User talk:J Greb/Archive Jul 2010

Orphaned non-free image File:Avs38.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Avs38.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Joker

Probably worth taking a look at File Talk:Joker Animated Models.jpg, but I don't regard reverting to a non-WP:NFCC compliant image while the image is under discussion very helpful. Rodhullandemu 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And I'm in the middle of a post to the talk page there... please be patient. - J Greb (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I made a slight change to my upload, "Joker Animated Models.jpg" Don't know if it satisfying.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hounds of Artemis.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hounds of Artemis.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Captain America First Avenger concept.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Captain America First Avenger concept.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Two-Face

Can you please stop removing my edit on Two-Face. The Duke of Duality was Two-Face's title just like Joker's title was Clown prince of Crime, Riddler's The Prince of Puzzles title, Penguin's The Black Bird of Prey title and so on. If you don't believe me read Batman: Two-Face Strikes Twice golden age comic book. Shadowhawk27 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And those title don't go into the infoboxes. Period. - J Greb (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Then where do they go if not the infobox? Shadowhawk27 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In most cases? They don't. A few of them, link "The Clown Prince of Crime" or "Dark Knight Detective" get worked into the publication history since the evolved into marketing tools.

With Two-Face, none of the narrative epithets stuck beyond the pages.

- J Greb (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you need more proof, i'll show you, here's a sample of the comic book page i copyed from the classic Two-Face story drawn in the style of the Golden Age. Written by Mike W. Barr

Many times has the tragic and sinister shadow of Two-Face loomed across Gotham City the the forces of law and order, and always has he been repelled by Batman and Robin. But now ->The Duke Of Duality<- has a partner of his own. watch the Dynamic Duo attempt to fathom his devious plot in The Two Faces of Janus. Shadowhawk27 (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Blintly: That is narrative epithet. Standing practice and consensus with the comics character infobox is that they don't get added.

Now, can you prvide an example where the villain in the story is only refered to as "The Duke Of Duality" up to a point where the villian is revealed, to the hero in story, as Two-Face? - J Greb (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What? All i know in that Golden Age story is that Two-Face attempts to frame Janus as a criminal by kidnapping him and replacing him with a stand-in, whom Two-Face "disfigures" with makeup to make it look as if Janus has gone insane just as Two-Face had. Two-Face is eventually caught by Batman and sent away, and Gilda and Janus reunite. Shadowhawk27 (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

After going through my comics i discovered that Two-Face used other aliases during his criminal career. One was "Mr. Duall" used in Two-Face Strike Twice and the other was "Count Enance" which means the face in Batman: Faces written by Matt Wagner. So don't you DARE try to remove those. Shadowhawk27 (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And on to Barbara Gordon...

You said it yourself, you need to provide an example where Barbara gordon in the story is only adressed as a "Doctor" in the story. Shadowhawk27 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Do not use the requirements for fields within the infobox to justify your edit here. The 'box is sepcifically limited by consensus to avoid the laundry list of nick names, alliterations, and terms used by writers and fans to identify characters as well as non-notable aliases.
2. You really need to clear to start using edit summaries to explain your edits. Otherwise it does come of very poorly.
3. Take a look at WP:BRD - You want to remove it without explanation feel free to make a case for it on the article talk page. Do not just remove it again.

Oh... and point one also means the "one off" aliases you added to Two-Face may wind up being removed again, whether you like it or not.

- J Greb (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah? You also need to improve your writing skills cause the way i see it's very sloppy and full of mis-spells. Not saying this to be mean. Shadowhawk27 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

[g] Naw, you just want to be snide without getting into trouble. Want to re think your comments?

- J Greb (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just stating the facts... Shadowhawk27 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.2.109 (talk)

Dormammu again

It's semi-protected, so I can't revert. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I have no idea what you are talking about, you say I am disruptive editing but I'm not, I gave the reasons why I edited, so please stop harassing me. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not have to explain anything stop trying to take away my freedom, all I have been doing is editing you are the only one who has a problem with that and I still do not know what is your problem. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

1. How was I disruptive editing "List of Totally Spies! characters"?

2. I already gave you a source for the "Harley Quinn" page! --98.216.243.219 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1. You are pushing in unsourced, unexplained information that other editors have removed as such.
2. Where?
3. Learn to used the edit summaries. Period.
4. Learn to include sourcing as references.
5. Go over WP:CIVIL a few time while you're at it.

