User talk:Ughmonster

RE: Your post on my talk page about Dennis Calero

I understand your concerns, but the subject does not seem to meet inclusion guidelines. A discussion has been set up here. Feel free to participate if you like, but please do not remove the deletion notice until the discussion has concluded in up to five days time. Thank you! --NMChico24 04:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already submitted the subject to mediation. I don't understand why WE can't discuss the issue civilly before you mark this article for deletion? Doesn't civility imply that we discuss it first? (UGH)

Please do not remove AFD templates from articles

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Dennis Calero. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of this article, you may comment on the article's AFD entry instead.

Also, please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --NMChico24 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Calero

Hi! I'm A Man In Black (talk · contribs), and I took on the mediation case you initiated. I think this should be an easy issue to resolve; you just ran into some of our newer rules, and I'd like to help you resolve the clearly solvable problems with the Dennis Calero article.

Previous versions of this article were deleted because they fell criterion #7 for speedily deleting an article; specifically, there was no claim that this person was noteworthy. I think it was misapplied, actually, but it's not immediately clear to a non-comics-fan that "penciller" is a major role in creating a comic.

Now, as for how we can fix this. What we need to do is come up with references that substantiate the claims in this article. The first source we need is a source for the Harvey Award nomination.

In the meantime, please don't remove the AFD tag from Dennis Calero. It's just a link to the discussion; if we make the improvements needed, it won't be deleted (or even if it is, we can move it to a special page where you can work on it to solve the concerns raised at the AFD). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I will look for an internet reference to the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ughmonster (talk • contribs)

It doesn't necessarily have to be an internet reference, mind. Print references are also good; in fact, they're preferred.

A few bits of advice: end your comments on talk pages with ~~~~ to add a signature and a timestamp to your posts, and please don't remove that AFD tag. That AFD tag links to the discussion which is the notice that the article has some problems and may be deleted. I understand you're annoyed that you weren't consulted; that's understandable with the speedy deletions, but the AFD is the notice and it is the discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you man in black. The only reference I have is a printed program from the Baltimore Convention in which the awards took place. Other than that, this link:

http://www.harveyawards.org/

Which lists X-Factor as nominated for Best New Series. Ughmonster 05:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young Avengers won? It totally deserved it, although X-Factor has been a lot of fun lately.

Excellent! Just as a bit of advice, a news story or other published work is almost always preferred to a website connected directly to the subject, because it helps establish that the claim is not only correct, but important enough to mention. I found this, and I'll be adding it as a reference to the article.

Now, our next task is to find coverage of Calero, preferably in sources that meet the standards described in WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Calero was featured in an article in Time Out NY, a page scan of which can be found on his website on the front page... www.denniscalero.com Does that count? I'm actually really asking. Ughmonster 05:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it. I would imagine it'd be a good start.

Hey, did you know about the comics Wikiproject? We could always use more editors enthusiastic about helping with the often-spotty coverage of comics artists and writers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't aware of it. I will check it out and contribute if I can. Can the delte notice be removed now? And is there any way of locking the article so it cant be marked for deletion by someone else again, at least for the time being? Ughmonster 05:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, no, there isn't. The AFD will sit up for a while, and then will be closed and unlinked, as a record of the discussion. We're going to add the info needed to keep the article from being deleted, don't worry.

I'm somewhat iffy about the Time Out NY article. It doesn't offer any useful info, as a human interest piece, and the column frequently covers people not because they're important but instead because they might have something to say about their unusual occupations. Better would be some coverage of Calero's work.

As for images, we do have kind of weird rules for images. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and it's free as in libre or open source, not just free as in free-to-edit or free-to-read. We have strict rules about how we use images copyrighted by other people; one of them is that, save for extreme circumstances, we don't use copyrighted image to illustrate living, non-reclusive people. Rather than grabbing an image off of a random webpage, my suggestion would be that you contact Calero himself about releasing an image under a free license, like the GFDL or a Creative Commons license. Wikipedia:Image license tags has a list of image tags; any of the ones marked "free license" would be fine. Now, if you have a picture you yourself took, that's a much simpler case. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you might want to see this; it's chock full of helpful advice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to a moderator?

I say, bring it on 4.18GB 12:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi douche. --Ughmonster 02:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comments on User_talk:MidgleyDJ#Dennis_Calero, Sockpuppetry, Speedy Deletes etc

Hi Ughmonster -

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I repeat my assertion that I was not involved in ANY sock puppetry. Furthermore, I've spoken to an Admin (A Man in Black) about it and his reply suggests to me that no one, other than yourself seems to be suggesting I was involved in sockpuppetry.

I'm more than happy for you to have it investigated at any level, as I know it simply isnt true. Yes, I did suggest that you were using sockpuppets in the deletion discussion, something I stand by, though I probably should have contacted an admin about it immediately rather than taking matters in my own hands. I believe you were using these sockpuppets in an attempt to swing the AfD nomination for the Denis Calero article in your favour.

For what it's worth if I did comment on the AfD for a delete or keep on the Denis Calero article, I'd back keeping the article in it's improved form. The early form of the article was nominated for speedy deletion (by me) as notability was not asserted. I made what I believed was the right call at the time, and given the nature of the article at the time I think I'd make the same call again. I will, however, apologise for not notifying you of my adding speedy delete tags to the article, this is clearly not the ideal approach, and I'm endevouring not to make that mistake again.

Kind regards, MidgleyDJ 03:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough and I appreciate the fact that even though we disagree, you took my olive branch in the spirit in which it was intended. Best, --Ughmonster 04:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]