what to do? Dave (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to go hunting for anything more - I'm just going to stick with whatever people posted here - although feel free to add any diffs you feel are significant. BOZ (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that seems to be a very coherent, and matter-of-fact case. Good work. If you already added all of my list mentions, I don't see that I have much to add, especially as I have tendency to get emotional. Dave (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

Because you stated your intent to certify the Asgardian RFC/U, I am letting you know that it has begun. If you still wish to certify, you may do so now.

Also, you made statements on the RFC draft talk page pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire. I have included a link to the draft talk page, so that interested parties may view the statements gathered there, if you do not wish to repost them.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction

Please note - your Edit Summaries need a little work. You don't warn people. As a non-administrator, you can make a request re: some difference of opinion, although you may not necessarily be in the right. Warnings are for users who commit legitimate offences, such as 3-revert etc.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it you who just said something akin to "spirit of the 3-revert rule" about repeatedly enforcing versions that go against consensus? Well, in your own words, there is his starter justification then. Dave (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Tenebrae. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Juggernaut (comics). Thank you. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Asgardian had not done the courtesy of informing me. As one respondent there noted, "Doesn't look like a civility concern to me." And as you noted there, Asgardian "did completely change the page and put in a deceptive summary." Thank you both for your time and efforts on that page. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Girl Comics

Just thought I'd flag this one as it seems just your cup of tea - Marvel are planning on bringing back Girl Comics next year [5], with an all-female (or possibly female-slanted) creative team (a bit like they brought back Strange Tales with more indie creators). Up to you what you want to do with that nugget of news, at the least it'd be worth keeping an eye on it as the recentist bias in articles might tend to relegate the older series to more of a footnote (if it got mentioned at all) and I imagine it'll be necessary to step in and add some balance to proceedings at some point. I've added it to my watchlist anyway but the more the merrier. (Emperor (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

That said looking at Strange Tales there isn't actually a mention of the newer series (despite a lot of interest) so I might be way wrong on that one.

Still it might be a fun break from other areas ;) (Emperor (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC))

This article has now been started if you have anything to add. (Emperor (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Well it is still an outline but when it was rather stupidly redirected I had decided I'd better start it (rather than have the redirect deleted) but someone beat me to it.

One thing I wanted to consult on - what about an infobox image? The recentist tendencies of most editors would be to put the Girl Comics vol. 2 #1 cover in but that seems wrong considering the original was a long-running title and would surely get precedent. I suppose down the line we'll end up having a section for each title and might perhaps kill the infobox image in favour of one each for those sections but we will deal with that when we get to it. (Emperor (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Well I'm not sure about "near perfection" as I feel there is a lot of information missing, especially about the early title, but, as I say above, what I wanted to do was make sure there was something there that acknowledged the the first series existed (which wasn't the case with the first draft. (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Righto, I'll go and rummage up some images. (Emperor (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

No with images. (Emperor (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Ah yes a typo. I meant "now". (Emperor (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

It is an excellent start to that article - if only they all had such a good start in life. I'm afraid I can't contribute anything other than throwing in an infobox. Although now I see that image I am sure I ran across something on the whole "panties-fall-down" genre, but where and when elude me.

One for you potentially: Mike Royer (comics) (Emperor (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

Excellent work, thanks for that. I'll have another pass at it and see if there is anything I can add. (Emperor (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Merge proposal

I proposed a merge a while back but only two people (besides me) have posted. Having a discussion of 2 against 1 doesn't seem like enough people to establish consensus. If you could please post your opinion here I would appreciate it. I want enough opinions so that I can either merge the articles or end the discussion so that the merge tags are no longer at the top of the articles. Thank you. --Spidey104^contribs 03:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SherryShowgirl1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SherryShowgirl1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Style edits

Good to know I wasn't aware I was doing that. I will watch for that in the future. --Kumioko (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A friendly comment

T, since I've been unblocked I can respond here. Ok, there are a few things that I'd like to say - without venom or spite - to to what you've posted. Hopefully this can help us achieve a meeting of the minds.

Firstly, why be frustrated? I did ask for the blind reverts to cease so as to prevent legitimate information from being removed, and to help me out with style issues. You've done that, and it is appreciated. As to "merely reverting to the same disputed version", this is only partially true. It was only disputed by two fairly inexperienced editors who performed blind reverts and offered no discussion. You know of the lengths I went to try and reason with Ghidorah, who has also since vanished (very telling). DrBat was also told by BOZ not to make blind reverts, and thankfully did so.

Also, the comment "Most of your clashes appear to be with editors who have been here for years" is true at times, but remember that just because people have been editing here for years, that does not automatically make them a good editor. This is true of several people, and it is up to the more experienced (and possibly mature) editors to help them out.

Finally, can you please refrain from using the term "dishonest" and comments such as "Your comments are as remarkably disingenuous as ever" and "that lovely-excuse-for-all-things "bold edits"" as such things are inflammatory and unnecessary. I will never call anyone on Wikipedia dishonest, and would hope no one does this with regard to myself.