- J Greb (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Harley Quinn: I put the source in the edit summary.

Totall Spies! characters: I was not pushing unexplained information, that person deleted information and I was just putting it back.

--98.216.243.219 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Harley Quinn: Since these - [1], [2], [3] - are the only edits you've made, saying you "put the source in the edit summary" is bullshit. And frankly it's part of the reason for 3 other admins declining to rescind you 24hr block.

Totall Spies! characters: You may have a point. However, the vast bulk of your edits has been to cram in material without sources and/or not supported by the article. IF you had provided an edit summary stating you were restoring sections added by other editors it wouldn't be an issue. But then you feel you "do not have to explain anything" so others have to look at you past track record. Something that does not inspire confidence in your editing.

- J Greb (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Harley Quinn: 16:00, 30 June 2010 98.216.243.219 (talk) (23,328 bytes) (Harley Quinn #8).

Totall Spies! characters: alright fine.

--98.216.243.219 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah - Buried by your incivility. And beyond that... misplaced and an over dose of plot. Something that really plays into what you've been doing else where. Please look at the article and try to explain

• How putting information from a comic book set ostensibly in the core DC fictional universe in a section on the character's appearance in a television show set in a different fictional universe is relevant. and
• How adding information from a derivative primary source published almost a decade after the show the character was specifically created for aired is proper.

It's a POV push, it's slanted, it's damn near original research since it's trying to marry the continuity of the show to the continuity of the comic. And since no sourcing actually made it into the article, and it's dishonest since the source of the information is hidden from the general reader.

- J Greb (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Harley Quinn: I guess I didn't know where to really put it. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How did I vandalize Victoria's page? --98.216.243.219 (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Bluntly: Adding false information in the form of categorization. You've been told before this is unacceptable. Continue to edit in this manner, expect to get blocked. - J Greb (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What, false information? If you read the first paragraph, or knew what you are talking about, you would know she is a lesbian and she is not a superhero! --98.216.243.219 (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Addendum: This also covers your unexplained additions to Dubois Family and John Morrison and The Miz. You really should be providing an edit summary explaining why you are adding in that material. Adding it without an expressed reason or a cited source does make it look you are adding information for your own personal taste or interpretation. Both of which are the wrong reason to add something to an article. - J Greb (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, take down the warning please because nobody else has a problem with me, and I have been very cooperative with you on these issues. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No.

Based on what you've been reverting - the autocompleted "summary" shows the editor you're changing - and that other editors are still undoing your edits, no I'm not the only one that has trouble with your edits.

Maybe if you actually started using the edit summaries when you first edit, not as a reaction to warnings about bulling mutely ahead, you might gain some ground. But it seems you only do that in response to a direct comment or warning to your talk page. And even then, only to the specific page or pages identified. Almost every other edit you make though seems to be done leaving other editors having to guess "Why?" That really is unacceptable. Period.

- J Greb (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, if an editor has a problem with my edits, they can talk to me, why do you have to ban me the first second you see I made an edit. --98.216.243.219 (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Response: That is why you should be using edit summaries - "Added based on 'text' from paragraph #" narrows down what is checked. Otherwise, given your track record, if key words are not present, the add is going to look false. And frankly the line you point points to two possible cats. Clarification, if Marvel has ever provided it, would be needed to pick the proper one. - J Greb (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(I didn't see the response paragraph when I made the 6:46 comment) I don't know what you are trying to say in the paragraph above, and if you have a problem with my edits please talk to me just don't give me a "warning" and/or ban me. --98.216.243.219 ([[User

talk:98.216.243.219|talk]]) 06:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point see you own talk page. - J Greb (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on source reliability/notability

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here. Would you please participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Magik.jpg

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright#Resolution suggests that the longest dimension of an image within the project should be no longer that 300px; this is a somewhat stronger criterion than we usually allow for fair-use images elsewhere (300-400px), and you may wish to consider proposing a change to that criterion to bring it into line. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 22:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the original discussion re the Comics guideline was based on the width, which is how it is generally applied, it likely should be changed. And something to keep firmly in mind here, most images are sized based on use. With the infoboxes the cap is 250x450px (.1125 megapixel), a with slightly larger than that is desirable.

