Talk:John Buscema

Photo of John Buscema

Reader Steve sent the following e-mail to the Wikimedia Help Desk:

I noticed that the French article on comic artist John Buscema has a picture of him that the English article did not. Here is the link: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Buscema

Capitalistroadster 23:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE change that photo drawing of Conan to an appropriate photo of John Buscema?--Hokgwai 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Avengers cover image

No offense to the individual who posted this cover, but I have to --opine that this particular image is a rather poor example of this artist's work. If anyone has a better piece to substitute, it would be appreciated (at least by me). I don't have a scanner, otherwise I'd download one myself. How about something from his late sixties Avengers run, Silver Surfer, or Conan?Odysseybookshop 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Template

This article is in desperate need of cleanup. It is filled with personal opinion and original-research essays. I removed the following, for example:

One could characterize Buscema 1950s work as a period of gradual constant improvement; his work was continuing to improve as he left the field, which is somewhat different from other of his contemporaries (such as Williamson, Frazetta, Wood, Drucker, Toth, Heck, Ditko) who often experienced an earlier youthful artistic peak period.

No citations, lots of assumptions, last names tossed out at a general reader to whom they'd mean nothing ... on and on and on. The overall article is very much overwritten, has a conversational tone not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and has such an overabundance of images stacked one atop the other in a non-layout, it beggars the question of fair use.

John Buscema was a giant of the field. He deserves a real encyclopedia article. I'll do what I can, but it's too big for one person to tackle. -- Tenebrae 09:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Template

I don't necessarily see what is wrong with having the 20 illustrations (which are from a wide variety of sources) that give a good cross-section of his work, considering it is the work of a graphic artist. Objectives over the quality of the layout arrangement appear to me to be rather subjective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyelarke (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Proper layout under the conventions and rules of graphic design is not subjective. There are well-established principles both to what makes a page attractive, readable, and, in terms of things like newspaper and encyclopedia page layouts, balanced in term of illustrative weight. It's far from subjective. --Tenebrae 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - but I feel that the basic design is OK - Even though they're all 'stacked' to the right, they're done in a presentable fashion (reasonably spaced out, aligned to relevant paragraphs, chronological, etc...) - Are there specific Wikipedia layout conventions and rules that state that having 24 illustrations aligned vertically to the right are contrary to layout conventions and rules? But if someone wants to improve upon the layout, that's their democratic prerogative - but all I suggest is to keep all of the illustrations, again for obvious reasons. As to fair usage :questions, I'd defend that point by saying that it is fair usage because the illustrations come from a good variety of sources, with many different creators, publishers, and copyright holders involved, so not one source is overly relied upon.

--Skyelarke 16:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Skyelarke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your point is good, and certainly a John Buscema article of this length deserves more than three images.

The way things usually work in controversial cases like this is to get a community consensus of what the most important topics are that need to be illustrated, and once we get agreement we can find specific examples.

To kick things off, as you can see from my earlier edit, I've included JB's first cover for Marvel, and coincidentally his first Avengers cover. That's a pretty easy one as far as historical importance is concerned. Since The Avengers was one of his signature works, we could probably go with two Avengers covers (I'd suggest the one introducing the Vision, both since its historically important and because it already exists, at the Roy Thomas article.)

An image each of Conan and the Silver Surver (perhaps the famous cover of #1) seem like pretty clear inclusions. One of his early, 1950s page (such as either the extant Strange Worlds or Western/Dell Hercules page). An example of his advertising work, if one is available. Maybe his intreptation of the Fantastic Four, since we talk about him taking over that flagship from Kirby; some from the 1980s, maybe a Wolverine given that character's high profile; something inked by Tom Palmer, one of Buscema's more notable inkers; something from the 1990s (possibly The Punisher Meets Archie, both for the high-profile Punisher and to inject something a little different and distinct); Just Imagine Stan Lee With John Buscema Creating Superman, for something from another company that also shows JB's iconic status; and I'd strongly suggest Superman: Blood of My Ancestors (Sept.2003) if that's his final published work. Other possibilities are this Mephisto page from that character's debut. Thoughts?--Tenebrae 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found a 1976 publicity photo of Buscema from Magazine Management, Marvel's parent company at the time, here. Publicity photos are useable under Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines under {{Promophoto}}. Another thing we can do is ask permission to use an image from JB's official site, from this Tarzan site, or from this site's owner to use the fairly recent picture that he has. -- Tenebrae 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's all fine and dandy, and most of the kind of image choices you've suggested were already there, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I still tend to having more images than less. Additionally, a photo as well as an FF page, I can see how those two would be important.

--Skyelarke 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Unless other editors offer different suggestions — let's wait a couple days — why don't you find/add what images you can that sound reasonable, and I can go in and do any copy-edit, layout, etc. things. First things first: Let's replace that historically unexceptional image in the intro with a photo of Buscema. Good to be working with you! --Tenebrae 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tenebrae,

The intro edits look good - There's still a few typos in your stuff -Is all that Superhero trivia necessary? (in the 60's). FYI - The tone of the article was intended to de-emphasize superhero trivia and 'Marvel Mania' and try to consider Buscema in the light of general art history and biographical terms. (Also, FYI, the entirety of the article was actually submitted to the 500+ yahoo JB discussion group, with a lot of long time JB collectors, for their input and it received very positive feedback).

For example, the purpose of the paragraph you deleted, was meant to place Buscema in the historical context of the period and using relevant contemporary artist for comparison purposes - the artists were carefully considered for chronological and stylistic reasons, so it wasn't entirely based on 'assumption'.

Moreover, in this case, due to the paucity of focused biographical material on Buscema and the fact that comic book scholarship is a lot less developped than traditional art scholarship, a certain amount of 'original' research is necessary, IMO, in order to give a certain direction and substance to the material due to lack of any precedants on Buscema.

Although the article does need some tightening up, hopefully you can consider the preceding comments when doing so. (i.e. I don't consider whosesale deleting to be serious editorial revision). --Skyelarke 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)--70.55.84.230 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for nice words! And I can say with confidence that everyone in WikiProject Comics would welcome a John Buscema expert to register and be a full part of the community. Come on in; the water's fine!

Check out The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, What Wikipedia is Not, and "Ownership" of Aricles. I only mention that last one since — and I know it was inadvertent, because there're a plethora of policies and it takes months to learn a critical mass of 'em — the phrase "The tone of the article was intended to..." really isn't the kind of thing anybody can really say.

Wikipedia articles are open to everyone who makes confirmable, verifiable edits with a neutral point of view, citing authoritative sources. Experts can quoted, as I'm sure you'll find in many fine arts articles here. But they have to be quoted from existing sources, because one of the prime tenets of Wikipedia is no original research. That doesn't mean things can't be put in historical context; heck, you can look at Will Eisner, say, for a way that perspective and authoritative comment can be placed within a Wiki article. I've helped with a lot of that myself!

It's great that "the article was actually submitted to the 500+ yahoo JB discussion group, with a lot of long time JB collectors, for their input and it received very positive feedback". But a Wikipedia article isn't for fans. It's for the general audience.

About the phrase ""superhero trivia" — Big John may have downplayed comics, but they were the biggest part of his living for decades and he contributed industry milestones. His importance to the field is incalculable. I'm not sure an objective observer wouldn't consider the biggest part of one's career undeserving of a commensurate part of one's biography.

Honestly, the article as it was was great for a Buscema site, or for an essay in an art magazine. Encyclopedia articles are different — more straightforward fact, without veering the reader to one opinion or another. We're not advocating for John — that's a fan site's job.

But I'll tell you this: Go to Wally Wood, and tell me John Buscema doesn't deserve an article as good as that!

I'm genuinely looking forward to your registering and joining the community, and to work with you on whipping this into shape! (I only wish I had more time; it's probably gonna be one paragraph at a time just from my humble end!)--Tenebrae 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Superhero minutiae - Well better extra info than deleting stuff, I guess. If you feel that a general audience needs to hear all about Betty Dean Prentiss, hey why not... The point I was trying to make is to have a balanced overview of all phases of his career without putting specific 'Marvellous' emphasis on one particular aspect.

The Wally Wood article - Sorry - it's nice, but it ain't there yet. Good up to the 50's - After that it kind of meanders with gaps and quotes that are digressive. Does it give a cohesive assessment of Wood's accomplishments, importance and impact?

