User talk:Asgardian

Stranger and Avengers #137-138

Please note that, despite cover claims, at the end of #138 we learn that the Stranger is not the character that fought the Avengers, hence the odd phrasing that I used in Strangers's article (see [1]). Luis Dantas 13:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Publication history

Hi. Just wanted to say there's been some concern about removal of "Publication history" from some Comics Project pages. The exemplar doesn't actually make any exception for "minor" characters, I suppose with the understanding that if they're so minor they don't belong in an encyclopedia. We really need to operate by consensus here or else it's anarchy, so I hope we can all work together, at Speed Demon and elsewhere, as a single community. Thanks -- Tenebrae 16:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nighthawk etc.

I'm sorry you feel a legitimate discussion about the quality of a peer's work isn't appropriate. I think I've tried very hard over the months to work hand-in-hand with you, and have come to your defense on talk pages when I believed you were right.

My issue here is that we can't use terms like "Earth-616" in intros because that's jargon to general-interest readers, to whom Wikipedia, by guideline, is aimed. Because of that guideline (and, I believe, for clear writing anyway), we have to write as if they know nothing about the subject.

The same way you or I might now know anything about ice skating, say. The first paragraph there even has what might seem too simple as sentence, but which is exactly what one writes in an encyclopedia: "It is mainly done for recreation and as a sport."

That's what one reason we use the phrase "the 1930s-'40s period fans and historians call the Golden Age of Comic Books". We comics readers know what's what meant by "the Golden Age of Comic Books", but it needs defining for lay readers. That's all anybody is saying -- to write these things for people who know nothing about a subject and are trying to look it up. --Tenebrae 14:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been perusing your comment to J Greb and me. Here's what I added to the discussion ongoing on J Greb's talk page, and I hope you please read it all the way through. We like you and we're trying to encourage you to embellish your skills. It can be a frustrating effort sometimes, but I'm not giving up:

===CC of posting at J Greb===

And at least two other editors agree with you, J Greb, that we welcome Asgardian's efforts and enthusiasm and only want to help develop his writing skills. That said, I reworked the alternate-version (Earth 712) section of the Whizzer article in what God knows I hope serves at least a little bit as a model for giving the same information in layman English. --Tenebrae 16:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Insulting my intelligence is quite unnecessary. I think the record shows, from the times you've been blocked to the constant arguments you get into with other editors and all the administrator intervention you've required, that you are not a great and responsible editor. Being a great and responsible editor means being able to work with your colleagues amicably. The rest of us do it. Why can't you? --Tenebrae 12:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to be encouraging. I write and edit professionally, so I genuinely want to be helpful and encouraging, the way many people were to me. If you can suggest a better way to say it, I'll say it that way. Don't let the sincere message itself be lost. --Tenebrae 00:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard

As a courtesy, I am letting you know that I have reported you to the Administrator's noticeboard. --GentlemanGhost 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow up on previous discussions, I've posted a few potential solutions there as well. - jc37 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vision

It may need to be cleaned up. It doesn't need to be entirely rewritten, like you've done. --DrBat 12:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please do not just copy and paste the contents (doing that destroys the page's edit history)." --DrBat 00:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How you present yourself can determine how seriously anyone else takes you. For example, have you really been reading the other versions you've been reverting? Your edit summaries ("Address the issues - this version has correct tense, no POV, correct grammar, sourcing and no spacing issues/poor use of images. Other version only suitable for fan site." "Since the other version is fundamentally flawed for all the previously listed reasons, this is the version that should be addressed as it has been shaped to user comments.") when reverting Vision (comics) from its form as a disambiguation page make it sound like you simply reverted blindly without looking at it. The wording of your edit summaries makes it sound like you thought the other person had reverted it to something else entirely. Doczilla 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Please be civil. Calling another editor "petty" in an edit summary does not foster dispute resolution. [2] --GentlemanGhost 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Basilisk (comics)

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Everyone but you wants the other image. Please, just leave it alone. --DrBat 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Absorbing Man

Why did you delete my edits to Absorbing Man? You said 'mentioned' in your edit summary, but I'm confused by what you mean by that. I think what I added is important to his bio. I could have just undid your edit, but I figure if we talk it out here first we'll avoid an unnecessary (and annoying) process in the Absorbing Man page. --Freak104 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Hey, I wanted to give you a heads-up as to why I just fiddled with the image you most recently uploaded. There's an editor who is in the process of tagging all images without a fair use rationale for deletion. He's tagged around 10 or so within the comics domain. I used to think that having the boilerplate {{non-free comic}} was good enough, but apparently you need to justify the usage beyond that. To that end, I added a fair use rationale template to your Melter picture. Feel free to adjust it, if need be. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Galactus

Just informing you and User:TheBalance that I've formally instituted an WP:RfC, and for all parties to not edit Galactus until issues are resolved. --Tenebrae 15:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian, and named you specifically as an "involved" user. Please add your statement there. References/diffs with explanations of why they are notable are most welcome. (I also cross-posted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Comics content related RfC for User:Asgardian, et al.) - jc37 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mephisto (comics) image

Re: Read the History. Doc changed it back. I agree.

Please read the talk page. The same day he changed it, Doczilla wrote on the talk page that he doesn't care which image is used. In the interest of promoting discussion and avoiding an edit war, he started a survey on the talk page for people to indicate which image they prefer. If you would like to advocate for the Silver Surfer image, please do so on the talk page. --GentlemanGhost 02:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Avengers-194.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Avengers-194.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RomToy.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RomToy.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:IronMan-63.jpg

I have tagged Image:IronMan-63.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Avengers200.jpg

I have tagged Image:Avengers200.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Avengers-175.jpg

I have tagged Image:Avengers-175.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Avengers-1.jpg

I have tagged Image:Avengers-1.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 15:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Whizzer

The RfC consensus went against your version, which uses non-standard issue dates and numbering (the WPC editorial guidelines say the style is "vol. 1" not "v1", for example), and it seems as though you're deliberating flouting consensus for the sole purpose to getting a rise out of other editors. This has to stop.--Tenebrae 03:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MTIO-17.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:MTIO-17.gif. 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Thor-205.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thor-205.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Thor-304.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thor-304.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Thor-338.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thor-338.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:TOS73.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TOS73.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours based on your edits at Blood Brothers (comics). You reverted edits without making any attempt to discuss the issue. You appear to have a problem with the consensus with regards to publication history sections in articles, but the way to change those is to initiate discussion rather than change each and every article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which everyone must work together and work towards consensus. Users who cannot discuss or respect consensus are disruptive. Your edits are disruptive because you reject community input. Steve block Talk 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)