Template talk:Batman/Archive 01

Storylines

Nice continuing work on this. I'm wondering if you and I can't braistorm a list of relevantly important storylines on here first, and then really work through which are MOST important. For example, Knightfall was added for it's significance as it was intended to be the end of bruce wayne and the start of a successor as the bat, but fans hated it, and bruce came back. Cataclysm is good, but recent, and most of it's effects are gone. Let's see what we can come up with? ThuranX 17:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't really read a lot of comic books, I'm not sure I'm fully qualified to help with that. How 'bout The Long Halloween?--Lenin & McCarthy 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that letting the rest of Wiki watch and edit will help with that, and you and I can relax and jsut keep it from getting ridiculously weighty with added links. ThuranX 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Let those with more experience than myself do it. Good plan.--Lenin & McCarthy 16:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the recent repairs to the size of the template, I'm wondering if the 'storylines' section is too likely to become cumbersome rapidly. I think a decision should be made as to whether 'impact to the canon' is the primary marker for inclusion, or significance of the story both in and out of the comics should matter more. I ask this because while dark Knight Returns is one of the greatest batman stories ever, by critical review ANd sales figures, not just my opinion, it's also not 'canon'. What should be the requirement, or is this category SO likely to be a trainwreck that it shoudl be considered for removal, or some bigger revamping?ThuranX 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Amazing how this section got a ton of editing, and no discussion. why, it's like I'm not even involved since WP:CMC came in to 'save me from myself'ThuranX 18:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

placement?

I'm putting it above the references/sources/outside links, like the superman template is on it's pages... ThuranX 15:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Right--Lenin & McCarthy 15:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Amazing speed, man. I think we're done putting it up. ThuranX 16:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was just finishing up the TV shows. And I was half expecting someone to revert after I did the films.--Lenin & McCarthy 16:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but I think it'll be fine, and we'll get more improvements than negative criticisms. ThuranX 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Size and wasted space

For being so large, this template certainly has a lot of wasted space under the "films" heading. Guermantes 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. If it gets worse we might have to go back to the film setup of the first Batman template, which listed the films by group rather than actor. I don't think it's quite come to that, however, although now that Scarecrow is on there it looks a bit big.--Lenin & McCarthy 21:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrmmmm. What if we combined the serials, and separated them by actor? I'll set it up that way. ThuranX 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Although this is a large template, I think most of the editors trying to improve it would appreciate guerilla ambushes that remove most of the work NOT being perofmred on this template. Taking away all the categories devised for just 'films, and leaving a mess there is NOT a viable solution.ThuranX 15:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the films be shortened to one section, with no breakdown by actor/director/other, and please remove the footnotes as "continuity" can be confusing to those less knowledgeable about the subject. As it currently exists this box is extremely unweildy and is attached to a great many articles that are already quite lengthy. -Markeer 15:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This box is no larger than superman's template. IT contains as much information as Superman's template. I see no valid reason to shove a useless jumble of links into a box. it defeats the value of a template in mapping out relevant info related to a larger topic. Your 'edits' are pretty close to blanking vandalism. Further, holding a private 'discussion for consensus' on a third party page, then coming here and telling us 'I've got consensus over on this other unrelated page, that we didn't invite you to, so I can do this' is a fallacy. I will only recognize consensus built here, and thats' REASONED consensus, not you pulling half of WP:Comic over here with pointless 'i support' notes. It seems yu want to create a fight here. I'm not interested in it, I'm not going to get into it, I'm just going to continue to IMPROVE this template, and protect it from obvious vandalism. ThuranX 16:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As I linked on your userpage, please refer in the future to the wikipedia guidelines on assuming good faith friend. The intention of every editor is to improve items on wikipedia, yourself included. Regardless, as I state above, my opinion is this template box is currently unweildy, just as I would say the {{Superman}} is. A great many articles of large size have these useful boxes, so I would say it is reasonable to keep them as compact and simple as possible to avoid unnecessary article clutter. -Markeer 16:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your actions are vandalism. Claiming consensus based on a third party talk page isn't acceptable, and isn't good faith. Reverting after being asked to this talk page is even worse. Don't waste time acting like a victim.ThuranX 16:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This box is way to big. I just looked at AMIB's version, and it looked good and was had all the relevant information. The template needs to link all the relevant information, if the user wants to know who played what, then they can link off that particular film link. But if everyone is insistent on having the actors, then they can have a line like the films do. I think the boxes are important, but that they should not be so obtrusive. --Silver lode 16:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've shrunk it a lot; I condensed all the theatrical films, from the serials to Dark Knight, into one line. There's no need for excessive metadata in this template, especially when it was leading to the layout nightmares that the previous version had. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed all of the "continuity" notes. This isn't the place to be fitting these works into fictional universes; instead, it's the place to fit them into our universe, preferably in the most compact, efficient navbox possible. Adding lots of whitespace to convey metadata doesn't accomplish that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but again I think we're getting to the 'jumble of links' level here. I see nothing wrong with noting which continiuties exist. That's not fitting it into comic universes, that's explaining which films comprise which series. Should someone want to know which movies are part of which series now, they can't tell from the template. They could before, with your previous edit about burton/schumaker. That edit removed a number of lines from the template,reducing it in size, as per many editors concerns, while still converying more information about assiciation of films, timelines, etc., than the larger Superman Template. As I said below, I think that was a good edit. I think mashing all the links together, as you're now doing, is NOT productive, NOT informative, and frankly, it's also ugly. Finally, it certainly seems like your intent is to do a series of small edits to get the page right back to what markeer had earlier done, which, by your own words, was detrimental to the page.ThuranX 17:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place for metadata. We don't need to note the different continuities in every single Batman article, and the Superman template is a poor example because it is also very huge, includes too much metadata, and has far too much whitespace. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

then go fix that template. It's been up for a LOOOONG time. WP:CNC had plenty of time to 'fix' that Template. Instead, you're here, complaining that I based this off that, and insulting all the owrk everyone before you has done. As for 'metadata' it'd be really horrible if WIki had facts. We're not getting ridiculously obsessive on the metadata, and instead, you're wroking to reduce the level of info to less than usefully minimal. You've basically got the tempalte to the point where your next move will be to classify it as 'motion picture' and combine all the films and animation. at which point, we'll be right back to markeer's vandal-like edit. And I'll revert right back to what it was yesterday, because at that point, all these edits, except the burton schumaker ones, will be detrimental to the page. ThuranX 17:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Your bad luck I'm vastly more a fan of Batman than Superman.