As I said to BOZ, we can all be smarter editors, which means thinking it through before reaching for the keyboard, and being a little more considerate. Most everyone in the regular gang have made a few faux pas in recent weeks (and that includes myself). Let's do better.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Tenebrae! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 00:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam Warlock

Excellent work, sir! Those were some key additions. BOZ (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You can always sign in and take the credit with a null edit. :) I think it's important to keep working on the quality for the articles of key importance, and I think your work on comics creators articles is probably even more critical than that of characters. Ayers is a good one, and I'd love to see articles like Jack Kirby and Alan Moore, etc really polish and shine one day. Of course, there are probably several dozen characters each from the Big Two that need to be key focuses as well, and Adam Warlock is one - I think it could be a GA with some more work. I was thinking earlier today that a peer review on that one couldn't hurt. BOZ (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:B-Class Comics creators articles might be a good place to start looking at, I think. Don't forget all those peer reviews I garnered a few months ago. BOZ (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! Nice catch on the "Adam Warlock seen in crowd during Planet Hulk" - those Easter Eggs, are, as you noted, very difficult to cite. It was indeed Warlock though (can be determined by the skull thingy and uniform - in the stands @ 41m 02s), The Grandmaster (17m 18s), a skrull (dunno which one - or have timecode since I dont know which one), and one other that I've caught so far (female, who's name escapes me))... but though I have scoured to try to find enough references on the Easter Eggs that are citable, I have found none.

Regardless, since it was likely an Easter Egg (the characters are there for one "camera" shot, then not there), I dont even know where someone could put it... a trivia section?

Best, Rob

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 09:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Galactus and the Cosmic Entities sections

Given that these seems to be turning into the usual problem of censoring any accuracy adjustment I make no matter how trivial, or censoring any contradicting information, and I have been very willing to compromise by adjusting the wording to find a solution that everyone can accept, in each case. I would like some unbiased outside input to clear it up, and give me some input I can actually trust, so I'm asking you, and BOZ, as you are editors whose judgement I trust. To me subjectively the two involved editors there seem too severely biased to be willing to compromise in the slightest, and I'm tired of going around in circles about it. (Meaning: I need someone with a clear head, and who isn't cultishly devoted to the character, to evaluate and tell me what is the appropriate thing to do for me here.) Dave (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to help, but I'm not sure what you're asking me to look at, specifically. Is there a discussion ongoing that you can point to? BOZ (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the situation, there have been various repeated discussions going on about Galactus for quite a long while (including some recent ones at the Cosmic Entities and ModbbOne's talk pages), that usually end with that I've provided lots of contradiction references, and on some occasions even taken the time to dig up the quotes, but the inaccurate facts are nonetheless maintained, or the contradictions censored to only allow a viewpoint of absolute "yay pump-up endorsement", whereas I always keep the references they like, and adjust my sentences to incorporate complaints about lack of neutrality.

TheBalance and MobbOne have a history of repeatedly inserting that the "power cosmic that Galactus is a living embodiment of is the greatest force in the universe" based on an Annihilation crossover book that didn't say anything about being an incarnation (the "force" has also been mentioned as simply absorbing cosmic energy from stars in conjunction with the Silver Surfer), and stated that there were more potent forces around;

Or that "Galactus is the living embodiment of the entire previous universe, and nothing else whatsoever came out of the union, i.e. the Big Bang never happened" based on an origin story that very explicitly shows Galactus and the Sentience of the previous universe to be separate entities when Galactus incubation cocoon is sent out in the universe (this is even the image displayed at the page, that clearly shows this text);

Or censor any references to the Thanos story wherein Galactus' string of serial-genocide is very clearly stated as the actions of an absolutely conceited egomaniac, who is capable of feeding on other energy sources than living beings (also stated that he can feed on stars in the first Secret Wars), and is an individual who is perfectly capable of holding conversation with his "food", but blatantly disregards his social contract as Thanos worded it;

Or that "Galactus embodies one third of everything that exists," despite that he has simply been stated as the balancing factor between the entities Eternity and Death, and as a strictly physical entity by Mark Gruenwald's Quasar series (who wrote Galactus' origin story), i.e. not as an embodiment of anything, but rather as a function, also ignoring all the other high abstract entities that have appeared, that the most recent Guardians of the Galaxy reference is that all abstracts are simply "simplifications" of one single Universal consciousness (i.e. Eternity and Death are simply two expressions of the same entity, and Galactus isn't a balance of anything), or for that matter thew times he has been explicitly described as an "insect" compared to Eternity (Mark Millar's Fantastic Four for example) or lesser entities than Eternity such as the Beyonder (the first Secret Wars series), not remotely as an equal. And that the handbooks also have never referred to Galactus as anything beyond a physical entity fulfilling an extremely important function, or even referred to Eternity as Galactus parent, who was reborn during the Big Bang, not merged with him;

Or insert that Galactus teleported an entire (somehow by machinery already moved) galaxy even though the reference "Rom: Spaceknight" issue itself was kept vague whether he teleported it or a planet within it, and later issues directly cotnradicted it, by saying that (only) the planet (Galador) was moved away from its usual galaxy, and that the handbooks have also repeated this when describing the event, and not mentioned any galaxy moving;

Or insert that "Galactus' solar-system sized former home is the universe's greatest energy source", taken from a story wherein Reed Richard's said "might", the spaceship itself was destroyed, the energy absorbed by Doctor Doom, and then shown as having far less power than a "Cosmic Cube"/Beyonder, i.e. not remotely the greatest energy source, and the ship in question is not even around anymore;

Or for that matter deleting the slightest adjustment I make to the page, not matter how tiny, such as clarifying that Galactus explicitly had lots of help from Doctor Strange when restoring himself from an explosion that destroyed his body (later occasions have shown Galactus getting killed from damage).

Meaning, at this point it to me it very genuinely feels like I'm talking to two fanatic scientologists who will censor anything they don't like, no matter how factual, and insert phrases of greater overblown endorsement than anything that Marvel's editorial department or the books themselves has ever remotely acknowledged or even the references they use can support. I freely admit that I have a bias of disliking the thematics when a writer uses a character to justify genocide, yes, but for one I don't dislike the character as such any more than say Dormammu, whose motivation in-story is to slaughter all conceptual entities, take control of reality, and turn all life and afterlife into an eternal torture camp (nice guy...), and I have nonetheless tried to make accurately presented in terms of extablished power scale. It is just a fictional character after all.