Another point - Being objective and factual is one thing - I don't think that means that a Wiki article has to be a boring enumeration of names and dates. I think there's a distinction between opinion on one hand and necessay aesthetic analysis and commentary on artistic development on the other.

'...not veering the reader to one opinion or the other'... OK - but I believe the Wiki guidelines do advocate presenting different points of view as a way of maintaining neutrality - In that regard, I feel that it's better to add alternate viewpoints (which was why I mentioned the JB discussion group) than to remove everything that is perceived to be an 'opinion'. (Not specifically aimed at you, it's a general attitude that seems to be present in the various edits).

But a lot of passages do have specific references behind them - I just didn't include them - I'll try provide the notes for those...--Skyelarke 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"All about Betty Dean Prentiss" ...LOL! Good point! That particular one sentence I think's OK since it was the return of his '40s "sidekick", but that graf with all the specific issue numbers is going right out into a footnote where it belongs!

I think in my zest and zeal on this Talk page I lost one main point in the wallow of all my words. We can absolutely quote "Writer so-and-so of Comic Book Artist called John Buscema, '...the best artist of his generation'" or whatever. We just can't say it ourselves.

Finally, right on that being dry isn't the same as being factual. Hell, look at Will Eisner or Atlas Comics (1950s)! I'm with you, man. (So are 70.55.84.230 and Skyelarke the same? If so, glad you joined our little group!) --Tenebrae 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tenebrae - Yes User:70.55.84.230|70.55.84.230 and Skyelarke are one and the same - I got nothing against putting in detailed comic book credits - I just feel that adding explanatory information on topics not specific to John Buscema is better served via the internal link system - (i.e. Why not create an brief entry for John Verpoorten, etc...)although this is just my opinion and is merely serves as a suggestion -

Re : We can absolutely quote "Writer so-and-so of Comic Book Artist called John Buscema, '...the best artist of his generation'" or whatever. We just can't say it ourselves.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - my opinion on that is that a certain moderate amount of thoughtful, rational, viewpoints can be expressed by individual wikipedia contributors if they are justifiable conclusions based on factual information presented and clearly presented as being so.

I like Wikipedia because I've found quite a few biographies on filmmakers and musicians that are concise yet comprehensive and well-researched, and have a popular tone that avoids overly pedantic or stylized expression that one finds in more specialized sources.

RE: "a certain moderate amount of thoughtful, rational, viewpoints can be expressed by individual wikipedia contributors if they are justifiable conclusions based on factual information presented and clearly presented as being so."

But we can't! LOL! Honestly! That is one of the biggest, biggest Wikipedia no-nos! But let's forget that it goes against the no personal opinion and no original reasearch or essays rules. It's just more authoritative and gives John his due if we say what needs to be said but attribute it to published, expert sources.

Not just the law — it's a good idea!

Any my God, it's not like there aren't plenty of authoritative sources we could quote! So c'mon, let's get crackin'. (And you did see I removed or moved a bunch of Marvel minutiae, right?) --Tenebrae 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tenebrae,

The text you tagged as 'no personal opinion' does not actually state 'no personal opinion' at all -

What you call the 'no original research rule' is not in fact a RULE, it is a policy and is meant to discourage 'material that appears to advance a position — or ... would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."' (It's not as if the article is stating that Buscema invented the Hulk or that Buscema is in reality a pseudonym for Herb Trimpe,...)

Re: ':Not just the law — it's a good idea!' I agree that it is a good idea - but honestly, it is not 'THE LAW', what ever that's supposed to mean...

Re: Marvel Minutiae - (I got nothing against it per se, it just that it's been amply covered in other articles) I think you removed too much! Relax, lighten up - A few paragraphs on the Avengers, Silver Surfer, and Sub-Mariner are important after all...

It's just that calling Betty Dean Prentiss Subby's 'love interest' is 'a biggest, biggest no-no' as it's speculative opinion not based on verifiable evidence and constitues a radical piece of 'original research'. I think it would be better to call them 'just good friends'.LOL

So I'll start going through my notes and and gather up the proper references. Skyelarke 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Let's ref it up. And you're right, I'd meant to link to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which is one of the five pillars.--Tenebrae 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've made first pass through the 1950s, adding factual information from GCD and removing much disallowed personal opinion. We need to cite authoritative sources, which I'm sure we can do. Right now, I'm concentrating on grammatical and other technical changes, adding facts, and clean up and formatting. After finishing with that, I (and I surely hope other editors as well) will go through and add comments and quotes from colleagues, historians, etc. --Tenebrae 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added my sources in the references section, will be following up with notes.

By the way, the Two-Gun Western #5 cover is by Joe Maneely - It's the ther Two-Gun Western series with a Buscema cover : http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=8539 --Skyelarke 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Got it -- two different Two Gun Western #5s! I thought it looked like remarkable improvement in just a year! GREAT catch!

I've got Alter Egos and Comic Book Artists with Big John articles, and I'll start incorporating bio material as I can. --Tenebrae 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey cool, there's a lot of great stuff in there - I've started putting in the footnore references...--Skyelarke 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! I've been too busy to edit for the last several days, and have only been able to slip in for some quick copy edits just now, but I promise I'll help more soon. Keep up the good work, brother!--Tenebrae 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

February 2007

I'm sorry to seem harsh, but we simply cannot say, "It is a credit to his talent that he manages to continue working in comics for the better part of the decade...." That is clearly an uncited opinion; please see the link.

I have also removed several images. Please go to the Wikipedia policy on fair use of images. For fair use to be valid, only a limited number of images can be used, and they must, at least arguably, illustrate specific things in an article. The first cover Buscema did, for instance, can be justified. One sample each of a handful of signature characters -- Conan, Avengers, one or two more -- can be justified. Examples of media outside comics -- paperback covers, posters, album jackets, consumer packaging -- can be justified. We can't simply include things because they look nice -- this isn't a magazine article. We also can't go overboard on sheer number of images.

I'm a little concerned since I've had to remove the "It is a credit to his talent" line before. I'm not sure I'm explaining Wikipedia policies as clearly as I might; in any event, it's each editor's responsibility to be aware of them. I urge all editors of this article to please read both Wikiepdia's general editorial guidelines and those for the Biography Project and the Comics Project.--Tenebrae 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Tenebrae - You've made some nice contributions, expecially in terms of general comic book history - the introduction section especially looks great. However I do disagree with most of your latest editorial decisions. I'm sorry that the layout doesn't appeal to your esthetic senses, but really, there was nothing wrong with usage of images and fair usage was respected, despite your opinions to the contrary. Although I agree with certain deletions, I do feel that in general, there have been simply too many deletions of perfectly accurate, researched information. So I am in the process of restoring what I feel to have been way too heavy-handed deleting.

I also disagree with your interpretation of general Wikipedia policy - In my experience in reading Wikipedia artist biographies in other artistic fields such as music, poetry, painting, cinema, and architecture, a certain open-mindedness and acceptance of different viewpoints and allowance of aesthetic evaluation and career appreciation are perfectly accepted and commonplace. Although I appreciate your knowledge of comic book history, I do not recognize your authority as absolute Wikipedia policy arbitrator.

Below are some key ponts I'd like to bring to your attention in order to improve the quality of this article:

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing.

--Skyelarke 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done some revisions on the Early life and career section which consists of restoring previous deletions. I've also restored the 50's and 60's sections as they were almost completely deleted.

Please, no more cowboy deleting, using normal wikipedia editing protocol would be appreciated.

--Skyelarke 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: NPOV and images

As per Wikipedia dispute-resolution policy, User:Tenebrae is asking for a formal Request for Comment regarding dispute about whether NPOV statements are being placed in John Buscema, and whether there is overuse of images.

Here is the current version by last edited by User:Skyelarke, the other party, and the previous edit by User:Tenebrae.

Statements by editors involved in dispute

• I believe such assertions as "It is a credit to his talent that he manages to continue working in comics for the better part of the decade..." and "Buscema next produced some of his finest work of the decade" — neither of which is a quote from a cited authority but the personal statement of an editor — is opinion. Additionally, I believe quoting the publisher of Buscema Roy Rogers reprints, which describes him as "the best Roy Rogers artist", is not the quote of a disinterested party. Finally, my points about the number of images is addressed in the section above.
  • On a secondary note, I believe throwing an accusation of "cowboy editing" when I've tried to carefully give a reason for each, and Wiki policy links, violates Civility and Assume Good Faith. --Tenebrae 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• the credit to his talent passage to me is minor, if you want to rephrase that, you're welcome to do so.

