User talk:J Greb

This talk page is automatically archived by Miszabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User talk:J Greb/Archive Aug 2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1. User talk:J Greb/Archive 2007
2. User talk:J Greb/Archive 2008
3. User talk:J Greb/Archive Winter 2009
4. User talk:J Greb/Archive Spring 2009
5. User talk:J Greb/Archive Summer 2009
6. User talk:J Greb/Archive Fall 2009
7. User talk:J Greb/Archive Dec 2009
8. User talk:J Greb/Archive Jan 2010

D & A again

Hi, J. You might also want to stop in at Juggernaut (comics). Asgardian edit warring, mostly with David A, continues. I pray that the current RFCU takes hold; one obsessive editor is taking up so many others' time and energy. Hope the New Year holds, well, hope. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A little help

Hi. We need more third person views on this. Can you help? The user is reverting constructive edits without providing a valid reason; only insulting the editor in return. Two users have already viewed this, but hasnt yet come to a conclusion. I am looking forward to restoring the edit, if the move is believed to be right. Thanks and regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 00:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thank you and regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 05:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me.

I don't now how to do "fair use" on photos. I have one of "Victoria Hand" for an article I plan on making later tonight.Hollister4Mayor (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, when you get to the upload screen there are two sections you really need to pay attention to:

• "Summary:" - Which for "A cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or other such source" comes with a basic fair use template in place. The fields should contain:
  • Article = The article that the image is going to be used in. Don't enter it as a link, the template with automatically mark it up as one.
  • Description = What the image is. For comics this generally includes indicating the original published source (Title, issue, publication date and artist.)
  • Source = Did you scan it or find it on a web site. If it's from the web, include the URL.
  • Portion = How much of the image is used?
  • Low_resolution = Generally the image should be at 72 pixels per inch and no more than 300 pixels across.
  • Purpose = Why is it going to be used in the article.
  • Replaceability = Can a free image be found?
  • other_information = Anything else.
• "Licensing:" - Which is a pull down menu. For comics, use "Comic book stuff"

- J Greb (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Buffy Season 8 26.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Buffy Season 8 26.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Nova SHB

Asgardian is trying to replace the SHB image. Which one do you think is better? [1] --DrBat (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think it is time for clarification on a few points. Firstly, the opinion on the Nova image is fine, although I have spoken to DrBat re: making blind reverts without rationales. This has to stop, and got him into some serious trouble last time. I will find another Nova image that doesn't have so many distractions.

Secondly, there was no need to mention the etiquette issue. The final administrator to comment actually stated that I was within my rights to ask not to be named in an Edit Summary. At any rate, Tenebrae and I have been working together the last few days, and may actually be able to keep David A's edits on track and in accordance with Wikipedia requirements.

Also, why the revert at Celestials? Had you taken the time to actually look, you would have seen that the information was moved [2] to the appropriate page. This is where it belongs - at the entry for that individual character, not the group article. Again, it would have only taken a moment to check.

And yes, I will ask again for you to desist from using the "dishonest" tag, as frankly, that reflects on you, not myself. Wikipedia, as you know, requires editors to be civil and act in good faith.

Finally, why notify BOZ re: the two edits? It - to an outside party - could be construed as smacking of a grudge. I know of no other editors whose movements you actively police. You may not feel this is the case, but this is how it can be perceived by an outside party (this RFC is a good example of this. One outside editor has already commented. 95% of the material submitted could be viewed as simple opinion and not anything of concern). BOZ also has his hands full dealing with Dave, who contacts him over the most minor corrections to his edits. This must be very trying. He doesn't need any unnecessary grief.

I suppose what I am saying to you (as I've said to a number of editors in recent days), is that we could all be smarter editors.