However, I do have a major problem with when certain fans get so overenthusiastic, one-sided, and overly protective in their endorsements that it turns completely unfounded, misleading, and censoring of anything that contradicts their preferences/claims as less than absolute story notions. They tend to completely miss the point about the way I think no matter if I try to show the courtesy of explaining it (as I again tried to do in MobbOne's Talk and the Cosmic Entities sections), and start to talk about how great their character is, rather than acknowledge the contradictions, or try to tone them down to nothingness "he encountered this character" mentions, so there is no middle-way it seems.

Where you come in is that this also means that I'm so jaded at this point that I can't take almost anything they said as non-insanely biased (or at least not as long as they continue to censor the tinies detail), so I need some sensible outside input about what I should do? Should I take the (considerable) time to dig up quotes and issue numbers again, only to have these ignored and censored once more, or what should I do? Or could you even find the time to help Tenebrae check it over and find a neutral solution? To me this is the bad side of the character articles in a nutshell situation. If complete devotees gather they will easily censor the page from any references they dislike, ignore arguments and contradictory quotes, and simply state that adjusting for accuracy and allowing both sides of the issue constitutes an "edit-war" that they of course have no part of... right. This "I own the pages" thing was going on over a year ago, after I finally lost all energy of repeating myself over and over in the Talk, only to have it ignored, and I have no enthusiasm about entering it again, but also severely dislike when Wikipedia is used for some sort of one-sided propaganda purposes, especially if it connects to just rationalising genocide. Dave (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm really not sure what to do about that situation. I mean, if you've got editor(s) who are going to do their darndest to keep an article the way they like it, there's only so much an admin can do directly. That's a situation that's not unique to Galactus. I could protect the page if there is edit warring, but if as you say talk page discussion resolves nothing then we would be back to where we started when the protection runs out. If you've said it all before and it all got ignored, I wouldn't want you to waste your time on the article's talk page. I know you've said you don't see a point in using mediation with Asgardian, but have you considered using the dispute resolution process with these other users? I don't really have any comments specific to what sort of content the page should contain, as I have no real preference in that matter. BOZ (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But this is about blatant severely biased censorship and misinformation, not about preference. To me the entire point of Wikipedia is to maintain as many (referenced) sides of an issue as possible. I don't censor the ones they prefer, and have even inserted several of them myself. I feel a strong fundamental wrongness to this type of thing going on. Couldn't you and Tenebrae (or someone else you suggest) go in and mention some sort of compromise to keep it somewhat balanced, or maybe adjust my edits in a way that you consider acceptable? Dave (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually like to jump into content disputes unless I have some kind of idea what to expect, but I could take a look when I have the time - which may or may not be soon. I don't have access to most of the comics in question (and for those which I do own, I'd have to dig them out and take a look), so I can only go by what you say you see there and what they say they see there, and if I don't remember what happened in that particular comic I'll have to go and look it up to be on a more even ground. Also, in some cases it's a question of interpretation; are you "right", are they "right", or is there no "right answer"? It's a situational thing, I guess. Your "censorship" might be their "keeping out irrelevant details", your "misinformation" might be their "misinterpretation" - I can't know that until I've seen the source material myself. That's why I don't ususally get involved unless I know what to expect. I can tell you that I have most of Byrne's run on FF, and a large chunk of the 1990s Silver Surfer series if that helps; can't think of what else off the top of my head you might need me to look at. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see it more as allowing both sides of an issue and keeping things as reliable as possible, but there have been an awful lot of very incoherent discussions in the old Galactus Talk archives, and you can see the beginnings of more recent ones at User_talk:Mobb_One and Talk:Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics), which I haven't had the energy to fully commit to yet until I think that it actually may be worth it, but the quickest way to see what the matters/issue references of content are in this case, you can see here (if you have read the Byrne FF run you will probably remember that the Skrull prosecutor really was spitting) and here.

For starters these images clearly show Doctor Strange helping Galactus in reconstituting himself: http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/2990/death48gz.jpg http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4605/death57vs.jpg http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/811/death61jw.jpg http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/6421/death73ur.jpg and this clearly shows the sentience of the previous Universe to be separate from Galactus when it propels him away from itself during the Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galan-galactus.jpg I could start finding or uploading more specific scans as you ask for them. Dave (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Trial of Reed Richards was definitely a classic.  :) I vaguely remember the frothing Skrull prosecutor - mad with rage at the being who had killed so many Skrulls.

I see "I try to reconstitude Galactus and the otehrs before it's too late" as Strange fights Death in the first image, and then in the fourth image Galactus is back and the Surfer and Nova wonder if it was Galactus's power that saved them and reassembled them, while Strange smiles knowingly. I'm with you there; Strange clearly helped Galactus restore himself (or at least tried to help).