I disagree with the AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute to the publications.

I didn't necessarily direct the 'cowboy editing' term at you, but if you agree that cowboy editing is an improper practice (i.e making a priori large deletions without discussion or proper justification) then all the better. --Skyelarke 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Other comments
  • When comparing the two, the first thing that jumped out at me was the line "Born a few months earlier than Frank Frazetta, also a Brooklyn native..." I looked through the article and other than a dedication, there's no mention of any connection between them. That makes this sentence seem very random and not connected, as well as giving John a second place status in his own article. If the rest of the version is like this, I would revert it also. Let's not clutter the article with random, unconnected "facts." CovenantD 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Sup guys, hope we can resolve this an amicable fashion, because we both want the best for every comicbook article. Anyways, heres my assessment from your co-wiki editor. With regard to the original research context of this article, first the big question is "Where did all of this body of knowledge (of John Buscema) come from?" is it sourced from buscema's official site? did the wiki-editor copy/pasted its context or only rephrased its contents? or just a summary of knowledge the editor knows and translated it to his own understanding? (a question for User:Skyelarke). Please note that its best to have every statements we make in wikipedia cited because: 1) people use wikipedia as a source of their research and reference, and we dont want to mislead them. 2) wikipedia is a free encylopedia (common knowledge), if we make a wrong inaccurate information in an article, wikipedia foundation is susceptible to be sued (for copyright/libel/fair use violation.etc.) thus shutting the company down. These are some important questions thats needs to be addresed in regard to the content of this article. Secondly the image usage. It is somewhat absurd to find multiple images for this article. I know most of them are vital, but this is an encylopedia, not a photo gallery. A list of his bibliography is enough. We dont need to place every image in each of his works. To resolve this issue, we only need to select some images of his works that made significant impact/turning point in his career as a comicbook artist. And when I say the "most", that includes either his first published work, his best selling work, his work with his longest stint, his last work before he died. The rest, personally, are just a spam of images. Hope this help clarify some of the issues. †Bloodpack† 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Do we need 13 images? Get rid of the external link john buscema yahoo group.

Brian Boru is awesome 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • There are alot of pictures in here, an aritcle about a artists should have only a few pieces of his work, and even then it should be his most well knowen stuff. The amount of images here does take away from the article and they should be removed, even from Tenebrae's version, it seems alittle congested. Also what CovenantD said makes sense also, and I aggree with it.Phoenix741 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition: What is the info on Image:Wolvybloody.jpg all i see is a pic in a thumb and that is it, if we are going to keep this then we need to add the additional info. Also on reading the discussion above on February 2007 I see what you did to revert and you had every right to, it was not "cowboy editing".Phoenix741 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Looking at the two, I agree with CovenantD, the article reads at the top like "Who John Buscema Wasn't" instead of as "Who John Buscema Was." More so in the Skyelarke version but both have a point or two in common.
    There's also a shared awkward point in the 1950s section regarding his personal life. It feels like it was just tacked on. This is more apparent in the Skyelarke version, but both would need to expand and clarify the points.
    I also agree with the sentiment about the images. I could see 5 or 6, tops, one per section of his career, but fewer would be better. And even in that, the images can, and should be more than single purpose. Instead of having a "Conan" piece and a "How-he-laid-put-a-page" piece, have a "How-laid-out-a-Conan-page".
    Last thought, both versions need a copy edit to clean up grammar, punctuation, and style guideline issues.
    — J Greb 22:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

POV: "It is a credit to his talent" is obvious and unsourced opinion.

POV: "some of his finest work" expresses opinion. Neither version of that sentence really works.

POV: "His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work." Says who?

Irrelevant information: "which employed top commercial artists such as Bob Peak and Frank MacCarthy."

Skyelarke's version is missing some important links and references.

Skyelarke's version has more typos.

The list of Four Color issues illustrated by Buscema is uncharacteristic of other artists' articles. Regardless of which, of the many, many contributions he made to comics over his lifetime, there's no reason to single that one series out, and any argument for singling it out invokes POV. But don't replace that list with a bibliography of his works, because that will just get deleted as inconsistent with how WikiProject Comics contributors do things.

Fact: The Chaite Agency is not a studio.

The number of images is excessive. Seriously consider Wikipedia guidelines for image usage. Doczilla 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think I've got to agree with most of the comments above. Too many of the statements about him in Skyelarke's edit are things that aren't measurable so can't entirely avoid pov - Doczilla is quite right with the comments about "finest work", for example. Who says that it's his finest work? Wikipedia shouldn't judge, so unless we can take a step back and quote a source ("hailed by xyz as some of his finest work") then it's not really going to fit. Ditto for the "especially suited to his style". I can see why there are so many illustrations - Buscema's career is long and varied - but there are too many and we're never going to illustrate every style/aspect, so pruning them back a little would seem sensible and closer to the spirit of the guidelines. I do have to agree that Tenebrae's version has some typos that need fixing, but viewed as a whole that's a relatively minor issue. --Mrph 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

THE BELOW IS A CONTINUATION OF THE REQUEST FOR COMMENT

Magazine illustrators

I liked that line about the various magazine illustrators, but it got deleted. That full paragraph about influences should have been retained. I assume "Born a few months earlier than Frank Frazetta, also a Brooklyn native" is some sort of substitute, but actually, it is not encyclopedic because it is a meaningless comparison to people who have never heard of Frazetta. I think just five images would be sufficient to show what kind of artist the article is covering. No need to publish an entire portfolio. Pepso 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That was an accident on my part, I restored it. An interanl link is provided for Frazetta, so people who have never heard of him can investigate.

As for the quantity, I can refer you to several other highly rated articles that use over a dozen images if you wish. For an exceptionally prolific career that covered 7 decades, I think that 2-3 per decade is reasonable.

"Where did all of this body of knowledge (of John Buscema) come from?" is it sourced from buscema's official site? did the wiki-editor copy/pasted its context or only rephrased its contents? or just a summary of knowledge the editor knows and translated it to his own understanding? (a question for User:Skyelarke)

The information came from the references cited, rephrased by myself. I am in the process of including more precise footnotes.

I continued this revising process for the 50's section.

--Skyelarke 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not getting the point. The relationship between Buscema and Franzetta should be explicit, not something you have to go to another article to discover, AND it should not supercede who the article is actually about, John Buscema. So there's a dedication - why? Did they ever meet? Did one influence the other? Or is there just a mention because they both happen to be born around the same time in the same place? None of that is in the article, which makes any mention of Franzetta irrelevant.

As for the pics, I hope you're listening to what every other editor so far has expressed about having too many. They need to have a direct relationship to the text of the article and should be used to illustrate specific points about his style and how it changed over the decades. Don't just throw up images to reach some kind of arbitrary quota. CovenantD 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I was staying from this, hoping to let other editors weigh in after Skyelarke had made his statement, but I can see he's not letting the process run its course.

His version of the piece is filled with blatant opinion, like a magazine essay written by a hardcore fan and not a dispassionate encyclopedia article. Worse, Skyelarke appears disinclined to abide by either the consensus of several editors or some the basic policies of Wikipedia.

Revising unilaterally before a consensus is reached goes completely against the Request for Comment process. I am therefore reverting the article to where it was when the RfC was made. I ask Skyelarke to please respect the process. --Tenebrae 03:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

i sincerely ask Skyelarke to let go the article at the moment, and let things cool down. we all both experience this kind of situation when were all gripping to an article, holding onto it and closes our mind and sense of judgement to anyone's idea, sticking only on ours, of what we believe. let go at the moment, if you feel its being too unfair to you, someone will eventually drop by to this article, make further improvements that both parties will come to agreement, lets all take a breather †Bloodpack† 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To Tenebrae - OK I'm confused - I'm not letting the process run its course? Looking at the procedures below, one can see that the Rfc that you initiated was lacking in many necessary preliminary steps. Among other things, the calling of a truce. This is the only reason why I continued editing,I didn't see it as interfering with the process. Had you called a truce according to procedure I would have respected it. The irony is that my last message prior to this very peremptory Rfc was to point out the 3 steps for avoiding disputes. So I do feel that I was rushed into a dispute process that I didn't feel was necessary - I was prepared to continue discussing the matter - now, yeah, to hear say that I was completely against the Request for Comment process leaves me rather dumfounded... Rest assured that I won't be making any changes until this current matter has been straightened out.