Beyond that, can you point to the 300-400px guide/mos? Last time I tried to find hard numbers, they seemed to have been removed in favour of of more general terms.

- J Greb (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Those edits"

Nope, it's not visible. It adds optional fields. To go with the edit of K-9, which I'm about to save on.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 04:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel so, variably. It prevents irritating lines (which don't belong in lead sections) like "K-9's catchphrase is..." or "Silurians are also known as '''Eocenes''', '''Earth Retiles'''", etc. It's handy to have.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 04:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Message

Liosten you, I am trying to correct the casting of Iron Man 2, you just mind your own business! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.20.122 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Stunticons are confirmed for Transformers 3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.20.122 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Source it to something other than a clip that needs to be interprited. - J Greb (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Slice O Poundcakes

Saw the pic revert. I think the Marvel 2 in 1 is in reference to a version of the pic from 2006, not 2007 that was later updated. The image has all the feature of an OHOTMU image (pose, blank background, and bodylength), and this was 1 in a long chain of OHOTMU images I found uploaded by the same user. I'm not too pressed to chase after minor Marvel characters, and always happy to assume good-faith, but a second look would be appreciated. No reply necessary. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC).

The biggest concern I've got is that editors do sometimes erase backgrounds. It may well be that the Poundcakes image is from one of the OHOTMU editions, but it was the only one of the 9 that cited something else (yeah, I tend to go through the orphans to see which comics related ones are going...). Based on that, I'm more than willing to give the benefit until someone can check. - J Greb (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Change to infobox image for X-Tinction Agenda article

The change was done to portray the first chapter in the storyline. If you see other storyline articles they also have the cover of the first chapter as the image in the infobox.

I believe it's a valid change.

Vaf2675 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow

I have nominated List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 19:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of fictional characters who can alter probability

I have nominated List of fictional characters who can alter probability, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can alter probability. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 19:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

CFD discussion

Hello; I thought you would want to know that I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 15#Galleries of images on Commons concerning the various .../Commons category pages you have recently created. I am not advocating that they be deleted, but since it is an unusual use of category pages, I thought it should at least be discussed. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

Hey J-Greb, thanks for moving those back. Can you tell me how it's done? Thanks!Luminum (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally? There's a revert option on the logs for the page that was moved - the "(comics)" in this case. It may be something that is part of the admin tools though.

In this case, one of the 4 - Atum - didn't have that since this is the 2nd time in 3 years that the article was moved. All that was required there was to move it back.

The only other hang up there might be is that the redirects that were left behind were automatically deleted in the process. Again, that may be something a regular editor cannot do.

- J Greb (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Atum, also write Atum-Ra, also known as Ra, inspired by Atum-Ra the egyptian god, is also the name of a character in DC Comics [4].--Crazy runner (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Batman image

I am just curious. Is this image acceptable for the Batman article. I reverted this image because I wasn't sure about it and now I want your input on this. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say "No" on a number of grounds:

• Seriously under sourced
• Over stylized, even for comics
• Not quite the best recognized version of the character
• The Lee image is stable even with the "not face on" pose and cityscape.

- J Greb (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:X-Men

I am beginning to question the "if they joined the X-Men then they are in the members list" decision. Sometimes it seems redundant because characters that are already villains are in the members list are there too. It seems anybody can be a member of X-Men lately and there could be more in the future until we get to the point of where do we cross the line. Just because they joined doesn't necessarily mean they are notable as a X-Men at all. What do you think about this. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And plus they can always do it like the Teen Titans Template did it. And the character list can have both List of X-Men members and List of Brotherhood of Mutants members in the same place. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the X-Men template crossed the point where the characters should have been removed a long time ago. It's damn near unusable as it stands and the possibilities from the last round of teasers - "non-mutants as X-Men" - are damn frightening. The only thing more frightening, IMO, is gong to be the push back on trying to fix it. - J Greb (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's sort of why I thought of the idea above. I am not even sure I like the way they are determining what villain goes on there too. Since most of them have been involved in an group of some kind. I think I will test the template out on a sandbox and see what I can think of. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I like this idea but look at what the template looks like if you just focus on just the list articles for the characters. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Biggest problem: The justification for having the template on alllllllllll those character articles goes out the window. - J Greb (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, think about this. Template:Batman has an limited amount of villains on the template yet almost every Batman villain (major or minor) has that template on their article symbolizing that they are centric to that character even though they aren't on the template. So I still think they can justify as having the template on the article as long as they are X-Men centric characters. Is that what you meant? Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(checking the "To Do..." list)