On the "birth of the universe" picture, it is clear that the rocketing starship is flying away from something - some big orangey-yellow mass of energy (the Big Bang, presumably), but wheter the sentience of the universe is located in the energy, or is with the ship, or is omnipresent is unclear to me. The voice appears to be with the ship, but it could in reality be projected from anywhere and everywhere. BOZ (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I read the "Go now" comment as someone sending him away (i.e. the universe sending the incubated Galactus away from itself as it starts to explode), and in addition to this the editorial handbooks have mentioned Eternity as being reborn in the Big Bang, Galactus referred to the entity as "father" during the Trial of Galactus, and there certainly was more than one "product" coming out of the Big Bang explosion. He was never stated to encapsule it within him, simply to have been incubated within it and transformed into a "galactic ravager." (Which was a weird statement. Was this some sort of revenge action from that universe for going through temporary destruction, or simply wishing to be remembered for something even if it was someone going around killing a few billion people a month?) Yet they continue to insert "Galactus is the product of the union between the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe" and Galan" over and over instead of the neutral "a product" that I have changed it to, or my most recent attempt "Galactus was created from the union between the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe" and Galan" (although I would prefer it as "Galactus was created from Galan's incubation within the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe"" to keep it completely matter-of-fact). They revert either to the biased and imho severely misleading one. Dave (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right; I suppose it's a matter of individual interpretation at that point. It doesn't seem important to say that Galactus was separated from sentience at that point (whether he was separated or not), and I would figure it's enough to say that the sentience sent him out into the universe. As far as him being a ravager, I'd simply say that's a matter of universal balance - we have cosmic entities that preserve and create life, and we have those that destroy instead. BOZ (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the type to really accept that rationale, as scientifically speaking there is no "cosmic balance", even natural laws are fluid with time and cicumstance, and certainly not in a "evil must be preserved" new age sense, nor in a social-Darwinian one, as all living beings die anyway without some giant guy in a purple suit eating them instead of non-sentient stars, and I really didn't like Odin's Mussolini rationale of him being a "storm" to "test" civilisations, so everyone who couldn't stand up to him "deserved to die"... that's way too Hitler for me. On the other hand cosmic entities that simply embody natural force without specifically targetting only living beings as anything other than a side-reaction, such as Entropy, are much easier to accept, as they do not carry inherent ideology within them, simply scientific relevance. (And Galactus would be as well if he simply went around destroying planets randomly, whether populated or not) Then again, Hitler was very into Viking mythology (and Spartan society), so it may be the first time we actually see the Viking gods in full psychopathic bloodthirsty ideology character. Later Jeph Loeb made a more sympathetic attempt to explain Galactus as holding an even worse threat in check through the power he absorbs, but that still doesn't check with why he doesn't feed on stars instead. Hmm, straying again...

Anyway, so do you agree that it should be mentioned that Strange helped Galactus; and that the neutral "a product" or "was created from" are preferable to stating that Galactus was the only thing that came out of the union as a definitive fact?

Or that "The consequences of the storyline in Fantastic Four #242-244 (May-July 1982) were examined in Fantastic Four #262 (Jan. 1984), wherein the living sentience of the Marvel Universe was presented to make a validation of the existence of Galactus in the Marvel Universe, whereas the victims were represented by a frothing Skrull prosecutor. This attracted controversy from Howard University Professor of Literature Marc Singer, who criticized writer-artist John Byrne for using the character as a means to "justify planetary-scale genocide." is NPOV, given that the presented Skrull really was frothing, and then Byrne really did let Eternity show up as a "higher purpose ask no more" approval stamp counterpart? Dave (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Good observation on the Odin-Hitler thing – I wouldn't have thought about it that way until you made the comparison.

When editing articles, I try to be a literalist as much as possible, drawing as few of my own conclusion as I can in the interest of WP:OR and WP:V (it's a slippery slope).

I would agree that mentioning Strange helping Galactus in the context I mention above sounds good. Unless we know for a fact that Galactus was the only thing created by the union of Galan and the universal sentience, it is not appropriate to state that he was the only thing: therefore I'd say "was created from" would be appropriate, and "a product of" is OK but perhaps less so.

Your paragraph seems to meet NPOV, although I have not verified the information against any sources personally. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm glad to hear it. Would you be willing to do a verification and maybe reinsert these specific edits to the page to avoid any more "not so merry" go-around again? Dave (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been crazy busy on deadlines and such for the last couple of weeks and haven't been Wiki-editing. I'm sorry I missed being able to offer the asked-for help. Since this is now 11 days ago, I'm assuming the issues were more or less revolved. -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Juggernaut

I've made some tweaks to the article, but can now see what you were saying about the PH structure. I've bumped the 3rd party quote to the end of the PH, and placed the inscription sequence in the Bio, where it belongs.

On a completely unrelated note, I notice your display star has changed. So there are stars one can display without being awardd by another party?

Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs

It's a big job, but any help you can give would be great. BOZ (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring

I think what you're suggesting here would require going to ArbCom, with the intention of looking to get a mentor(s) for Asgardian. BOZ (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that your comment about spacing of all things will seem to an outside party as a bit over the top and a very minor issue, especially when weighed against everything else that dozens of others don't do. That said, no problem - Sept, it is and no spaces for dashes.

As to mentoring, I'd actually suggest this course of action for David A. A look at his Edit History and some of the recent comments he has made could get him into real trouble (and I'm not the only one with concerns [6]).

By the by, thanks for the awards link. Interesting reading. Asgardian (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No particular new message. I just appreciated your support for my remarks in the RfC. Best wishes. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Vince Colletta Wikipedia page

Hi Tenebrae, As usual, I'm probably trying to communicate with you from the wrong place. Sorry. In fact, I wanted to avoid changing the Vince Colletta page before contacting you as I'm sure I'd screw it up somehow as well.

I'm proposing two things. First, that some mention be made, along with what you've already written about his being known primarily as Jack Kirby's inker, that he was the predominant Romance artist for most of the 50's, 60's and into the 70's. I believe he penciled and inked every romance title Timely-Atlas published for more than 10 years (in addition to an average of two stories in each.) Second, I'd like to see a better picture than the one displayed and will be glad to send you a few to choose from if you like. The women he drew in the 50s were exquisitely beautiful and a depiction would define one of the things my dad was known for. Franklin222 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Franklin222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin222 (talk • contribs)

Basil Gogos

Thanks. You can see the rest of my comic book creator pics at the Commons categories for Midtown Comics, Big Apple Con, 2009 Brooklyn Book Festival and New York Comic Con. With the exception of about 26 in the New York Comic Con, they're all mine.