Wikipedia can have these facts, but in the articles. Trying to cram them into a navigation box is making the box more obtrusive and less useful for navigation. If there's some confusion about what movies are in what continuity, I suggest you work on the movie articles to make them clearer on that point.

I think live-action and animation is a good split. There's basically no overlap between the two, and when you list them chronologically you also happen to group them by style/continuity (the serials, West/Ward, Burton/Schumacher, modern movies; TAS/New leads into Beyond, then TBM). In fact, other than possibly format fiddling (wording and such), I'm done doing major edits to the film/TV section of this navbox. Right now, I'm double-checking that no major supporting characters, villains, storylines, or comics are omitted, while removing any clearly out-of-place ones. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Continuities

Do we really need to denote continuities?--Chris Griswold 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There had been a significant amount of chatter about it's efficacy at the superman template, but since it's a bit mroe clear-cut for the batman, I agreed with L&M's additions in that regard. There was a fair amount of confusion prior to Begins' release, so I don't see a harm in it. ThuranX 02:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What about other series starring Batman?

The "see also" section in Batman (which this template has replaced nicely) used to include links to Super Friends, Justice League (TV series) and Justice League Unlimited. Should this template include them? I can see arguments for and against: on the one hand, these were widely viewed television series which featured Batman prominently; on the other hand, we probably don't want to include every comic series in which Batman has featured prominently, and it might be odd to be selective about the comics and inclusive about television. What do others think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't include them at first due to both space, and relevance. The Superman Template likewise rejected these. I'd suggest instead that a JLA template could include these. Hrmmm.... I'll think about it... hehehe... ThuranX 14:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I suppose that the JLA series don't really need to be in this template. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Miscellanea" section like the Superman Template this was modeled on. Perhaps the Catwoman movie could also go there (originally rejected from the first Batman Film template, but seeing as how Supergirl got on the Superman template...--Lenin & McCarthy 08:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed. Supergirl at least had Jimmy Olsen, directly mentioned Superman, and was produced by the same evil men. --Chris Griswold 08:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

When I first assembled this, I opted to avoid Catwoman because it specifically was NOT in any Batman-related continuity. Likewise, despite the amazing quality of Sandy Collora's projects, I didn't include fan films. (I am working on a template for them, give me a little time, though, LOL). ThuranX 14:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Two editors from the WP:COMICS have come here with the intent of blanking major quantities of content. I will continue to revert their edits and ignore their 'messages' to me that they are working in good faith based on a consensus they arrived at on another tlak page, not that of Template:The Batman. they call me uncivil and rude and so on, but they cna't be bothered to discuss their 'good faith edits', instead continuing to vandalize the page. I have reached by 3 reverts though, and have no doubt these two will report it immediately, so I'm hoping that other editors interested in actually IMPROVING the page will help me protect the page.ThuranX 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is blanking anything, and this "sky is falling attitude" isn't helpful at all. Please don't berate people for not using this talk page, then berate them when they do use this talk page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Whitespace and the Films subsection

The vertical arrangement of the films section is causing a great deal of whitespace in this template, making it excessively large and obtrusive. Additionally, I'm not exactly sure why this template has meta-data on what films fit into what continuity, which is information of limited interest being crammed into an already overlarge template.

The current version has all of the films in a lump, which is less than ideal; can someone think of a way they could be broken up into three to five lines? I was thinking of combining the television section into the films section, then breaking it up into...

• Serials - 60s TV show - Adam West movie
• Animated
• Modern movies

I'm just not sure what to name them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It was broken up into useful categories, but you're too busy vandalizing to notice. ThuranX 16:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Those categories often included a single film, leading to a vertical arrangement and a great deal of whitespace. And again, I'm asking you to stop describing good-faith edits as vandalism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

good faith requires discussion here, not at another talk page. You and Markeer came here making edits based on a consensus claimed from another page. No editor here knew there was a discussion of this template going on there, but you and Markeer walked in, shouted 'CONSENSUS' and removed the work of multiple GOOD FAITH editors here. You're both rude and childish, and obviously only worked in the method you did because you knew that editors here would not have wanted all the information they've been working on to be removed. In fact, the editors here were already addressing the size problems, and discussing it here. It HAD been my intent this morning to create a 'Burton/Schumaker' Continuity listing, and then a Nolan Continuity, eliminating about 5 lines of the template, but instead I'm wasting time protecting the page from VANDALS all morning. had you taken the tiem to truly model GOOD FAITH and ask here what's beign done, or read this talk page, you'd see that this was a known issue. Instead, now, both of us are losing time. I'm going to REREVERT THE PAGE to the PROPER format, put in my edits, and go mow the lawn. If I see the page has suffered subsequent vandalisms, I'll revert them. ThuranX 16:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good to remember that no one owns a page, and that just because people change something you don't like does not make it vandalism. WP is not a democracy, and consensus is not needed to change a page, although it does make it easier. and now, and I know it started on another talk page but oh well now, it seems there is a consensus that this box is too big. Your work on it is to be commended, but please do not mistake constructive edits as vandalism. I think Markeer and AMIB were just following the WP policy of Being Bold. --Silver lode 16:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, ONce forced to talk, man in black did exactly the dit I mentioned while I was writing on here. For that, I thank him for saving me time. Amazing how much cleaner things are when you USE THE RIGTH TALK PAGE. MiB, I followed up by creating a 'nolan films', to separate the two contiuities. ThuranX 16:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, minor problem. I moved the 'current continuity' comment to be onthe same line as teh Nolan Films, to save another line while remarking on the one major 'continuity' notation we need, that is, what's current and what's not, but I can't get it to be the nice, smaller, italicized version we're seeing int he lower right corner. if someone can resolve that, that would be great for that notation.ThuranX 16:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point on the Nolan line, that if it's tagged In dev, it's probably the current continuity. ThuranX 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody came here claiming a consensus from another page. I brought up two problematic templates in a central location, and someone made a good-faith WP:BOLD edit, which you inexplicably reverted as vandalism. You may want to read WP:VAND carefully:

“ Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism. ”

You reverted Markeer's good-faith edits not as detrimental to the template (which I probably wouldn't have paid a second thought to) but as vandalism, which they clearly were not. I reverted your edit as a misunderstanding and pointed you to proof of Markeer's good faith, nothing more. When you reverted that as vandalism, I started writing a talk explanation of the changes, but you reverted before I could even finish that talk page comment.

In the future, I suggest you be more careful about what you call vandalism, be considerably less confrontational, and not jump to revert war when someone is bold in editing an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There's Being Bold, and there's Being a vandal. Had YOU come in here, and jsut done the Burton/Schumaker films line, that'd be 'bold'. removing all the categories and leaving an unnavigable mess of links is vandalism. he didn't ask, and when confronted, he DID cite a conversation on ANOTHER talk page. While it may not be 'vandalism' in the tradition leaving dickjokes on a page' style that we see most of on Wikipedia, removing large quantities of information with NO explanation is vandalism. And once there WAS talk here, Man in Bl?ck figured out the same change that I had planned to make this morning, had I not had to fix the page and defend my decision to revert vandalism. As for being confrtonational, on Wikipedia, it's the best way to keep vandals away. Those who REALLY think there's merit stick around and reply, as MiB? did. Markeer left. MiB saw a problem and stuck around. As far as I'm concerned, my level of 'confrontationalism' was just about right. had Markeer asked on here, or said "I prefer minialist lsitings in templates, so I've edited to reflect that' that might've been a conversation starter. Instead, he effectively said 'i fixed the page' and then ran off. That's vandalism, especially since removing big chunks of info IS vandalism. read up on wiki's policy and the associated talks all over the place. I understand why MiB REREVERTED, and I do apologize, that wasn't vandalism, as it appears I cut off his explanations with my edits. I stand by my original assestment of Markeer, however. And I am glad to have more editors who WANT to improve this page. The next section that really needs work is the 'Storylines' listing, whic hcan be discussed above.ThuranX 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits made with a genuine intention to improve the encyclopedia are never, ever vandalism. (Oftentimes large chunks of info are removed because they're redundant or inappropriate to Wikipedia.) You've driven an editor away from this template with your incivility, and I urge you to reconsider and moderate your tone immediately. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AMiB but I was not driven away by ThuranX's comments or tone. I simply took a step back to allow some discussion to take place to avoid further heated exchanges. I like the change to the films section (as of current) and I'm presently going back and forth trying to decide if the template could be reduced further by merging the "Comics" and "Comics storylines" sections. Technically all of the storylines have been published separately as TPBs so they are all 'comic titles' in one way or another -Markeer 17:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly on this one. There's a big difference between a storyline and an ongoing series. A storyline is a unit of story; largely, when you talk about it, you're going to talk about the plot and criticism of that plot. An ongoing series is more of a merchandising thing, where you're going to be talking about the publishing history and taking a perspective further away from the story being told. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. My concern was for brevity on the box of course, and I've basically decided not to make that change largely because the title links for both are too valuable to lose from a "further links" box (categories for Batman titles and stories respectively). The current box choices in those sections seem to be "Batman titles currently being published" and "storylines with the largest long term effect" (which is more than reasonable). Honestly, the last place I can see to condense would be to move the two cancelled films to "Live Action" with (cancelled) in parenthesis as per the (in development) "The Dark Knight" (a savings of 2-3 lines counting whitespace). -Markeer 17:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was waffling about removing the cancelled films altogether, actually; that's why I didn't condense them.

I'd say remove the cancelled films and use the extra space to add most of your influential creators list from below to the "People" section. Timm/Dini (for example) a heck of a lot more important than a film that was never made (in my opinion) -Markeer 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also support removing the cancelled films — they're not that important in the grand scheme of Batman. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose removal of the cancelled Films. They provide interesting and significant backstory to the development of the films. ThuranX 18:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But is an infobox the best place for "interesting and significant backstory"? (Sorry that I removed them before the discussion was over — I didn't notice your objection until after my edit, and should have waited. If you want to restore them until we reach a better consensus, feel free.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

don't worry, my thoughts on this article no longer matter. It contains 0% of my work now, and the fact that entire talk page sections for things like the storylines section are begin ignored but edited rampantly proves i'm irrelevant. Do what you want, i'll fix it later.ThuranX 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, please don't feel excluded. It's OK to step back for a bit when the editing gets hot (indeed, it's what WP:COOL reccomends) but don't give up on your fellow editors. We're all trying to work together to improve the template. We're not all going to agree on what should and shouldn't be included, but our ultimate goal is the same. If you don't like the edits that are being made, explain exactly why here in a non-confrontational and non-emotional manner. We can all work together and try to find a consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have explained it. it didn't work. So now I've edited the superman template down to the same mess you've made this one. When they come here looking for a reason, I'll let you all explain it. Have fun. ThuranX 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the comics, my personal preference is the long-running, influential titles; I'm not sure why we have ASB&R (which, at this rate, isn't going to be much more than a miniseries), and we definitely should have Batman Family and The Brave and the Bold (both of which are cancelled but historically important). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said above I lean toward only links to ongoing Batman titles currently being published for that section. Getting into past titles or current miniseries would probably just lead to quibbling among fans of which titles are more deserving, which are better, etc. I understand that many choices of links here are judgement calls, but no need to ask for trouble :) -Markeer 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How does the current version look? Instead of ongoing series, it's pretty much any series starring Batman (not counting series Wikipedia doesn't have a separate article for) that ran for 24 or more issues. I'm really iffy about only including ongoing series; that would exclude World's Finest, which has run for more years than Sup/Bat has issues. 24 issues is a number pulled out of my butt, but it handily excludes short-lived side comics and animated series adaptations (as well as every mini-series ever), while offering an impartial yardstick for including the important series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