RFC procedures

Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved. Be civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions. When contacting the other parties, optional template Consider getting a third opinion on a controversy that involves only two editors.

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

If you have not agreed to a truce before this point, you should do so now. This allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of ongoing edits, which are likely to aggravate the dispute. If an edit war persists and parties refuse to stop, you may request that the page be protected to allow the process to move forward.

RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

To Bloodbath

Sure -letting go and taking a break, the second step of the resolution process is a good idea - How about 48 hours? After which I do have a few resolution proposals to make - I'd like to specify that I'm not particularly worked up about the situation, quite frankly I don't see the problem to be such a big deal... To end on a positive note, a few more considerations:

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

The wiki mind or wiki spirit is the fundamental presumptions of everyone who believe in wiki.

To assume good faith. This is the very basic presumption that every wiki user must have. What to do if you later realize that this presumption is not true? Do not use wiki, or Just pretend to believe that this is true Respect for freedom and equality among wiki users in editing the page. Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing. creation-oriented editing is, for example, editing new page, adding more information suppression-oriented editing is, for example, page deletion, blocking user, protecting page

Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,

--Skyelarke 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Skyelarke you need to step back for a while, we'll go over the article and make sure it's encyclopedic. You did have way more images here than were needed. And there was a bit of NPOV. A request for comment means you walk away from the article and the Project takes over. If you want to keep busy in the meantime, many of the articles in Category:Comics articles needing cleanup are long overdue for some love. --Basique 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To Skyelarke: I have tried in good faith to work with you on this article and reach resolution since December.

If you are suggesting I initiated an RfC to "harass or subdue" you, that is a very strong charge. Given the comments of other editors here, I believe there is agreement that these issues are genuine and objective. I ask you, again, not to make groundless accusations.

I also ask you, as all these other editors have, to please look more closely at your edits and try to take into consideration the weight of so much consensus about them. It's possible that maybe we all have a point, and that no one, honestly, is ganging up on you, as the "harass or subdue" accusations seems to suggest. Thanks. --Tenebrae 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok i know that this is going to sound bad but I can't take it anymore with all this nice talk so I am just going to say this in plain terms.

To Skyelarke: You need to calm down, it is just an article, and as you can plainly see we all think that Tenebrae's is better in terms of an encyclopedic sense. Now I myself have not done this for a long time, but a lot of these people know what they are doing, and if you want to be a better editor then you should listen to their suggestions and learn from your mistakes. Stop defending yourself and saying that this should of been done or what ever, the majority of us agree with Tenebrae so that means that we will all revert your edits eventually. So please just stop making yourself look bad. One last thing, we did point out errors in Tenebrae's edit so we are not saying that you stink and he is great, just his works better with the type of article that is supposed to be on wikipedia.

To Tenebrae: You need to calm down also, you don't really need to defend yourself, and all this arguing is pointless. If Skyelarke wants to keep reverting back even though we all say that his edits are not encyclopedic, then fine let him, he will get banned, and then we wont have to deal with it. But if he will learn from his mistakes and learn to be a better editor than great. The more the merrier.

Ok that being said i suggest that we all just stop with the arguing, it is pointless and it is not good for the article. In a way we are all acting like children, granted high class children but still. So lets just do what the majority agrees with. Leave it that way, and put all this attention the the articles that need it.Phoenix741 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been nearly two days (40 hours) without additional comment, there seems no objection to Phoenix741's suggestion that we "do what the majority agrees with". Unless there are new points that haven't been raised already in the discussion, I suggest we wait eight more hours to make it a full two days, and then go with the consensus version.--Tenebrae 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that of the 9 editors that have participated in this RFC, 8 had received personal invitations from Tenebrae. (and the one who apparently did not, Covenant, has supported Tenebrae in past arguments.)

Secondly, looking at the history record, one notices that the disputed contributions that I had made occured on the 22 & 23 of February, the disagreements being voiced on the 24 & 26 of February after only a single reply by each party and the RFC initiated on the same day, i.e. the 26th of February. Moreover, I was not informed of Tenebrae's feeling that he considered the situation to be a dispute in need of a RFC. I viewed the situation as simply an early stage of an editing discussion.

I am not claiming that there have been deliberate intentions of impartiality and partisanship, but it seems fairly plain that the cards were stacked in one party's favor from the get-go.

I am going to once again take a 48-hour break from the situation in order to give the opportunity for concerned parties to provide their feedback in order for this issue to be clarified before proceeding any further.

Regards,

--Skyelarke 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

wow, i have lost track of this, its been...how many weeks now? Anyways, this particular comment just caught my attention. Its true that Tenebrae invited us to discuss this, NOT to gang you up in any manner, but to contribute in the discussion. He didnt leave me a note in my talkpage to back him up but to participate here as a disinterested party. FYI, me and Tenebrae also had a dispute before, but weve come to agreement. And my RfC here is not bias or one-sided. Heck, i even left some questions that both can answer and be addressed (see again above) †Bloodpack† 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again not the most PC thing to say, but it has to be said. Tenebrae asked us to talk cause we are in the wiki project. We(or at least every one else but me, i am still sorta new) know what we are doing. We know how comic articles are supposed to be written and what is the best way to write it. Your edit was not, in fact it is something that belongs on a fan made site that people skip over in search engines. This is wikipedia, a place where people can find a good article that has 0 or at least a small amount of opinion. Yours was full of useless info that had a lot of Point of View stuff that is not supposed to be on here. So i ask you, let it go, stop being a sore loser, admit your mistake and stop ruining your name, cause this effort is futile. Now from my understanding there is 4 hours left till 48 hours have passed, lets keep it that way and turn this this into a article worthy of wikipedia. I know this is not the most non-threating thing to say but to me it had to be said or else we would be locked in this argument till eventually someone got banned with nothing good coming out of it, and I just don't want to see that happen.Phoenix741 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was rather offended that I hadn't been invited to comment.  ;) CovenantD 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey I was surprised that I was 8-P.Phoenix741 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok 48 hours are up, time for the mass re-edit.Phoenix741 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I came here because I was invited to comment. And you'll note that not all of my criticisms were aimed at Skyelarke (although the clear majority were). Some of my remarks were about Tenebrae's edits too, as was the case with other invited commentors (yeah, the word should probably be commentators). If Tenebrae wanted a bunch of "yes men" on his/her side, T. wouldn't have invited several of us because we all disagree with each other at times and will do so again, but when we disagree, we work together to figure out what fits project purposes. Tenebrae did not invite us as a group of people T. could count on to back him/her (I don't know which) up blindly. Tenebrae invited us as people who know Wikipedia's guidelines and goals, people who know WikiProject Comics and its goals, and people T. has seen try to revolve disputes sensibly. Skyelarke had the right to solicit outside input as well. The possibility that S. didn't know any other contributors to invite may reflect on S.'s lack of familiarity with the project. Doczilla 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, what up? Here are my concluding thoughts on the various points raised -

A - I'm going to take some time off to reflect on the situation and take into account everyone's input. I suggest that everyone take a week off from editing this article in order assimilate the discussion points and gain some perspective. I have however made a few necessary editing corrections, because (in the version that Tenebrae is supporting) about half of the 50's section and most of the 60's had somehow been deleted with a passage cut off in mid-sentence.

B- Had this RFC not been so hasty and rushed, and had not heated up so quickly, I would most certainly have made some invitations of my own, to people from the comics project yes, and also people from the biography project and other general wikipedia editors. In any event, I won't be participating in any future RFC's for this article unless the following conditions are followed - a- A week's notice between the time the RFC is decided upon and its implementation be given. b- The notice is placed on the biography portal notice board as well as the comics project notice board. c- No more than seven invitations per person involved in the dispute. The invitations should be unsigned, with no complimentary or flattering comments to the invitee. d- No congratulations or thank you messages should be sent to other participating editors during the period of the RFC.