Btw, since it's clear that Asgardian has no intention of changing his behavior, or even acknowledging that he has a problem, would you agree that he needs to be indefinitely blocked? I've asked around, and have been told that the way to go about this is to present a summary of the problem at ArbCom. I don't know if any of the others would be willing to write it, and I'm the one who articulates the specific nature of his behavior when reacting to criticism, so I'd be willing to do it, but I'd like to get your input first. Do you support this? Nightscream (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Netzer and Abel pages

Thanks for streamlining and removing promotional sounding text (which I sensed was too much beforehand). Been away for a while and was maybe a little rusty about style. There's an additional issue you might be able to help with. I added some citations for statements marked as needing them, but can't find how to handle the same citation if it appears more than once. So, if you notice citations #13,14 and 15 are the same. Likewise #17 and 25. I know there's a "reflist" mechanism that can fix this so that each citation only appears once in the list, but can't readily find how it works. Or, if it's alright as it is, that's OK too. Also a general question about biographical photos, specifically for Jack Abel's page which doesn't have one: Is it possible to use an illustration? I have a portrait illustration of him that I can place in CC license, but not sure if bio policy allows it. It's especially important because there are no free photos of Jack to be found (I've looked). Michael Netzer (talk) 02:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for good demo of how to combine identical refs. Everywhere I looked, I couldn't find where the actual ref text was placed. It only makes sense it would be in the first ref but this is the first time the method was clearly visible. (I'm also a little dense with baking pies :) Also added the Jack Abel illustration. Likewise, always, but always, a big pleasure working with you here. Michael Netzer (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thor (Marvel Comics)

Please come to the discussion at Talk:Thor (Marvel Comics)#Character_Biography. Thank you. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied to comment. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration request for a permanent ban on Asgardian

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I hope you don't mind me naming you as a party; The arbitration fill-out form provided spaces for four involved parties, including the filing party (me). This left the focus of our efforts (Asgardian), and two left over, so I chose you and BOZ, because BOZ spearheaded the RfC, and because you supported my observations on the RfC Talk Page of Asgardian's WP:GAME behavior when criticized. If you have any problems with this, just let me know.

There are two spaces available for the other parties to comment. According to the Arbitration guide, State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail. Since one of the spaces provided must be for Asgardian to comment, the other will go to you or BOZ, though I suppose the second one of you to get there can simply create another.

Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request for Permanent, Site-Wide Ban on Asgardian and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

MLJ / Archie / Red Circle etc

I've decided to take on revising the MLJ/Archie titles and superhero information over the next few months. Nobody else seems to be interested in tidying up a very untidy corner - it was first mooted 18 months ago at Talk:Archie_Comics. I noticed you were involved in a deletion discussion several years ago over Archie stuff, and wondered whether you could spare a few minutes to glance over my plan for revision at my home page. I'd appreciate any input - feel free to scribble or tell me I'm insane Archiveangel (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the extremely prompt and updates, and the very helpful commentary which has given me a few more things to tighten up in my editing. The shortened date thing - many pages don't seem to do that, so I assumed the long version is right, ditto 'The' in character names. U.S. Grammar will I suspect always be a slight problem - I'm still getting used to the lack of 'u' in words! I'm sure others will oblige when I slip.

You're right about the 'anthology' OR once I thought about it properly. The Black Hood 'well-regarded' I could provide a number of quotes for, but on reflection it's not important anyway. I did know about the St John Blue Ribbon, but assumed it wasn't 'Blue Ribbon Comics' I must check Overstreet every time. Pity about the new, redline, links though, but you're right, it will be at least a few weeks before I can start addressing characters without pages as I'm doing titles first. I'll just have to do them as they come up.

Thanks for the positivity - I'm sure you're aware that it's a bit 'working in the dark' as to style, content etc. working from scratch, so good to see I'm somewhere on the right lines. See you in Top-Notch Comics tomorrow, I guess! (nearly done). Thanks again, appreciated Archiveangel (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the statement you made on the case page to the evidence page as no more changes should be made to the case page. I have copied as-is, but given that your statement is now part of the evidence, you may want to copyedit it. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of removing myself as an involved party from the arbitration case, because I'm apparently really not on board with what Nightscream is trying to accomplish. Do you have any good reasons for me to remain? BOZ (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, sorry to butt into this conversation, but I was asked to become involved in the Arbitration Case as well. Among other things, I am not sure how to participate (am fairly new to editing Wikipedia), but more to the point, while I do not see permanent banning as a solution, I dont see not doing anything as one either. The problem is, (again, due to my naivety at this) I am not sure if the Arbitration case is the place to request other sanctions, or if it's solely for a yes/no on whether banning Asgardian is warranted.

If I am correctly reading what Boz is saying, it is a place for a yes/no take sides scenario... can one of you, who surely has more experience in these matters than I, confirm this or suggest how I can participate without anything negative said leading towards a ban?