PLease not that the talk page you are talking about is the one for the Wikiproject that this template is part of. The use of this template affects a number of articles, and so this template's size and look affect more than just this template. If you plan to continue working on WP:CMC articles, I advise you to pay attention to that talk page; discussions there can affect anything you work on within the project. --Chris Griswold 17:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I never tagged it as a part of the project, nor has anyone else, it was originally modelled on the Superman Template. I recommend that all the size/space zealots go fix Template: Superman. Had that been done 'right' according to the WP:CMC, then perhaps this wouldn't be happening. but last I checked, it was still fairly large, and I've already been willing to reduce the size, which started before this morning's little blow-up. Instead, It's just become me watching as everything every editor before this AM has done is removed in favor of link soup. ThuranX 17:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Shrunk it down

Okay, I soaked as much whitespace out of it as I could without losing links (with one exception). Numbered for ease of discussion...

1. I added Batwoman, and waffled on Ace the Bat-Hound and Bat-Mite. I still think we're a little thin on supporting characters; how do people feel about Oracle, Azrael, Spoiler, or individual listings for the Robins? Markeer makes a good point about reducing the characters.
2. I added Killer Croc and Clayface (and Solomon Grundy, as he's a Gotham villain, but good call on the removal there; he really is more of a GL villain). How should we arrange the villains? Are there too many, or are we missing any? I'm kind of iffy on Bane; he's more like Hush or Prometheus or the Reaper or Carmine Falcone in that he has one really big story, then he's sort of relegated to the background.
3. I condensed the places and miscellanea and added the Bat-Signal. Places is never going to be any longer, and Miscellanea just fit, filling in that whitespace. Does someone have a better name?
4. I added a ton of influential people to the list. Besides the creators, I added all of the really influential writers and artists on Batman (not all the famous ones, just the ones who formed Batman). Does Jeph Loeb belong on this list? While Jim Lee has pretty much defined the look of Batman in the comics of the last three or so years, Loeb has just written a lot of really good stories. I'm not sure his work is definitive, or that we can really tell if it's definitive yet. In fact, does Jim Lee belong? Ah, indecision.
5. I condensed the movie and animation sections; this is discussed above.
6. I added Death in the Family and Killing Joke. I waffled on DK2, and I really don't think we need all of the Sale/Loeb Year One followups (Long Halloween, for example), as they're critically acclaimed, but not yet particularly influential.
7. I just ditched the video games. Only one Batman game ever has been a critical success, and none of them have ever been a sales success. Additionally, all of the games that were there were adaptations of movies.
8. We don't have a section on influential people outside of the comics. I don't know what to name it, but I'd say Adam West, Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, whoever voiced Batman in the animated series, Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, and Christopher Nolan would belong on it at least. Definitely major directors and people who have become typecast as Batman, but not the one-off actors who played Batman in various movies.
9. I waffled on what to do with the cancelled movies. Why are they in this template at all?

Okay. Commence the yell...er...discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Characters

Hey, how would people feel about removing the less-important minor characters as well as all of the villain but the Joker, and just link Batman villains in the characters line? Someone made a comment that the villains line is a poor POV attempt to list all the notable Batman villains, and I think there's some merit to that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no such comment on this talk page, so I oppose such an edit. Not that it matters.ThuranX 18:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Brainfart. The comment was at Talk:Batman. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

While I certainly see an argument for NPOV (it's too large a subject for there not to be some judgement calls), I have to say that there's almost no point to an infobox like this without most of those characters and villains. If you'd like to avoid POV, I'd say remove characters that have not appeared in any motion picture of the last 20 years, as there's a clear argument for notability for any who have been used both in comics AND in the largest audience movies. Looking at the list this would only mean removing (chars) Batwoman, Outsiders, (vills) Killer Croc and Clayface. I think that would satisfy NPOV while also providing a large number of links for those seeking more information.

Option 1a would be replace Batwoman and Outsiders with Other characters and Croc/Clayface with Other villains. Would seem to take up about the same amount of space at the same time, so no excess white space. -Markeer 18:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, so roll back the changes I made to those sections and combine them. That's actually a good idea; I'll do it right now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone and done that, and also removed Bane while I was at it, for the same reason. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this box should only have three comic based sections (characters, supporting characters & enemies) everything else should go into a second "Batman Media" template. Maybe you could include locations & equipment as the fourth section, but that's dicey. --Basique 19:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I like your Be Bold nature! ThuranX 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were trying to do, but you destroyed the close of the box and removed all the categories and excised a chunk of the template without actually putting it anywhere else, so I undid that. I'm not sure what you were trying to do, but Basique was suggesting splitting this template, not removing half of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm jsut doing what you guys do. DO FIRST, think later, BE BOLD! I fixed it so that other stuff is there, but hey man, if he wants the media batman box, he can build it. Read the talk man, we had consensus, that other stuff had to go!ThuranX 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