Actually, cleaning up the "one-way" uses of the Batman template, among others, is one of the projects that needs to be done. The general consensus on how navigation boxes are to be used is to facilitate 2 way traffic - don't add them to articles not in the 'box since there is no way to use the 'box to navigate back and don't add articles to the the 'box that won't have the 'box added.

And it's also one of the reasons I've been the one proposing the situation expansion of the foes section of {{Batman}} - it keeps the template useable and satisfies the criteria for having the 'box on the articles.

- J Greb (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is true we have a lot of work to do anyways. Because I have seen both articles being in templates that doesn't have it's own template on the article (which is annoying and I try to fix it when seeing it) and articles that have templates that aren't on the templates (that doesn't bother me much). But if you are worried about that on the X-Men template. I can fix it, at least the ones that are on the template anyway. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If I may chime in to this, I've been editing the X-Men template for a long time, my ip was recently changed for an unknown reason, but you've seen me around there for awhile and I've talked with Jhenderson at times as well. I've agreed that we're trying to keep the template smaller, hence why I helped to split the template into the X-Comics and X-Media template as well. I've argued that characters only confirmed as X-Men in handbooks (Boom-Boom, Ariel) shouldn't be in there. I'd contacted JGreb before about help with a secondary teams listing and getting members lists on there like with the Brotherhood. To help narrow down this template, we can use that and pull the ones who are just New Mutants off the main list and put them with that, and we can probably also pull all the ones who have mainly been students and put under New X-Men and Young X-Men secondary teams. That will narrow down the main list a bit and not have it look cluttered in other pages. If someone can show me how to do the listing like was done with the Brotherhood members, I can get to work on that or work with someone who wants to do it if it has to be and administrator or whatnot? Can that work?

On another note, user Vaf2675 has been seemingly adamant that none of the New Mutants need to be on the template, even those they are X-Men and various members have joined over the years, and looks to have created a Template:New Mutants template, which I believe is redundant and serves no real purpose and everything on it can be mostly found in the X-Men template (especially if I can get the members for New Mutants thing running like for the Brotherhood) and the X-Comics template. Is there anyway to get it up for deletion or merging? Thank you for your time. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I created the New Mutants Template mainly to add it ti the New Mutants article because I really believe they deserved their own template. As for the New Mutants that have actually been on X-Men teams, if you notice my edits on the X-Men template you'll see that I did leave characters like Cable, Cannonball, and Warpath (who all were actually in X-Men teams for longer than let's say 10 issues) on the members section. I agree with you, the other groups should have subs sections on the X-Men template (after all without the X-Men none of those characters would exist today), but I also believe that each of those teams should have a template of their own just to link the members together and not associate the ones that have never been X-Men to that particular team per se. For example, you have Deadpool on the X-Men template and he has never realy been an X-Man, same goes for a bunch of the New Mutants, X-Factor Investigations, Excalibur, Generation X, etc.Vaf2675 (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is sort of been the problem. People have had different opinions on who belong or who doesn't. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

List of locations...

Has every one of this sort of article listed at AfD been deleted, or have any closed as no consensus or as keep, or as anything other than delete? (pls respond on mytalk p. -- it'll make sure I see it. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the list on my talk p.--I took the liberty of adding some links; apparently, then, the only one kept was apparently List of Batman television series characters at WP:Articles for deletion/List of Batman television series characters. Odd, that I find the same arguments there that failed to be convincing earlier and later. The difference seems to be in who appeared at the discussions. I don't see how a prod is safe on that basis. I trust this time when you send the ones I shall deprod to AfD that you will mention that one of them did pass--insteadf of just listing the ones that failed. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Flat out: Stop moving articles from a disambiguation of (comics) to (Marvel Comics) or some other "more precise" term when there are no other relevant comics related articles. It is disruptive editing contrary to naming conventions and the use of disambiguation. It is also approaching editing to make a point. Consider this a formal warning. - J Greb (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is you who speack about Deities in comics [5], Perun (Marvel Comics) is a deity like the others that I move.