And again, apologies for butting into this conversation.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 02:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am probably just as inexperienced in arbitration cases as you are. :) I don't know that you can't request other sanctions, and although I'd think it should not be a "yes/no" proposition, for all I know it may be that way. You might want to try asking on one of the case's talk pages, or maybe contact the clerk, AlexandrDmitri. BOZ (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with your parole officer idea, for the same reason I do not agree with BOZ's "mentor" idea. Asgardian's problems are those of character, not skill, and these band-aid-on-a-bullet-wound "solutions", which may have been reasonable in the past, when the pattern of Asgardian's behavior had not fully emerged, are symptomatic of the refusal or inability of people to draw a line in the sand and say, "I believe we've had enough. This has been going on for three and a half years, and it's time that it ended." Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Tenebrae, I replied to you on my talk page a few days ago. :) BOZ (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And, sigh. BOZ (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what the next step is, and I have been feeling that asking the clerk would be a good idea. I am finishing up my statement and hope to have it posted within the hour. BOZ (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. :) The only writing I've done is some freelance work for Dragon in 2006-2007. :) BOZ (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that the evidence has been presented, please read and/or join in this conversation. BOZ (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

About portrait illustrations

Thanks for the kind words. The work and devotion you and others give here on behalf of the comics medium are the inspiration. Naturally, I'm not attached to the presence of these portraits on Wikipedia as I produce them also for my online sketchbook. They're only there to fill an empty space. If and when good photo images are found for their subjects (such as the nice new photo of Jack Abel), which would better suit the biography image, there should be no hesitation in replacing the illustrations with it. Thanks again, with great admiration. Michael Netzer (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Star Reach

User:EyeScan, formerly User:GrayLyda, is a Star Reach contributor. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If he observes our COI guidelines for the next few days, I'd say yeah, no prob. If you'd like to monitor the article (not my fave Chaykin project, frankly), I'll take the tag off for the time being. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Solid

Those are good additions on Juggernaut and Infinity Gauntlet. I do appreciate that professional touch you bring to the small stuff as it is needed. Asgardian (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up of evidence

KnightLago, the drafting arbitrator, will start posting on the workshop page early next week, so this is the time to submit any final evidence. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Got a few replies to your questions. :) BOZ (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there - were you going to add anything more to the Workshop page? BOZ (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Anything you want to add can go right here. :) I'd say to watch out for anyone else taking that one first, but then I'm kind of surprised that Asgardian hasn't started his own proposal section by now. BOZ (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence

Hello Tenebrae. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1300 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hulk Special 01.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hulk Special 01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics/Spider-Man work group

You are still welcome to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Spider-Man work group if you want. I could defianetly use more members. Even if you are busy with something else you can still join. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

GCD

Well I did add features at your request so it seems rude not to use it ;)

If you need a hand or want me to check something then give me a nudge. (Emperor (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for File:AllAmericanComics8.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:AllAmericanComics8.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jumbo1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jumbo1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rick Schmidlin proposed for deletion

Hey there. OK, I'm not surprised someone put Rick Schmidlin up for deletion as the current article is complete crap. I saw that an IP was in heavy edit mode and didn't want to start an edit war so I figured I'd wait for him/her to finish then tag the article and maybe clean some of it up. I did a quick search on Amazon and it does appear that Rick has some production and directing credits on the projects mentioned in the article (Doors, Elvis, Touch of Evil, etc.). Whether a good article can be wrangled from all that, I don't know. I know I don't care and don't particularly want to but maybe in a couple of days I'll feel like tackling it. Meantime, the IMDB page reads very similar to the article. Oh but check this out, looks like he did win some awards. Crap. OK, if no one else responds soon I'll see what I can do. SQGibbon (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I responded to the notice at ANI. I have set up a sandbox to see what can go into the article. There are a few decent sources (only one IMDB so far!). I'll be working on a new version of the article over the next week but whatever I come up with will be very stubby. I say "work on" but really it'll just be a brief mention of his birth, an infobox, and a listing of verifiable credits and awards. So any help you can provide would be awesome. SQGibbon (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and worked on it. You can see my new stubby version here. I also left a note about it on the Talk page. If you get the chance you can look it over and see what you think. If it's OK then I guess we can just copy it over and replace the current article. SQGibbon (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft decision for Asgardian Arbitration case

Please see [7]. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, I'm going to make a comment soon that states that you and I are bascially OK, and have had a meeting of the minds. I am sorry that we have clashed in the past, but would like to put that behind us (which I think is already reflected in some of the supportive edits in recent times). I still maintain that a certain two other users have issues (that actually go beyond my edits), but don't think I place you in the same category as these editors (who are not bad people, but needed to be reined in some time ago). I'll post (if I can locate the correct place to put comments!) in a day or so.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey there - since I believe you and Asgardian both had something to add, I created a couple more spots for you guys. You can be "User Y" if you get there first; otherwise, you are "User Z", whether you like it or not (hey, you snooze, you lose)! :) If you're not sure how to format your additions, check around at other examples, or ask an arb to help. BOZ (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Romance comics

Thank you! I value your opinion. See you at the Comics Project! CentervilleCinderella (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian now in voting

Just a friendly notice that, with the posting of the Proposed decision, the Asgardian case has moved on to the voting stage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My goal has ever always been for Asgardian to be able to remold himself, and like you I have been frustrated to find little or no progress in that regard despite the increased pressure put on him. Thus, I felt it was necessary to ensure one last plea that, should he choose to take it, would allow him to come back in if he is willing to work at it. Naturally, a year later with the S-O-S will likely result in a re-ban, so hopefully he will take the time to see where he went wrong and actually correct it.