These edits border on WP:POINT, Thuran. Splitting this template isn't as simple as just removing half of it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thuran, these edits border on intentional disruption. Please, chill out or take a break. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not intentional disruption, it's BEING BOLD. If your 35 edits are all being bold, so is mine. You'll notice that I didn't disrupt, I read the talk page and boldly acted upon it. Heck, I know I didn't actually HAVE to read other editors' comments, or respect their ideas, but I did. That's being a GOOD FAITH editor. I'm sorry if you don't like the edit, but that's what talk apges are for. Just don't always expect everyone to like your edits. That's how it works. I kjnwo this because youv'e said the same things to me. ThuranX 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You deleted half the template with a sarcastic edit summary, deleting the ending of the template with it. I think it may be time to distance yourself from this for a bit; nobody has reverted any constructive edits you've made, but you just made carelessly or intentionally destructive edits both here and {{Superman}}, accompanied with sarcastic edit summaries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You seem very defensive of your work on this page. I don't understand why that is. Why are you suddenly so defensive about your edits?ThuranX 20:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly defensive of my edits. (If someone wants to dig in and change whatever, as long as they aren't bloating this template again, I'm not sweating it.) I'm worried that you've lost objectivity, as you've begun acting a bit erratically. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not acting erratically. I started out wanting to DISCUSS edits to this page that you and Markeer decided needed to be made. Instead of dicussing, I was pointed to talk on a third party page, as I've stated before. Even after that, I tried to talk about this page. Instead, I was repeatedly ignored. So I decided that the best way to continue to help on this page was to do what you and Markeer had modelled as the better wiki-editor behavior. So I have acted boldly, implementing ideas on the talk page by Basique. You used to be upset that I kept trying to talk about this page, now you're upset that I've stopped tlaking and, like you, started DOING. it seems you're NOW only going to be happy if I cede all interest in a page I started to someone who came in, told me I did everything wrong, and totally redid the page without any discussion with previous GOOD FAITH editors. That's not erratic, but I am confused. From 'Hi, we decided without letting you know that we're going to fix a page you've been working on for weeks' to 'get out of our way' to 'just go away and let us play', your attitude has grown consistently more and more hostile. If anyone is being erratic, it's you. I see you've goen to the adminstrators, and I plan to address your rude behavior in desiregarding all the work done be previous editors, your ignorance of the talk page discussions, and your hate filled 'go away' attitude.ThuranX 20:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not particularly upset. I'm worried that we're going to end up with two or three templates that will end up bloating, but since you just deleted half the template and didn't actually do anything with it, I don't think that's happening any time soon. Instead, I'm worried that you've lost objectivity, and are reacting to a percieved "invasion" into "your" template. I've tried to engage you further up the page about merging all the stubby film/TV lines, as well as explained my reasoning for all of the edits and invited discussion, change, or reversion. Other editors have tried to engage you as well. Instead of engaging those editors, you've affected with a martyred "Well, I see I'm not wanted here" attitude, then made a drastic change in attitude with a destructive reduction of the template (as well as a destructive reduction of {{Superman}}) accompanied with sarcastic edit summaries. For all of this, I'm not really interested in persecuting you; I just think you've lost the kind of objectivity that goes with "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now don't lie. You haven't shown any of the previous editors of this template ANY respect. You came in, told us it had already been decided that our work was lousy, and that YOU would fix it. Now you're realizing you were a jerk, and instead of apologizing, you're going to escalate things. That's ok, that's BEING BOLD. I like that about you. Right or wrong, you just keep on BEING BOLD! I respect that about you! I've decided it's the RIGHT way to be. My former behavior, where I tried talking to you, and supporting your early edits, well, that was stupid of me. I should've just cheered on your BEING BOLD attitude, and let you do anythign you wanted. In fact, I'm considering BEING BOLD on a WHOLE lot of pages! I hear there's a conflict on the elephant page about how many elephants are out there, maybe that just needs a BOLD editor to solve it! Seriously though. If you and Makeer had TALKED at first, none of this would've happened. But you didn't. when you were asked to talk, YOU insulted me b telling me it had 'already been discussed' (just not on any page the editors of this template kenw to look at for a discussion of this page, which belongs on THIS talk page). When I replied, you ignored me. No matter HOW I talked to you, Only making edits got you to stop and talk. Now you're upset. I don't back down from bullies, and I'm not going to start. Take it to the administration. Being bold doesn't actually preclude some basic respect, despite your behavior, and that's ALL I've been asking for all day. Instead, it's just been 'you're clueless, you suck at wiki, you can't tell bold editing from article ruining vandalism, and we don't have to esplain being bold, no matter how radical a change we make unexplained!' I'm not interested in being condescended to, and I'm not going to be bullied. Do all you want to the page. I'm sure other editors will 'fix' it their way later anyways.

I'm not sure how I'm bullying you, but I am sure nothing else I can say will help at this point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I told you what to say. but you're not going to.ThuranX 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please try to act in a civil manner, and don't accuse another editor of lying. I suggest reading up about what "good faith" means on Wikipedia. The discussion started in an appropriate place, just not the place you wanted. Your response should not have been angry; be happy that we have taken an interest in the template you created and not only think it's a good idea to have such a template but want to work on it - and yes, with you. Reverting edits, editing to make a point, writing snide edit summaries and sarcastic responses, and accusing several editors of vandalism and lying appear make other editors think you have interest in working with them. This frequently leads to an editor who behaves in such a way to be excluded from the process whether he created the item in question or not.--Chris Griswold 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what "good faith" means. I've made my position clear repeatedly. I was excluded, by design, from the start of this set of edits. NOt after I started some big fight. These editors, markeer and AMiB had NO intention of working WITH me. They made that clear from the beginning, by attacking me for undoing their 'bold edit', since it sure as hell looks like vandalism to undo all the category work that was there and create a bunched up pile of links. I know you don't agree than turned organized categories into a pile of links could possibly considered vandalism by editors who worked at length on a pge, even if that link-piling goes unaccompanied by any talk page explanation. I know that when I asked for explanations, and was ignored, that doesn't look to you like incivility, and I know that all the times I tried to give my input looks like MY being and 'angry mastodon', while all the times they ignored my comments was 'being bold'. Well, I'm not going to change my mind. AMiB and Markeer were rude, neither's apologized at all, and neither intends to. Instead, they just get more and more peopel to defend their incivility, rudeness, and frankly, vandalistic start to the day.ThuranX 02:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Basique, I'm worried about template creep; if we split this like that, we risk ending up with a Batman characters template and a Batman movies template and a DCAU template ad end up with the kind of mess that blights articles like Mario (which has three templates at the bottom, which may or may not be huge and ugly depending on what last happened with them). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't actually expect my suggestions to be acted on so quickly withount a long group discussion. Markeer are you comfortable with these drastic changes? Bl♟ck I get your point, but I think the secondary templates coming out of this split may be useful to the TV/Film projects. And if not they will eventually die off and be deleted. Natural selection is very active on Wikipedia. I do think its long past time that rules for these templates and their inclusion were decided on by the Project as a whole. It's way past time these templates were regulated in the same way that the S-Boxes are. If you setup rules stating that only one of each Batman template can be used on a page, then I don't think you'll have a huge problem. --Basique 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the smaller comic-oriented box, as I say below under the Protection section (admittedly probably not the best section for a vote on this). -Markeer 21:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you didn't expect your suggestion to be so quickly acted upon! This is wikipedia, we don't actually pay attention to the talk page, we DO! WIkipedia is for DO-ers who can BE BOLD! next time, basique, I suggest you just do it that's what markeer and AMiB did, adn look how great the page is now! Why, you'd never even know I'd try to make a template at all!ThuranX 21:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Boy, I hope my sarcasm and distaste for today's behavior by AMiB and Markeer is clear by now.)