C- Had this RFC, which began as a question over three fairly general and relatively minor editing contributions not somehow developed into a general Comics Project sub-committee article evaluation here are the compromises I was trying to propose: a- Whether there are 6 or 12 images is no major deal for me - I can refrain from making any Image edits for the time being. b- the credit to his talent' passage to me is minor, if you want to rephrase that, you're welcome to do so. c-'"Buscema next produced some of his finest work of the decade"' I had replaced that with a quote from Jim Steranko. (See my last edit of the 26). d-I disagree with the AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute to the publications. Although a link to a catalogue and not an ideal quote, this company has a comprehensive knowledge of the western genre and western artists and in this case I feel are qualified to provide objective points of view on this period of his career and John Buscema's name is not a major selling point and it wasn't added for promotional or commercial purposes.

D- FYI - To better clarify the history of this article, please note that the following FA-Class article has been used as a model and practical example in terms of Wikipedia policies and style guidelines. I encourage everyone to familiarize himself or herself with it if they wish to make contributions to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD

E- To paraphrase Phoenix, I know I shouldn't say this and it will probably sound undiplomatic but it has to be said.

I know that there are a certain number of who share the same 'no-nonsense, cut the clutter, limit the content' philosophy. I sincerely feel that embarking on an effort to have this article conform to that mindset will be a colossal waste of time and energy for everyone because this article's structure and conception is pretty much diametrically incompatible with that mindset. You chose your battles, and this one is shaping up to be a complicated, energy-draining, clash between a 'lets's whittle this down' and a 'let's build this up' viewpoint where no one will be satisfied with the end results. It'll be like trying to fit a square peg in a round groove. I'm just saying...

Peace out,

--Skyelarke 22:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I supposed to be Sphinx, cause if i am, i am kinda offended. Also to your last paragraph, its not really a mindset. It is what we feel should be done as per wikipedia standards. Also while all of this was going on you could of asked for some other people to join in from this discussion. and if you did ask people to comment on this, and they didn't that probably says something about you.Phoenix741 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

TY for changing that,Phoenix741 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, a notice was placed on the WikiProject Comics noticeboard, at 17:42, 26 February 2007, and then on Skyelarke's page. This RfC was open to everyone.

I have reverted the article to Phoenix741's last edit. User:Skyelarke had gone back and, despite the clear consensus, reinserted cluttering images and personal opinion. I believe from his remarks above about a whittle-it-down vs. let's-build-it-up "mindset" shows a fundamental misunderstanding both of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and, frankly, the difference between an encyclopedia article and a magazine article.

I did go in tonight and make mostly technical edits on misspelled comics titles and book titles, missing dates, missing Wikilinks, and similar elementary material. I removed one graf of excessive detail about inkers mixed with personal opinion.

If (and I'm interested in the opinion of the ever-awesome range of our colleagues have to say on this) we at the point where consensus is not being observed and we need to move to a formal dispute-resolution process, I'm formally stated my willingness to call in an admin and do so. If Skyelarke genuinely feels the rest of us are incorrect, then I think we should do so. --Tenebrae 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to write a detailed response to Skylarke pointing out the flaws in his post, but decided on this instead:

Skylarke, I found many of your comments to be condesending and inflamatory. Yours is a single purpose account; every single edit you've made since you started editing four and half months ago has been to this article[1]with two exceptions; a comment you left on somebody's talk page about this article[2] accusing them (incorrectly) of personal attacks, and another very serious accusation against the people who participated in this discussion.[3] Based on that and the tone of the article that you ultimately did create,[4] I have absolutely no faith in your neutrality, your assumption of good faith in others, or your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. CovenantD 08:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone kindly take a look at the 50's and 60's sections that have been deleted and restore them? Notice that there currently is no heading and almost no content for the 60's...

Sorry to sound so down on you guys - it's only only because I feel the RFC was initiated too quickly and prematurely - Please rest assured of my intentions to edit and discuss in full respect of Wikipedia guidelines and procedures. And one last request to slow down and let's take a one week break, a step back before making any further decisions...

--Skyelarke 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine, take a week break if you want, gives us more time to get this article looking good. Also I will look at the 50's-60's sections, but honestly i doubt i will do much with them.Phoenix741 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Looked at it, something weird is going on, the info is on the site, it is just not displaying. I it is really weird.Phoenix741 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So....... is the request for comment over.....?Phoenix741 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, Phoenix741. Skyelarke took a unilateral one-week break, but as you noted three grafs above this, other editors were going to go ahead edit the article, which, after over a week of RfC, certainly says to me the RfC has been completed. --Tenebrae 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok well now all we have to worry about is Sky changing everything back. Something that would not surprised me if that happened.8-/-->Phoenix741 19:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith on his part. There's a learning curve to Wiki editing, Lord knows. --Tenebrae 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violations

Not to be rude, but all of the images on this page are copyrighted. While two or three might be Fair Use, but a page full of them is pushing it. Burzmali 16:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats not rude at all. But do you mind being a little more specific, like which ones are copyrighted.Phoenix741 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of a comic book going public domain, so I would assume all of the comic book images are copyrighted. Clicking on any of them takes you to their image page showing the Fair Use guidelines. As I said before, I think a few examples of his work could be justified, but loading the article with copyrighted images of questionable purpose over runs fair use. Burzmali 19:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well i am not fully sure on this, but i think since they are published works and we are giving credit to who made them, it is ok.Phoenix741 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

They also have to contribute significantly to the article (point #8 under Policy) and not just be their for decoration. I would take this to mean that one issue in the article should not have more than one image supporting it, but one image may support multiple issues. But if there are images here that ultimately only serve as decoration, they should go, properly attributed or not. — J Greb 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I didn't slap a copyvio template on the page or anything. Some of the images are okay, but I don't really know enough about the topic to make the call on which should go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burzmali (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

There are plenty of public domain comics out there, if this Category:Public domain characters has ANY validity at all. CovenantD 06:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are Public Domain not Fair Use. Seeing as most of this gentleman's work was done in the latter half of the 20th century, I doubt much have been released into public domain. Burzmali 13:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote that you had never heard of a comic book going public domain; I provided a link to some that apparently have. CovenantD 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I misspoke, I meant going public domain voluntarily. Going PD because your copyright ran out is a different matter entirely. Burzmali 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to read over the various comments - I am in agreement with many (especially 'Please note that its best to have every statements we make in wikipedia cited because: 1) people use wikipedia as a source of their research and reference, and we dont want to mislead them.' - as for the specific points of the dispute per se-

1- Too many images - Although I agree with the points of criteria for using images, I'm not convinced about the limit on the number of images - many generalized opinions given more or less all in agreement, not much specific explanations or substantiation given. The only specific policy limitations I'm aware of is that you can only use one screen shot per film.

A strict interpetation of WP:FU would indicate that, aside from the head shot, all of the images violate Fair Use. Specifically Comic Covers can be used "to illustrate: the issue of the comic book in question; the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question;" which is not the topic this article is addressing. Burzmali 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

2- 'the credit to his talent' passage to me is minor, if you want to rephrase that, you're welcome to do so.

3-'"Buscema next produced some of his finest work of the decade"' I had replaced that with a quote from Jim Steranko. (See my last edit of the 26). Tenebrae deleted that one calling it 'meaningless' - I disagree - the explanation appears to be original research on the editor's part - if he has a quote from a reputable source to substantiate his claims of Buscema's artistic development, he is welcome to do so. In any case I don't think it quite so meaningless for a general public audience.

d- AC Comics link - This point of contention never received any comment - I disagree with the deletion of AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute information to the publications. Although a link to a catalogue and not an ideal quote, this company has a comprehensive knowledge of the western genre and western artists and in this case I feel are qualified to provide objective points of view on this period of his career and John Buscema's name is not a major selling point and it wasn't added for promotional or commercial purposes.

Thanks to Phoenix, by the way, for fixing the formatting glitches.