That said, there's probably no need to further add to the Workshop page, as it is already at the voting stage, and a year-long ban seems imminent. BOZ (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill Cosby

Hi, I undid your last edit as policy allows commercial sites or sites behind paywalls to be used as references. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO refers to links placed in External links sections. For sources, I believe you're looking for WP:SOURCEACCESS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's sometimes tricky distinguishing good faith references from reference spam ("refspam"). For example, this is clearly refspam [8]. A good reference note tells you how to obtain the reference. Wikipedia has a facility (Special:BookSources) to look up where you can get a book via the ISBN but unfortunately, no such feature exists for doctoral dissertations. So we have three options:

1. Find out where his disssertation is stored at a university and change the reference to that (or try to cut out the commercial aspect)
2. Decide the reference was added in good faith and its usefulness outweighs the commercial aspect
3. Decide it is indeed refspam and remove it (keeping in mind the sentences it was sourcing might have to be removed too as referencing guidelines for WP:BLP's are stricter than for other articles)

It looks like you're doing a lot of work on the article so whatever you decide is fine with me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the ProQuest find - that's great, well done! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• User:Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Tenebrae is being blocked for unknown reason

Asked for a checkuser to look into this. Might take a while. Tim Song (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|No idea what this is about. 207.237.230.0/24 was blocked, and my IP 207.237.230.157 seems to be in that range, but I'm a stable, longtime Comics Project editor and I have no idea what this is about or who The Rusty Trombone is.}}

Galactus

David A has been running up against TheBalance and MobbOne on that article for a good long time, aside from Asgardian having trouble with all three of them in the past (though it had been mostly all three against David for some time now). I may have to ultimately appeal for a long-term topic ban for the three of them on that article if they simply can't work together. There's no excuse to allow this to continue, especially in the wake of Asgardian's banning. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) BOZ (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. It's going to be a busy weekend (and rest of the week), but I'll see if I can "pencil in" some time to have another look at this situation. Asking Emperor and/or JGreb to have a look is not a bad idea in the meantime. I would support a long-term topic ban for the two of them, if only because the fighting has gone on for so long, but I would not count out MobbOne as he seems to pop back in and out from time to time. Ban David and Balance, and you create a vacuum for him to step in - bad idea. I think this is an ideal situation to bring up formal Mediation, and if that fails or if one or more party refuses, then we will discuss a ban. BOZ (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm employed so far. ;) In fact, this week, for the first time in a long time, we are working overtime! BOZ (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing personal details with you; however, anyone at all can read anything I post. BOZ (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of formal volunteer mediators. BOZ (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Teamwork

Hi, there. Thanks for improving my edit to Bill Cosby. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:AdventuresOfPussycat1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:AdventuresOfPussycat1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:AmazingAdventures39.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:AmazingAdventures39.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:ApacheKid2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ApacheKid2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Customs and culture

Are you saying that movies and sports are not part of American culture? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're trying to grain it more finely than culture that's at the national level? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you're looking for things that are uniquely American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Man 2

There is a clear consensus for the approach you advocate and it is the one that makes sense (Marvel are clearly trying to avoid too many characters running around with "silly" aliases, even if they are based on the relevant characters). I might even go further and suggest linking to the character's name, even if that then redirects to the character page under the alias. The case of "Whiplash" underlines how important this is as they are using an amalgam of a couple of characters which needs to be explained in the text (properly sourced, of course ;) ). (Emperor (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

hiya

I looked at the pages, as asked. Both look to be well handled, with good talk page consensus, and I support the avoidance of outright labels, and it seems the consensus is similar. Congrats on keeping the pages going. The IM2 really ought to source a lot more about Favreau's goals and intentions, as well as how he had to change those over the production... but they look good. Sorry, I just don't edit as much as I used to. ThuranX (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Barry Allen image

There's a new candidate for the main infobox image I've decided to present, and I'd appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010. Thanks! --CmdrClow (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Heritage Magazine for Collectors - online archive! New link

Hi there. A couple of years ago, well 2 and a half, I sent youa link to a PDF of an article about Stan Lee that featured some nice pix. I bookmarked that link and recently, I discovered it was a dead link. Not one to be thwarted, I searched to see if the magazine was even still around since I hadn't gotten an issue in over a year. it seems they've gone digital. However, that is not bad news. they now have an archive page to their old issues including a new PDF link to the issue with the Stan lee article. Also, most of their issues usually contain at least one useful and interesting piece on Comics. I thought you might find their archive interesting and entertaining. Here's the link Heritage Magazine Archive. For the most recent issues, you have to be a registered subscriber to access them , but it is free to subscribe and they have a link to that form on the side of the page. The PDF's can be accessed by anyone. If you decide to use any of them as references, I would recommend printing the relevant article out in case they redesign their pages again. That way you can refer back to them or possibly include in the inline citation, the small bit of text you're relying on as a quote. I'm not quite sure how to do that yet, but I see lots of other, more experienced editors using that option. I hope you're doing well. If you're on facebook, I'd love to add you as a friend. I'm there as Lisa Feerick Pollison (no hyphen).LiPollis (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Galactus - the final solution?

With Asgardian removed, David A and TheBalance have continued to go at each other over Galactus, and related Marvel cosmic articles such as Living Tribunal, Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics), and Template:Marvel Cosmic. Rather than let that siutation go on ad nauseum (although it is currently much less than it once was), I think there needs to be a resolution that either gets them to work together, or to stay away from each other. I suggested the idea of volunteer mediators to the two of them; David seemed skeptical but willing to try. Balanace said he "wouldn't object" but was too busy at the time, so I asked that he let me know when he was less busy; I have yet to hear back from him on the subject. I know you're not an admin, but you are an experienced editor and I trust your judgement. I'd like to explore our available options for resolving this situation, maybe on the Galactus talk page or somewhere. BOZ (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring has resumed between these two users, and they have also been using edit summaries to discuss their differences rather than talk pages (and when they have used talk pages, little resolution has come of it). I think it would be good to discuss the best availabe option for keeping the two of them away from each other; please join me at User talk:BOZ#David A and The Balance for discussion. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:BlackPhantom1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:BlackPhantom1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Blackhawk74.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Blackhawk74.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Double check