Go to the category deities in Marvel Comics or DC Comics and see how many have no counterparts. (Odin (Marvel Comics) for example)

It is permitted or you should write another rule and be sure that this one is applied.

I am not editing to make a point. I am trying to make an harmonisation with the deity in comics.

--Crazy runner (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ps: Wikipedia:AGF before lauching warning like that, I have justified my moves with deity or god in edit summary.--Crazy runner (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jrfoldes

I've reported him to ANI again for his continued disruption, as he basically ignored your warning. Leaving you this note as I mentioned you as the most recent person trying to correct him.[6] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't mess around with the Silver Surfer (TV series) character page!

The Silver Surfer series was the only one from the 1990s Marvel animated universe to not have a character listing for it (you might as well do the same for the other series). So why are you going to once again, devalue a comic book media character list!? It frustrates the hell out of me that you always meddle in stuff like this right off the bat like you're the comic book emperor on Wikipedia! And there's already a full listing of the cast and characters in the main article, so doing it elsewhere would be extremely redundant! TMC1982 (talk) 09:45 p.m., 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

1. The frankenstined list you created is not the method to do it. And bluntly every last one you've created that has come up to AFD has be deleted.
2. Cranking it down to what was proper resulted in what is essentially the cast list.
3. Since the cast list is in the main article, the separate list is unneeded. (And LMAO since you seen to agree with this.)

- J Greb (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a major difference between simply listing the cast and trying to put together a full profile of the characters on the series itself. You don't want to let articles grow overtime (rather than consider them unsalvageable immediately). Do you think that I instead on letting certain character lists stay pat!? TMC1982 (talk) 10:02 p.m., 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering you only copy the info from the IOM sections of the relateds artice - Yes. - J Greb (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a load of crap! Apparently, you only look at that particular side of my actions of Wikipedia and like to nitpick. TMC1982 (talk) 10:07 p.m., 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I look at your history in Frakenstining lists based on comic book properties. To a one you copy material whole cloth from the "In other media" sections of the related articles. You do not edit it. You do not expand it. You don't even stop at what appeared in the show/film but go on to draw in points of conjecture or spin off media. You then wander on your marry way to the next thin be it sports, broadcasting, TV shows, film, or other unrelated comic book items.

And it isn't nitpicking - its cleaning up the state of content mess the list are left in.

Last thing "Don't mess around with the Silver Surfer (TV series) character page!" smells a hell of a lot like you are claiming ownership of the article and trying to dictate what articles other can and cannot edit.

- J Greb (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not claiming ownership at all! What I'm trying to say is that it bothers me whenever certain editors/users on Wikipeida have what I consider to be insanely strict and almost knee jerk like guidelines/rules ("You didn't write it, so it doesn't count!") regarding their favorite article subjects like comic books for example. And why does it have to solely be my job to expand on certain things? The whole point of Wikipedia is that users contribute to improve the articles at hand. So with that, it completely contradicts the whole "ownership" claim. TMC1982 (talk) 10:22 p.m., 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You may want to stop and think then - Is the issue about the subject mater being abused or about poorly constructed, unneeded, and clogging articles and/or categories being created?

Frankly there may just be a place for some of the character lists you want. But, just recycling what is already in other article, verbatim, isn't the way to find it. And leaving them in that state (I'm looking at the Avengers MAU character list as you left it 6 months ago) definitely doesn't show a desire on your part to properly flesh them out.

And right now I'm slogging through it to get the key, real world context out of what is there in relation to characters that appeared in the show. It's similar to this where the basics are covered. At that point it isn't much more than the voice cast list. Use that as a starting point and find reliable secondary sources that can be used flesh out why the characters are in the show, how they were used, and were there any reviews that dissected the characters, their interplay, and/or characterization. From there add minimal material drawn from plot summaries to round out what each character is.