I happened to come across a similar discussion on the Meat Loaf article, a perhaps more temperate way of presenting the problem -

'I think this article is more or less on target when it comes to getting bio and discography information, but are definitely pockets where the article, particularly its word choice, reads like it's been written by an obvious fan, his publicist, or is taken from some autobiography he may have wrote. As someone who's familiar with the singer, but not a passionate fan, it reads a little too affectionate for a encyclopedia article. I added the tag because I'm not as familiar with Meat Loaf and I thought someone who is may be able to clean it up without accidently removing relavent info'

--Skyelarke 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for entering into the discussion. One quick point: Links to commercial sites such as catalogs are disallowed by Wikipedia. That's not a matter of discussion, but a strict policy. --Tenebrae 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the guidelines for reference notes, but did not come across the passage that you are referring to - kindly provide the specific passage that you have in mind. And if that's the case, how do you explain your inclusion of the Vanguard website link? --Skyelarke 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoid. Also, I'm not sure why you believe I added the Vanguard link — I did not — but as you point out, it's indeed a commercial link and I've removed it. --Tenebrae 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

a)Good 'Links normally to be avoided' reference, but again, I repeat my request - kindly provide the specific passage that you have in mind. b)In any event the title has the word 'normally' meaning there are exceptional cases and 'avoided' meaning not stricly forbidden - therefore it is not, as you say, a `strict policy', but one subject to discussion as the case may be. I refer you to my previously stated reasons why I feel that it is an exceptional case. c) I thought it was you who added the Vanguard link because it was added 3 days after your major modifications and you had not objected to it in the 3 months it was in evident display. d) Again, I feel that your deletion of that link was premature - the work in question is a useful reference - kindly put it back or better yet, replace with a standard reference format. e) In general, if you are going to take the extreme step of deleting a contribution, I would ask that you take the time substantiate your reasons for doing so. i.e. referencing the exact passage of a relevant policy AND explaining why you feel that the specific passage in question is discouraged by said specific policy OR BETTER YET taking the time to offer an alternatite solution or finding a more appropriate reference. --Skyelarke 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A publisher praising the contents of a book that it is selling is not a disinterested source. Factual material from an AC book -- names, dates, place -- is obviously fine. But not an opinion from a publisher about how great the thing its selling is. --Tenebrae 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is good and well as far as it goes, unfortunately there is no substantiation to your claims - no specific reference to my response, no reference to specific Wikipedia policies, no specific reference to the AC Catalog product description, no examples cited - be that as it may, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and let it slide - if you wish to replace the quote with a more fitting quote on Buscema's Roy Rogers work, feel free to do so.

Good 'Links normally to be avoided' reference, but again, I repeat my request - kindly provide the specific passage that you have in mind.

Again, I feel that your deletion of that Vanguard link was premature - the work in question is a useful reference - kindly put it back or better yet, replace with a standard reference format.

'When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.'

'Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing. Creation-oriented editing is, for example, editing new page, adding more information.' --Skyelarke 21:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Vanguard link, which Skyelarke had previously noted was commercial: Here is what it has on that site (prices etc. x'd out):

Send completed Order Form and $xxxx (+$xx s/h) for the Trade Hardcover; $xxx (+$xxx s/h) for the limited edition, DELUXE Hardcover S/N by John Buscema with 16 pg. BONUS PORTFOLIO not found in other editions; or $xxx (+$xxx s/h) for the SoftCover to: Vanguard Productions xxx xxx Street Suite xxx xxxxx, NJ xxxxx

I'm sure we can call agree that this is a disallowed commercial link. --Tenebrae 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: AC Comics. Here is the deleted statement: AC Comics have reprinted a number of those stories and describe Buscema as the best Roy Rogers artist.

The footnoted link a commercial AC Comics page selling: Roy Rogers Western #2 Quantity in Basket: none Code: RRW1 Price: $xxxx Shipping Weight: 0.33 pounds

Again this is disallowed commercial link. As well, AC Comics hyping its own product is not a disinterested reference.--Tenebrae 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, in the above there is an effort to provide a more substantiated argument, unfortunately, it still does not adress the specific points of contention. I'm not denying that they are commerical sites, this point doesn't require proof. My argument was based on the point that the AC Comics link is an allowable exception. Here are the relevant textual passages under consideration.

a - 'I disagree with the deletion of AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute information to the publications. Although a link to a catalogue and not an ideal quote, this company has a comprehensive knowledge of the western genre and western artists and in this case I feel are qualified to provide objective points of view on this period of his career and John Buscema's name is not a major selling point and it wasn't added for promotional or commercial purposes.'

b- '4- Links normally to be avoided - 4-Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.'

c-'RRW#2 More great Roy Rogers memories!! Roy Rogers rides again, better than ever in this superb nostalgic package. More wonderful comics adventures reprinted from the original Dell Comics series, including "Riding The Danger Trail" and "Roy Ropes A Partner", both by the best Roy artist ever, John Buscema. Then, see Queen Of The West , Dale Evans in action in "The Turquoise Belt", drawn by Russ Manning; and everybodies favorite comical sidekick, Gabby Hayes in "Shooting At Santa", illustrated by Leonard Frank from his Fawcett Comics series. Text features include "Royal Family-Western Style"- a vintage look at domestic life for the Rogers; "Roy Rogers, King Of The Cowboys"- a history of Roy's career as told by rodeo writer Al Rackin And Cowboy Heaven remembrances of Eddie Dean and Kirk Alyn. With more photos than ever throughout, if you"re a Roy Rogers fan, you can't miss this book. Color photo front cover, black and white back and inside covers, interiors are black and white with graytones. Standard comic book format. Printed in 1999 Fully licensed and authorized. '

I was expecting a reply to my argument to make reference to the three texts above i.e. explaining why point a is invalidated by elements cited from text b and c.

I think there seems to be a confusion between section 2 and section 4 of the 'External Links' policy page. In section 2,there are only two points that 'For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking ..., without exception.' i.e. cases of proven copyright violation and specific blacklisted sites. The #4 point (which I assume your are referring to) about products and services is not in section 2, it's in section 4. So it's not under a 'restricted from linking...without exception' dictate.

Had you provided a reference to the specific policy point that you were referring to (I assume it's point 4.4), you would have seen that instead of deleting the Vanguard link, there is another solution that they recommend, i.e replacing with a more appropriate link. I have added a standard reference to Vanguard's 'The John Buscema Sketchbook' If you care to replace it with the ISBN linking format, feel free to do so. --Skyelarke 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Re: Tenebrae's deletion of Vanguard book - Fair enough - I think having a footnotes and a references section is a little redundant - wikipedia biographies generally just have a footnotes section followed by an external links section, so I replaced the references section with an external links section. --Skyelarke 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC) A question: ("Ext links" are "for further reading" links. "References" are primary sources. I have no major problem with that, although I don't think it's as good as the more prevalent Wikipedia structure that I've mentioned because as you've done, a primary source reference gets deleted if it is referred to in the footnote section, therefore there is a logical inconsistency. Is there a place in the Wikipedia policies where this structure that you are referring to is explained? I'd be interested in seeing it, because I don't see how the general public could know and understand this. I've added an external links section for further reading. PS. Below are some concrete examples of what I'm referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byrne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas --Skyelarke 00:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)--

Per WP:CITE, "Footnote" citations are only re-listed under "References" in articles "that have lots of footnotes" that make it "hard to see...exactly which sources have been used". Here's what I copy-pasted:

Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" or "Footnotes"

It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.

Further reading/External links

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section.

All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.

— Tenebrae 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - makes sense - Thanks for the ref.

I've added various references, quotes, and points of detail to the 'Later Career' section. Basically the guidelines I've followed for these edits are the following from the 'Perfect Article' section :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article

a-acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.

b-is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.

c-is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone. --Skyelarke 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Later career

Great edits and adds! It is so good and remarkable to see all the effort you've put into reading up on Wiki guidelines, and I don't mean to sound la-dee-da — this is a genuine compliment.

I moved the Sienk. quote to the preexisting Quotes section, and removed the phrase about following Kubert, since that's not really notable. Likewise the sentence or two about Buscema promoting his book and being cheered by fans — everyone promotes their books, and fans at fan conventions cheer their favorite artists, actors, etc. Aside from these two small deletions, all I have to say is ... Bravo! --Tenebrae 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words - I took a look at your edits, here are some comments-

The Kubert passage (used as a segue from the Punisher) is actually notable due to the fact that Buscema has mentioned him in particular as an artist he admires and respects on several occasions. The notability link that you refer seems to only deal with the notability criteria for general article topics as a whole, so I don't see your point in including this link.