ThuranX: Honestly I don't know why my attempting to improve an article this morning upset you so much, but apparently it has. In case no one has said so, I'm fully aware that you created this template on July 20th (it's the first entry in the template history, not hard to find), and of course your doing so was a good idea. Infoboxes of this kind are useful to readers as they provide links to related articles on a subject.

I swear to god man, when it was suggested on a comics-related wikipedia talk page that the box was large and unwieldy, my only thought was to look at it, see if there was a way to improve it (like every other editor on every other article), and try my best to help in some way toward a better end product. Your anger today at people's attempts to improve a box that will likely exist on a great many pages has been distressing. All I can ask is that you try to not let your anger get in the way of a better product.

In the meantime I have honestly tried not to get involved in these angry conversations, only about the content. I'm sorry you've been so upset friend, but please try to be polite toward people who are only trying, of their volunteered time, to make wikipedia a good encyclopedia. -Markeer 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not your friend, don't try any of that 'Good Faith' at this point in the situation. I tried to talk to both of you this morning, and you both blew me off. I don't think this is "MY" page, but I do feel that my work on this page, which included writing it up in notepad offline as I searched wikipedia, and then spending a couple hours putting it together ON wikipedia playing in the previews, means I did enough work on it to validate having a voice in further edits. Not one of you WP:Comics people has done that. AT ALL. You all disregarded the work already in progress, insulted those who did that work, and when I tried to talk to you, you ignored. then you insulted my reverts and edits. Then you mocked them. Finally, You reverted the edits I did which were done with exactly the same behaviors YOU yourselves used, and said my behavior was NOT wikipedia's way. well, if MY behavior wasn't wikipedia's way, then neither was yours. No, I'm not your 'friend' at all, and we both know it. I don't believe for one moment you had Good Faith. I believe that this was a deliberate action by WP:Comics to take charge of a page that they hadn't bothered to create, or even think of. I believe that it solved problems discussed in the previous bat-templates available, and I believe that I modelled it on a GOOD template, the Superman template, which WP:Comics has had ample time to edit and 'fix'. Instead, WP: Comics saw this template, and decided they had to run it. It's selfish abuse of Wikipedia that you're all demonstrating, but since it's currently four to one, I guess I can't really do anything about it right now. I'm hurt that all my work was treated like manure, yes, but I'm more insulted that basic civility was ignored all day, except to throw it in my face on my user page and tell me I had none of it, even though I DID support a number of the changes, and even tried to give truly helpful edits along the way. Instead, what did I get? "grundy IS a Gotham villian, but I guess I'll leave him off". that's throwing a starving dog a rotting bone, not working together like Wikipedia's about. Not one of the people involved in today's little dust up has shown the least respect for ANY of the editors who worked on this page before. The opposite. they flat out insulted us. 'this page is bulky, clumsy, who added this, this is lame, we don't need this, why do this'. My responses were ignored. This is by far the worst experience I've had on wikipedia. I've been part of some significant disagreements before, including some stuff a while back on the Katherine harris page, and others since then. however, all of those editing disagreements were with people who could explain WHY they'd done what they had done. Today, I got none of that. What I got was 'we're BEING BOLD! get out of our way!'ThuranX 22:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, I accept that you feel that that the other editors of this page have been mistreating you and ganging up on you. For any part I've played in that, I apologize. I was not party to most of the editing this morning, but was distressed at the tone of the comments on this page, and responded accordingly. I do not make any judgment or comment about the other editors' work on the template, except to assume good faith of them — as I do of you, ThuranX. I recognize that by and large you were acting in what you believed to be the best interests of the encyclopedia, except when you became upset and sarcastic. My comments to you were intended to help defuse the situation, and if they have failed I apologize for that as well. If you are still concerned about the way that this morning's edits proceeded, perhaps you could contact an editor or administrator whose judgement you trust to look at the situation with an impartial eye. I, for one, will listen. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not interested in your apology. You've been defending them the whole day. Like Stephen Colbert said, if enough people on wikipedia want it to be right, then it 'is right'. regardless of fact. ThuranX 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I've tried to reach out to you, ThuranX. If you're more interested in holding a grudge than in editing productively, that's your choice. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the only reason why Ace the Bat-hound is included on the template because he's been featured on a cartoon? It seems kinda ridiculous to include a character who hasn't had an in-continuity appearance or reference since Knightfall. Or are we also going by character notability garnered from other media, such as Batman Beyond and Krypto the Super-Dog, and not just the comics?