For your consideration. Asgardian (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Thank you for clarifying you post to to DrBat, though it does bring into question your use of the term "blind revert". The term is normally applied to a complete undoing of one or more edits with a very insufficient, or no, edit summary. Normally this is in response to an initial edit or set of edits. This is not what DrBat did. His initial response to your bold edit only centered on the infobox and carried an adequate edit summary. My guess is there was a hope that you, given the number of time you have been reminded to go to the talk page and discuss such contested edits, would actually move to discuss the change you want on the talk page and try to gain consensus for it there. Instead, you reinserted the change and insisted on having the discussion in the edit summary - where it is not supposed to be done. DrBat's response at that point could have included a prod for you to propose the change on the talk page, but given the edit chain it does amount to "You didn't address the reason why the bold edit was first undone."
2. And you were not named in the edit summary. The veracity of the content of your edit summary was taken issue with. Something that was note by the out side editors that commented in the etiquette issue. Bluntly, you do need to double check what you are putting in to edit summaries. Make absolutely sure that it does reflect all of the changes you are making and it does so honestly. AGF only extends so far, and a pattern of editing that includes faulty, misleading, and incomplete edit summaries undermines it. As I pointed out in the image thread, such edit summaries are generally coming from incompetence, laziness, or dishonesty. Based on your edits you are neither incompetent nor lazy. As for civility, it does not mean that conduct is ignored just because an editor may be offended by be called on it. I'm sorry you are offended to have your edit summaries labeled as "dishonest". Would you prefer "inconsistent with the edit", "misleading", "incomplete" or some other phrase be used when the edit summary you provide for an edit is at odds with that edit?
3. The Celestials in part was looking at what else was going on at the time DrBat asked for a second set of eyes. The long and the short of it is that you and David do have a large and recent history of hitting each others buttons, and looking at the history of Celestials it looks like another out break of that. It would have helped things immensely if you had included the link to either the list or your edit there along with "OK, then I'll put in the correct place."
4. Asking both BOZ and Emperor to take a look was more a function of the umbrage you took at the comments I left on the articles talk page. And it wasn't an attempt to "gang up" on you, it's a check on my actions - asking an uninvolved editor "Did I overstep here".

- J Greb (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on the Nova issue on the talk page. The relevant edit for the Celestial article is this one [3] where Asgardian said it should be in the DC (Dreaming Celestial) article, David A reverted it and Asgardian put it back saying to put it the right place (which is the Dreaming Celestial article). The first edit was not unreasonable and made sense but reverting David A's edit seems unwise given all their friction (although in that light it is also unwise of David A to have reverted Asgardian in the first place) and the edit summary was less than clear the second time around. Personally I think that bit of information should stay out of the group article and in the individual article until such time as it becomes clear what the significance is for the group. (Emperor (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Captain Marvel (DC Comics) at FAR

Hey there. As you put a significant amount of work into Captain Marvel (DC Comics), I'm letting you know that the article has been put up for Featured article review. BOZ (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Legion of Doom (Super Friends) in other media

I say, either take it or leave it, since you don't want it the other way! It's called a compromise (assuming the others get deleted)! The main point of the articles is to depict the core members of the Legion outside of the Super Friends universe. I wasn't aiming for an exact, functioning unit being there. TMC1982 (talk) 04:26 p.m., 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at all 5 of the PRODs the problem is that you are creating articles/lists based on your interpretation of the source material.

What are you talking about "my interpetation" of the source material!? I created the articles via a lot of cutting and pasting from preexisting info on Wikipedia! So don't make it sound like I wrote all of that stuff by myself! TMC1982 (talk) 04:33 p.m., 16 January 2010 (UTC)

{quote|Which articles exactly did you cut Legion of Doom (The Batman), Legion of Doom (Batman: The Brave and the Bold), Legion of Doom (DC Universe Original Animated Movies), and Legion of Doom (Filmation) from? - J Greb (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Of course, I naturally got what I got from the individual LOD members' Wikipedia page and proceeded to merge them (for one brand new article) so to speak. TMC1982 (talk) 04:37 p.m., 16 January 2010 (UTC)