I put that in because I couldn't substantiate the previous version that states that Buscema work showed a Kubert influence. So I replaced it with that more substantiated reference. I followed the following Wiki guidelines in doing so:

'When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.' and also 'Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.'

The Sienkiewicz quote was meant to comment on a specific aspect of his work at the specific period that this section deals with. I think that's its better to include quotes in the quotes section that deal with more general aspects of Buscema and his career. (I have a few in mind). Plus your rewording creates an innacurate generalization about his pencil work.

I noticed that you moved reference no. 7 regarding Buscema's retirement. This creates an innacuracy as the reference deals more with his return than his retirement. I removed the word 'formally' as I haven't come across any references that indiciate he formally announced his retirement per se. I think you also removed a phrase about his 30-year regular output without indicating this or explaning why - it was a meant to be a much-needed transitional passage that adds perspective and readability for a general public audience.

Regarding the Buscema Sketchbook and the San Diego convention segue - The documentation that I have indicate that both points are relevant aspects of Buscema's career.

I notice that you seem to have deleted the quote on painters but did not mention this or give any reasons as to why. Again it is a segue and is related to the previous points touched upon a serves to give a more general appreciation of Buscema's artistic outlook, especially for the general public audience.

I hope this clarifies things, take care, --Skyelarke 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete the quote on painters. In fact, I moved it up further in the article to place it alongside the mentions of all his other influences. Regarding the other issues, you are a good and great fan of Buscema, but the edits of yours that I removed have a tone of fannish praise inappropriate for an encyclopedic tone. I'd be glad to put the isseu back up to other editors to decide which is the more appropriate version, but I thought this was decided already. You seem reluctant to accept when another editor says, "These edits are good, these edits aren't appropriate, here's a middle ground", and to accept consensus. --Tenebrae 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And please stop inserting style errors. WikiProject Comics style is "vol." lowercase for comics and comics magazines. And normal correct grammar and punctuation requires us to italicize magazine titles and use spaces between a comma and a name. I've reverted your grammar and punctuation errors repeatedly. --13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, "formally retired" was your phrase, with a cite. If you say it's inaccurate, I'll make sure it's removed. In fact, if he didn't announce a retirement, and he did work afterward, it's inaccurate to say he retired and we should remove the word entirely.--Tenebrae 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette reminder to Tenebrae - re: 'rv fannish trivia, overdetail, and unencyclopedic fawning' seems to denote a disparaging tone - the Wikipedia etiquette guidelines state: 'Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,...'

As a reply, kidly take this into consideration (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Use_short_sentences_and_lists) 'Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article. Articles should contain as much information as possible without the use of redundant statements. The use of subjective qualifiers should be avoided.' --Skyelarke 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Various edits for the early career section - Mainly references - corrected Buscema's first work reference - reworked the Frazetta mention as per prior discussion.

PS. a quote from Bloodpack (which I agree with):'Please note that its best to have every statements we make in wikipedia cited because: 1) people use wikipedia as a source of their research and reference, and we dont want to mislead them.' --Skyelarke 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PPS. Tenebrae: 'You seem reluctant to accept when another editor says, "These edits are good, these edits aren't appropriate, here's a middle ground", and to accept consensus.'

I'm willing to accept modifications if they are free from factual innacuracies. At the moment, though I'm focused on establishing proper reference notations, as per our previous agreement:

So I'll start going through my notes and and gather up the proper references. Skyelarke 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Let's ref it up... --Tenebrae 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

--Skyelarke 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Skylarke

I've been very patient, as have other editors, but now Skylarke has gone back and reinstated a version of the John Buscema article that BY RfC CONSENSUS was disallowed. I'm speaking about removing his place of birth (!) and replacing it with a rambling sentence about his being born within two months of Frank Frazetta, a trivial and unencyclopedic tangent that the consensus specifically excised.

I can't keep doing this. I'm asking for Admin intervention now. --Tenebrae 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On a positive note, I'd like to mention that I think that this article is coming along well, thanks to everyone's constructive contributions and I feel that this article has the potential to become an excellent Wikipedia Biography article.

The Frazetta thing may be a bit much at the beginning there, so I combined it with the other Frazetta reference in the Legacy section. The reason why I included these relevant links to the fields of popular literature, and fantasy illustration, is to situate the article in a wider context, hopefully making it more relateable to a general audience.

Also my references have the seven-page story "Crime: Kidnapping!- Victim: Abraham Lincoln!" in the Timely crime title Crime Fighters #4 (Nov. 1948)as Buscema's first recorded work and not the eight-page story "The Other Woman" in the Timely romance title Faithful #1 (Nov. 1949). As it's a fairly significant and well-documented reference, I thought it was important to make that change. The original contributor is of course welcome to offer his feedback. --Skyelarke 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

To Tenebrae - You have made several good contributions to this article and I'd like to thank you for the helpful references that you've provided, unfortunately I'm concerned with what seems to be an overly gung ho involvement in this article on your part and a tendency to nitpick over the majority of other editor's contributions down to the smallest detail and to also a tendency to revert the majority of new addtions. This would seem to go against the following Wikipedia policies againts ownership behaviour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

'Minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording are disputed on a daily basis by one editor. The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article.'

'Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not.'

Moreover, I'm concerned that the way the recent RFC was conducted shows distinct signs of what is termed as a 'tag team'.i.e.

'The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors.'

Wikipedia aims to create an open, inclusive, environment that encourages friendly, civil, conscienscious editing while respecting the equality of all contributors. Kindly take these concerns into consideration as I hope they will help in contributing to a better quality article.

--Skyelarke 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your generous comments about my edits. You know, too, that I respect your scholarship and enthusiasm; I wish there were a Bill Everett fan so dedicated as to beef up that worthy creator's entry. So I hope you'll take this in the spirit in which I say this: Reverting material that was re-added after an RfC consensus decided against it is not, I believe, nitpicking. Punctuation and grammar, which is a lot of what I do, I also don't believe is nitpicking; that's usually considered minor. But where I must, respectfully, part company is the ownership assertion, and here's why: I've created well over a hundred detailed articles and I work to polish dozens on a regular basis, while, really, you dedicate yourself to one article only. So I'm not sure it would be me who feels he "owns" this article, which is just one more of the many. I've demonstrably been going with what a consensus of editors decided upon I'm sorry you feel slighted -- I swear I do, despite the frustration I sometimes feel trying to work with you. I feel that you see this article as a tribute, if not quite a fan page, and that's not really an encyclopedic tone.

By the way, I notice that an anonymous IP today has has started contributing to Wikipedia, though only to this article.

I'll start putting fuller explanations for each non-grammar/punctuation edit, as I do now just below here. I'm hopeful that better communication of why I make each edit that I do will help dispel any hard feelings or misconceptions. Thanks for listening. --Tenebrae 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

The reason I've toned down this section is: First of all, a simple declarative sentence about the Frazetta doc is factual; anything else is gilding the lily. Frazetta's name is linked if someone wants to know who Frazetta is. Second, we quote and cite the AE & CBA articles, so to say that AE & CBA have written articles about him is redundant. Besides which, AE & CBA have run big articles on dozens and dozens of people -- even secretary Flo Steinberg (who is historically important and in fact I started the Wiki article about her, but you see what I mean). And finally, the work of countless writers and artists remain in print; we don't specify that in every single instance because it's non-notable in and of itself. Just as it is non-notable that someone does promotion for a book he or she wrote. --Tenebrae 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the Frazetta entry because having made changes in response to two previous objections, this is the most feasible compromise I've been able to arrive at.

The AE and CBA issues in question are actually cover-feature special issues devoted mainly to him, so they should probably be included in the 'further reading' section.

For the Buscema trade paperbacks currently in print, I believe there are about a dozen or so. They could probably also be listed in the further reading section along with the Marvel Visionaries book on him that came out earlier this year. --Skyelarke 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Added references for the 50's section. Returned Four Colour list in bullet format as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists The list is following the article's structure of mentioning lenghty runs on a title (i.e. Silver Surfer 1-17)- the list was necessary due to the peculiar numbering system of the Four Colour title. Also added a quote by Buscema regarding his 50's work. --Skyelarke 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Embedded_list#Lists_within_articles: "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." -- Tenebrae 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Skylarke has also made a mess of the footnotes, which I've fixed several times and I cannot understand why he keeps inserting "Vanguard Publications" over and over rather than using Ibid. (and please go look that up), unless he is involved with Vanguard. There is no other reason not to use "ref name=" and Ibid. --Tenebrae 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lists - Thank you for the lists guidelines - please note the following: 'However, it can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short.' and 'In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence,'

Re: footnotes - Using ibid is fine, but the disadvantage is that it can only be used directly under a same source - I like the way it's done on the Salvador Dali article , I find it makes for a clearer and cleaner presentation or else there's the Harvard guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing either way, I plan on going over the footnotes once they're done and make the necessary corrections.