--71.119.29.143 15:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Carnyfoke

Ace was in Knightfall? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I suggest protecting this page for a day or so to stop the rv war. This will allow for discussion and maybe for some people to back away and calm down. --Silver lode 20:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

nah, there's no need for that. I think AMiB jsut needs to accept that he's not the only one who can be bold, and sometimes, when other editors are being bold, it will change things he's worked hard on. He doesn't mind BEING bold, just SEEING bold. he'll learn this is just making him a stronger editor. And while I appreciate the revert, if you'll notice above, Basique and I agreed to shorten the page. I'd appreciate you undoing your revert. After all, isn't Wikipedia about being bold? That's my understanding of what happened here today, and I'm just trying to be a better wiki-editor. I've learned today that being bold is more important than manners, feelings, or respect. So please undo your revert. Otherwise, I'll have to be bold and do it myself. ThuranX 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

in that case, please feel free to revert it, I got lost in all the replies and mistakenly thought it was just cut down in an act of juvenile behaviour. my appologies. --Silver lode 20:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Um. I actually don't really mind you deleting half the template, Thuran. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind the smaller version Thuran set earlier either, but I think the larger version is a better working model for the moment. If this becomes a reversion war, we have the option of creating two working templates and putting them up for a poll. I don't believe protection will help anyone at the moment. -Markeer 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone actually mind the smaller version? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not me. I think we can get it smaller though, if we submit the whole thing to TfD! let's try, it'll BE BOLD! Create an entire template, redo the whole thing while insulting the first group of editors, then delete it, all in a day! Like Performance art! Come on, let's do it! It'll be SOOOOO cool! ThuranX 21:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The small one seems fine, and has relevent info. --Silver lode 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The smaller one works. Less comprehensive, but also very compact and unobtrusive, while providing a reader with links to related articles. -Markeer 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe that since just the other day this has turned into such a big fiasco. I suggest the parties involved in the dispute file a request for informal mediation at the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Guermantes 02:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Was considering this myself. Good call. --Chris Griswold 04:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably best, I'm creating a case now. Being one of the individuals involved in the original dispute I feel it would be inappropriate for me to make new edits on the template for awhile and I will try to be as objective as possible when creating this case. -Markeer 14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation case created here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-07 Template: The Batman. I hope my language was neutral. -Markeer 15:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I have added a brief comment and taken a stab at a suggestion for conflict resolution. Guermantes 03:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PROBLEMS SOLVED!

As shown here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes, it seems that there's some major confusion. See, i'd designed a TEMPLATE, while the users today thought they were designing a NAVBOX. Since these are obviously different, I've reverted to the last real template version. every edit after that really works to turn the TEMPLATE into a NAVBOX.ThuranX 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments in reply to you there. This template always was a navbox, as was {tl|Superman}}, the navbox you based this template on. --Chris Griswold 05:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

see, now I'm so confused. we are now back to the huge template for a navbox that has all that whitespace and huge amount of info? I believe everyone, including you, decided that smaller was better, at least that is what you chastized me earlier for. I dont want you to think that im ganging up on you or whatever else has been said here at this talk page. Creating this template was a great idea, but it would be even greater if everyone's ideas could be used and incorporated. This template (which I can only see as being used as a navbox...) will be used on quite a few batman related pages, and should not be so big as to overshadow or clog up the main page. I hope the rest of the editing can be done without personal attacks or grudges. --Silver lode 06:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Once the Project irons out the Navbox specifics, then you and others in the group can come back here and make the appropriate changes to this one. Follow the link and contribute your two cents here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes. --Basique 12:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the Project holds any particular authority to set policy for wikipedia, esp. on an article created by someone who specifically rejects the project, it's members, their edits, and their behavior having seen how the project acts. Any wikipedian can edit any article. I will continue to edit this article as I see fit, and I believe Lenin & McCarthy probably will too. When the Project feels like STARTING a set of edits with civility, I suspect that I and other editors will be more willing to work with the project, but until then? No. The project does NOT assume good faith, nor do they act in a CIVIL manner. ThuranX 13:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't use personal attacks. This is getting to be a very heated discussion. AMIB and Markeer were trying to trim away what they felt was extraneous information from the navbox. --Toffile 15:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This entire action has been a personal attack. It started with Markeer's vandalism, and continued with AMiB's decision that my revision of vandalism was an attack, and his subsequent ignoring of any and all comments and attempts to be civil by me. I see you've already chosen sides, that's fine. ThuranX 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't chosen sides at all. I'm trying to calm everyone down.--Toffile 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure you ave. YOu came here and accused ME of being the problem. I'm NOT the problem. The peopel who came in here and tore things up and then insulted me for trying to be civil are the problem. They don't see it that way, and their buddies from WP:Comic don't see it that way, but it IS the truth of the matter!ThuranX 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith on my motives. I wasn't accusing you of a problem, actually part of that was my mistake because I misunderstood portion of your comment (I thought you were referring to AMIB and Markeer as Lenin and McCarthy, not realizing that there is a user with that name), and before I could correct it, you had replied.--Toffile 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify something: a navbox is a template whose function is to serve as an organized and standardized group of links related to a topic. See Wikipedia:Navigational templates. "Navbox" is just shorthand for "navigational template box". The discussion of this template as a navbox is merely a matter of terminology, not some form of usurpation. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This continuing problem