Could you have a look at these two articles started this month by the same editor which have strong parallels with the Lambiek articles: Tex Blaisdell and Roger Brand, but this (the other article they started this month) seems fine Zack Mosley [9]. They all seem in your general area of expertise (or one of them ;) ) so I thought I'd ask - it isn't a copy and paste job but it is close enough it might raise eyebrows (and possibly cause problems for the articles further down the line), but perhaps there is only so many ways you can lay out the information with such limited sources and this will be all smoothed out as the articles expand. (Emperor (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

I used numerous sources for Tex Blaisdell. With Roger Brand I will add more when I have time. Pepso2 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AV Report

The bot removed it because it wasn't formatted correctly, I fixed it [10]. Dreadstar ☥ 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been several hours since the IP's last edits; if they continue, let me know and I'll take a look. Dreadstar ☥ 17:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected both Kites (film) and Dubtitle; that'll keep the vandal from hopping IP's to edit them from. I'll leave the IP's unblocked for now, but let me know if they get disruptive. Dreadstar ☥ 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll periodically check the edits of those two IP's to see if they're causing disruption elsewhere, if so, I'll block them both. Also, let me know if you think other IP's have been adding good material to the article, if so, then it might be better to unprotect, and potentially play whack-a-mole with the IP-hopper. Dreadstar ☥ 03:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper blogs and the like

Just FYI, the change I had made at WP:IRS was intended to give blogs more scrutiny, not less.

Although it can be said that bloggers working for a newspaper are subject to full editorial control, that control is little exercised. (I work at a newspaper, so I'm not pulling this out of the air.)

Here's something I had put earlier at WT:V:

Newspaper blogs aren’t directly comparable to columns in print. The difference for our purposes is in the lack of editing. As a rule of thumb: Anything in a print newspaper is reviewed by at least two people after the writer and before publication, but newspaper blogs are not edited.

See this article from the American Journalism Review (Dec 06 – Jan 07):

* "Most newspaper blogs are self-edited."

* "Nobody edits what I write before it goes online." – Daniel Rubin, full-time blogger at the Philadelphia Inquirer

* "Some newspapers try to edit at least some of their blogs."

Maurreen (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Tenebrae, I would say that I'm fairly good at placing edit summaries for my edits, especially when compared to most editors. I would guess that at least 95% of my edits have descriptive edit summaries, so I was surprised to see your post to my talk page. Was there a particular edit (or edits) that prompted this "small request"? I will try to make that 100% instead of 95%. (My question is out of curiosity.) Spidey104^contribs 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I did have a bad streak there on the 19th with several in a row that did not have edit summaries. Thanks! Spidey104^contribs 05:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

David A and TheBalance have agreed to mediation, so I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Galactus. If you feel you should be a party to this case, you may add yourself to the mediation, or I can do it for you; I believe that non-parties are not allowed to comment on active cases, so please take that into consideration as you decide. Also, please keep in mind that inactive contributors can cause a stall in the case, so if you may have trouble in continued participating then you should not add yourself. If you are added, make sure to sign the agreement – mediation cannot proceed until all parties have agreed.

If you do join the case, you may consider adding your own statement under the "Additional issues" header (please wait for David A and TheBalance to add statements first). This should be brief and discuss succinctly the issues between the two of them regarding article content, as you see it, not how you feel about the editors' conduct. For example, you would want to say "I feel the article should include X, but he removes it; I feel the article should not include X, but he restores it; I try to rewrite parts to fix them in a particular style but he reverts it", and describe, in brief, why you feel these edits are appropriate. Brevity is the key here; assuming the case is accepted, you should have ample opportunity to explain your feelings later. Remember that Mediation is about trying to resolve differences, not about proving who is right or wrong, or getting the editors in trouble. It is not about providing evidence of wrongdoing on an editor's part, because this is not an Arbitration case. The idea is not to discuss how you feel about an editor's conduct, or what kind of person they are, or focus on the negatives – this is an attempt for these editors to try to see the positives in the other person's point of view and find a middle ground.

Also, if you feel that I have included any articles in the case which should not be included, or that I failed to include any articles which should be included, please let me know as I can change that before the case begins.BOZ (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there - you should probably give the two of them a chance to speak before you add. :) BOZ (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but keep that in reserve as it will probably be worth adding later. May be more appropriate in another time and place. BOZ (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, I almost forgot - since they have both signed the RfM, and since David posted a bunch on the talk page, you may feel free to restore your comments at any time. :) BOZ (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Sometimes I am comparing sources as I write and then I forget to put in the references. I'll try to fill in some blanks soon. Pepso2 (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Inkwell Awards Question

I started an Inkwell Awards profile awhile back. I see you made made many adjustments and corrections. It was stamped with "This article is written like an advertisement" but then you made about 9 corrections. Does it still read like an ad? Seems rather neutral to me. There's no flowerly language, superlatives, or verbage attempting to influence an opinion. It's a comic industry award...here's the history...the people behind the scenes...the previous winners...where funding comes from...the spokesmodel. Any advice on how to fix it? Thanks! --207.12.129.3 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello. You have a new message at Horkana's talk page.

Spidey history

No problem - I'll have a look. :) Also see my latest comment in the above section (re Galactus mediation). BOZ (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Spider-Man history request

Hi - thanks for the heads-up. Apologies - I'd actually started work on helping with this, but didn't think to let anyone know what I'm doing. I've been working through my fanzine collection for writer/artist quotes as secondaries; I'll add anything in the next few days. I'll also go through the text later - didn't think it worth while correcting tiny grammatical and spelling errors at this stage (nice to see I'm not the only one manic enough to spend whole days on an article - grand work on the first stab).

Although I've got just about every issue through 2005, I must confess my interest dropped out around 1992, so I know more about Spider-Man titles before then. However, if there's anything needs checking from later, I'm more than happy to pull and read. Anything else, just ask. Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)