Re: Frazetta reversion - kindly take the following into consideration: 'Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time... ' --Skyelarke 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph style is clearer since this article only has to give pertinent examples; it's not a fan-site checklist of everything John Buscema has ever done.

The Harvard style has pros & cons given in its article; it's a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule. Seek consensus from your fellow editors before making a radical change to the footnotes.

The quote, from wherever it came from in the many Wiki guidelines pages, certainly doesn't apply to non-notable, off-topic, fancruft trivia.

I'm sorry you have nothing good to say about the factual corrections and additions to the Roy Rogers material.--Tenebrae 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

60's

Added references, quotes, and additonal data to the 60's.

Are you sure about the Chaite Agency correction? - the references I have spell it Chaite - you spell it Chait and the link you give has it Chiat, an agency founded 35 years after Buscema began at Chaite.

--Skyelarke 01:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

My misspelling: Chiat is correct. I can find no evidence online that an agency called Chaite. Jay Chiat founded Chiat/Day in 1968, which is after Buscema would have been there. Can you find a confirming source for the name of the agency, other than a Buscema book or article that might have misspelled it itself? If the agency was indeed called Chaite, then there must be some reference to its existence somewhere. Until we get confirmation, the accurate thing is to say "did commercial art". --Tenebrae 04:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So that we're on the same page. I copy edited but did not remove any of your new information except trivia about Buscema commuting to work, and a few issue numbers. --Tenebrae 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chaite - Here's a reference from the internet- 'With Thunderball (1965) we arrive at the birth of the classic Bond 'house style', the creation of two artists, both former colleagues at New York's important Chaite Agency studio from 1953, Frank McCarthy and Robert McGinnis.' http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/eventsexh/past/2007_01_10_bond.html

Re: Commuting - The short passage on Buscema's commuting to work was carefully and thoughtfully chosen for the following reasons: a- It illustrates one for the reasons for an important career move, i.e. his return to comic books. b- It is a well-documented anecdote, appearing in several reliable publications c- In the interest of covering all aspects of the topic, I feel that occasional relevant references to his personal life adds depth and interest to the article.

Re:a few issue numbers - The rationale for my putting in those specific issue numbers are as follows: a- Although it's not feasible to include every comic book he drew, his output from the 60's is sufficiently focused that, with those issues beeing added, the entirety of his 60's output is covered in a succint, brief manner. b- All of the issues mentioned are significant enough as to have been mentioned in the Alter Ego and Comic Book Artist special John Buscema issues.

You might want to consider re-evaluating your understanding of the term non-notable - I believe notability refers to the inherent merit of an article topic per se for its inclusion in Wikipedia and does not pertain to specific points within an article. I cordially invite you to familiarize yourself with the passage below:

'-Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content -

Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other Wikipedia's guidelines, such as those on the reliability of sources and trivia. However, list articles like List of English writers are expected to include only notable writers.'

Your changes to the Defalco reference is innacurate - the passsage refers to the work as being often cited as the highpoint of his Marvel work just as Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is often cited as one of Mozart's most popular melodies or Da Vinci's La Gioconda is often referred to as the Mona Lisa- it's not one person's individual opinion in the case I've referrenced.

Your compression of the paragraph with the Steranko quote is possibly more correct from a grammatical and concision point of view, but ask yourself this - is it more understandable to a general public? What if someone without much comic book knowledge were to read this article, a Norwegian high school girl who had to do a book report on How to Draw Comics the Marvel way for her art class or a Nigerian journalist who was writing an article on the portrayal of African Americans in popular culture in the 60's?

--Skyelarke 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice research finding that Chaite cite! As long as I'm here I'll stick it back in. I think there was a Triad studios mentioned, too?

Re DeFalco: First off, that statement doesn't appear on p. 31B; I'm sure that was just a typo on your part. However, the article "Memories of Brother John" has DeFalco quoted as saying only, "Silver Surfer #4 was certainly a beautiful job" -- and early, simply agreeing with Sal Buscema calling his brother's work classic! With all due respect, Sal Buscema is not a disinterested source. In fact, as any good brother would be, he's a biased source, and given the context of a recently dead brother of course DeFalco is going to say nod and agree. If this were a newspaper, let alone an encyclopedia, making a big, general claim based on that would never be allowed. However, editor Roy Thomas does say that "JB often cited this as the highpoint of his Marvel work," so Thomas' disinterested statement as a magazine editor and comics historian is valid. It also says something different than was claimed. I'll go ahead substitute it in. (BTW, I've ordered the Spurlock book and it should be here any day -- thanks for "Spurring" me to get off my rump and buy it!)

Re Steranko: I'm not sure how making a paragraph more grammatical and concise makes it less understandable. In any event, we ID Jack Kirby fully by name and as an artist in the paragraph immediately above.

If you really feel strongly about the commuting paragraph and the issue numbers in that one paragraph, we could ask for an RfC limited to those two items. I'll go with whatever the consensus of our fellow editors is. Just let me know or initiate the RfC and notify me. Either way's good.

Again, nice work hammering out these things. I wish you could see that I'm working with you hand-in-hand; just because I'm not in 85% agreement with you and 100% agreement doesn't mean anything negative. In fact, in your last batch of edits, I actually went in and added details, corrections and wikilinks to enhance what you did. We're all friends here. --Tenebrae 04:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Re : However, editor Roy Thomas does say that "JB often cited this as the highpoint of his Marvel work," so Thomas' disinterested statement as a magazine editor and comics historian is valid.'

Actually, that's the same quote I used, p. 34-B - Thomas also called it his magnum opus - which indicates that it's generally regarded as such, and I think would be more accurate. No matter, close enough.

'If you really feel strongly about the commuting paragraph and the issue numbers in that one paragraph, we could ask for an RfC'

I don't feel that strongly about the commuting paragraph and the issue numbers in that one paragraph. Before opting for an RfC, I believe there are a certain amount of useful and practical preliminary steps one could take. The following articles offer helpful instructions in this regard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons (including the links at the end) And there are the following considerations: 'Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.'

'Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.'

--Skyelarke 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

70's

Added references, quotes, and additonal data to the 70's.

PS - anon IP User:70.55.202.38 - Yes that was me. --Skyelarke 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

80's

Added references, quotes, and additonal data to the 80's. In theory, the entirety of the article has been given valid referenced sources.

--Skyelarke 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Long Version

Basically Tenebrae did some editing in December of 2006 wherein he removed roughly 50% of the content (see January 1 first version). after which various Comic Book Project formatting was added. I'm in basic agreement the the changes except when adding the references to the article I reinstated certain passages that I feel did not need to be deleted (which amounts to about 10-20% of the original 50% deletion).This represents my compromise proposal in lieu of the version prior to December 2006.

See prior discussion where I've given explanations and rationale for all the additions. Please note that I've used the Salvador Dali Wikipedia article as a rough guide for Wikipedia content and formatting. I have no plans at the present for adding any further material.

Overall I feel that the article has been greatly improved since 6 months ago. I may have inadvertantly removed some minor valid edits by other editors. I apologize for the inconvenience.

With the large amount of edits this article has been through in the past 6 months, the article has become a bit choppy and disconnected - I think that it's in need of a grammatical revision - if anyone is interested giving it an overall smoothing over, feel free to contact me at my discussion page, as I could provide some background information on the composition and editing history of the article.

--Skyelarke 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The above can be taken as WP:OWN. I have just reverted days of Skyelarke's fancruft edits about the likes of the subject's commute, footnote misformatting, over-illustration and other matters that are in direct contradiction to a long-settled RfC. He disregards the editorial consensus achieved by that RfC and continues his blatant attempts to turn this encyclopedia article into a fan site.

I have shown good faith. But it's no longer a matter of faith when an editor reinserts material that other editors in consensus have formally decided against.