I'm going to be clear here, once again. I see people all running to various mediators and administrators. That's your choice. Once again, I'm going to state my case, simple and clear. Markeer committed and edit here which he claims as BOLDness, and which I think was vandalism. He gave no explanation anywhere regarding his actions, and had no prior involvement with the site. my response was to revert vandalism. At this point, things went to hell. A Man in Bl?ck arrived, defended the vandalism as boldness, and he and markeer began a campaign to turn all the work previously done to junk. He did NOT respond to the talk page. He ONLY responded to edits, usually by leaving some snarky 'you just don't get what I'm doing cause I'm smart and bold and you're not' messages, and then going on. IN the beginning, I tried to engage him on the talk page, even supporting and accepting some of his early edits. He gave NO replies, NO repsonses, and really didn't do much with the talk page other than use it as an echo chamber, where he voiced an idea, immediately implemented it, and cited 'see the talk page' as validation, despite not actually participating. as the day goes on and the edits and incivility continue, I kept trying to work with him, he kept ignoring me. Finally, having no other recourse left, as he asked more and more of his friends to side with him on the page, I began to edit alongside him, fixing the superman template to match. his friends reverted my work there, stating that I was vandalizing that template. This created even MORE problems, because if it's good for this template, surely it must be good for the other template. If it's not good for that template, it's not good fro THIS template. After all my edits there, A Man in Black went there, reverted all my edits, then implemented all my changes again, but under his name, and declared that superman template was fixed. Nothing short of a full apology from Markeer, A Man in Bl?ck, Silver Lode, Joshua Rowe and Chris Griswold, all members of WP:Comic who've decided there's strength in numbers, and who self-idenitfy as bullies hoping to win by force of numbers and the bully tactic of running to authority when someone fights back, will suffice in this situation. Their latest tactic is to run to their project page, create a need to standardize all the templates into Navboxes, and then claim they've got some sort of authority from doing so. ThuranX 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: as I told you on your user talk page, I am not and have never been a member of WP:Comics. Before yesterday I had had no interaction with Markeer or A Man in Black. I just happened upon this page because I had Batman on my watchlist, made a few edits and then noticed what looked like extreme incivility on the talk page. I have never defended the behavior of any of the participants in this fiasco, and have focussed on ThuranX solely because his behavior has been more obviously disruptive. I do not have the inclination to go through the precise chronology of who edited what when, for the purpose of judging Markeer and AMiB, because it is clear that any conclusion I reach would be rejected out of hand by ThuranX. I made a good-faith effort to apologize to ThuranX above, and was rejected out of hand. I do not have a strong interest in remaining involved in this matter, and would appreciate it if ThuranX would stop including me in his rants. ThuranX, your anger and vitriol serves only to isolate you further and undermines your own arguments. Please remember that there is no cabal unless you choose for there to be one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There's been no apology from you.ThuranX 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See above, and here. You even called it an apology in your reply. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So there is. Well, as you can see, I rejected it then, and I reject it now. I further admit to being more aggravated by your recent chastisement on my user page. The person posting posted quite clearly that he ONLY came to my page because of WP:CMC, and because he supports the right of WP:CMC to do whatever they want without being CIVIL. I consider such a posting an ATTACK, and yet you force me to sit there with it on my page. Don't bother expecting me to accept the apologies of a man who says 'Oh, i'm sorry, and here, let this man slap you in the face or i'll penalize you'. ThuranX 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jamdav86 doesn't say anything about the right of WP:CMC to do whatever they want. (The comment ThuranX is referring to is here; others may judge for themselves whether it is appropriately characterized as an attack or not.)

The apology I offered yesterday was made in good faith. I'm sorry that you are unable to recognize that. However, putting your animosity towards me aside for a moment, please consider that not all participants in WP:COMICS are part of a cabal intending to dominate you, and some may in fact have good intentions. (And, with regard to this edit, please note once again that I am not a member of WP:COMICS.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your request for an apology from me, I've requested mediation as of earlier today. If they feel that I have behaved inappropriately I intend to follow their guidance. In the meantime, perhaps it would help you to read [my version] of this dispute on my talk page that I wrote up for the mediators. I hope reading this does not further antagonize you or upset you as that is not my intention. If even one person feels my linking it is inappropriate or instigating, I will remove this comment immediately. My intention is for ThuranX to look at all of this from the perspective of one of the people he is in dispute with, that's all. -Markeer 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, duly noted, Josiah is NOT, in fact, a part of the WP:Comics group. I do see that, and apologize for lumping you in with them. Regardless, I believe your apology was NOT sincere, for reasons I have already stated; summarily, your 100& support of their actions and incivility, as evidenced by your repeated attempts to chastise me, and me alone, and thus, perpetuating the idea that 'bold' editing and incivility is fine for everyone BUT me.ThuranX 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As for Markeer, I ahve nothing to say to someone who still percieves himself as wholely right to edit based on a third party page.ThuranX 21:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, I've already explained the reasons why I have chastized you, and no one else, in this matter. However, for the record, here they are once again:

• Yesterday, I did not see anyone else making offensive comments on this page or in edit summaries.
• I have not systematically gone through the histories to find such evidence, because despite my best intentions I have now become a participant in the dispute and it would be inappropriate for me to act administratively in this matter. (Please note that for the same reason, I will not block ThuranX myself, despite what appear to me to be consistent violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF.)

I'm sorry that ThuranX sees my focus on him as constituting "100% support" of other parties — that was never my intention. I have no opinion on the edits or behavior of any of the other participants in this dispute. I'm just not interested in digging for evidence, especially since I am now a party to the dispute myself. If I witness inappropriate editing or violations of Wikipedia policy by other participants in future, I may put the appropriate warnings on their user pages but will not act administratively.

I have only three goals in this matter:

1. Defusing the conflict
2. Upholding Wikipedia policy
3. Improving this template.

I'm not sure what ThuranX wants from me, since I have given a sincere apology and he has rejected it. I have put a comment at WP:AN/I#ThuranX and templates, inviting my fellow administrators to review my conduct in this affair, and will accept their collective judgement. For now, I'll just try to step back and let things cool off for a bit. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've stated 'what I want' repeatedly. A part in the revision of the template. It is no longer possible to give me what I want, because I was ignored throughout the process. Given that the edits have been made, and will no doubt be re-instated, there is nothing more that I want, since no one except you has even TRIED to apologize. AMiB hasn't, and I suspect, will not. Markeer has not, and rather than admit any wrongdoing, has gone for mediation. ChrisGriswold has not, and frankly, I don't want to deal with a self-declared bully anyway. TO my eyes, this situation went from bad, to worse, to unrepairable rapidly, because I was summarily insulted, ignored, dismissed, and finally, accused, all for creating a profile that frankly, I wish I never had. Wikipedia's not worth this trouble any more.ThuranX 22:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

HA! You need to look at that Bully userbox in context. I made it; doesn't mean I consider myself one. I was considering creating a bunch of bad-behavior userboxes for people to put on their pages themselves. HEE-larious! ThuranX, I want you to know that I love you. I want the best for and from you, and I believe in you! You are great! You are wonderful! Now please try to cooperate! I love you! --Chris Griswold 01:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)