And yes, part of the point of Wikipedia is for multiple editors to work on articles. But frankly that is to both build up and clean up, and the later can and regularly does see material removed. If editors clean up an article and cannot find material to add, the article is likely to get dismantled, merged, or redirected. What you've left behind yourself in these lists are articles that need to be cleaned up - mainly by removing the redundant and tangential shit. What gets left has nil that needs to be merged and is redundant with a primary section of the article for the show.

- J Greb (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet, only you seem so inclined to remove/dismantle/merge/redirect certain articles. There's a difference between "cleaning" (meaning proofreading spelling and grammatical errors for instance) something up and completely disregarding "redundant" (not everybody on Wikipedia is aware that some things may be a tad bit similar) and "tangential" shit. And I find it funny that you also have a problem with unrelated edits that I've done regarding sports (which seems to be out of your "jurisdiction"). And it's incredibly hypocritical that you're so vigilant about certain Marvel Comic related list (I'm not like you, in which I don't devote my entire time and energy on Wikipedia on comic related articles), yet you don't bother to add anything yourself. TMC1982 (talk) 10:49 p.m., 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You want to go look at the responses to the AFDs of the like "articles" you created?

- J Greb (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you're the one who is the most obsessive and controlling over certain things regarding comics (much less my editing style/habit) on Wikpedia! You also had to butt in (while reading my user talk page) recently regarding the Star Trek movies. TMC1982 (talk) 10:56 p.m., 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean the 11 categories with minimal, subjective inclusion criteria that was only know to you because you weren able to be bothered to include a clear stment of the category purpose when you created them? Those categories. Similar to the other similar micro cats that you like that cause congestion in the category footer of articles and hinder rather than help navigation? Something that has pretty much been a standard "Not a good idea" for a long time on Wikipedia?

- J Greb (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There were 11 categories because 11 Star Trek movies have been made thus far. And the cats were small because on the other hand, do you want me to add the cats to every article pertaining to the main characters. Therefore, I believed that it would be wiser to first and foremost, focus on the most direct/relevant articles pertaining the movies themselves. But of course, we're veering off of the original point of the discussion! TMC1982 (talk) 11:06 p.m., 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No... I think we're still on it.

You're peeved that material you put time into isn't still there. And it really doesn't mater that the material didn't meet the standards, guidelines, or policies of Wikipedia. You started it, that's enough. It's up to other to polish it, to keep it close to what you put up, to expanded it, to do the work you couldn't or wouldn't put into.

I'm sorry, it doesn't always work that way. More often than not the response to a half-hearted article is to ignore it and hope the original editor is "coming back" or weight it for tagging - either for one or more project to "attend to it" or AFD.

Thanks though, you have made one decision fairly easy for me at this point.

- J Greb (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There are also articles listing characters from the 1990s X-Men and Spider-Man animated series, which I absolutely had nothing to do with. So do you want those deleted to!? And it shouldn't be solely my job to do certain things on Wikipedia, just because I initiated it. Again, I go back to a previous point regarding how users should help expand and build upon one particular subject/article. It's an absolute joke that you seem to feel that you have to be almost entirely dependent on my info. I don't sit around on Wikipedia all day (24/7) and edit material regarding comic books. And it's only "disruptive" to you, because lists like this keep popping up to your immediate disapproval! TMC1982 (talk) 11:42 p.m., 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So this is from an entirely uninvolved perspective. I haven't worked on the article and I'm not "on anyone's side". You said: "why are you going to once again, devalue a comic book media character list". I understand what you're saying because I once thought the same way.

But having a separate list does not increase the value of a subject. In many cases articles are better served by having little-to-no spin-off articles. This is because there often isn't enough reliable material to justify a spin-off. A good article on an important subject may not be appropriate for spin-off articles, whereas some have had so much commentary from third-party sources that the section would be too long for the main article. So it it no slight to the TV show to not have a separate character list, it's just a matter of what there is to work with.

In the case of character articles, these lists often just become dumping grounds for bloated plot-summaries, which border on copyright violation. I have to agree with JGreb, spinning off this article with no new content is not a good idea. Just copying and pasting existing information isn't really creating a starting point, it's just inviting trouble. Believe me, once these character lists become bloated with plot summaries it becomes very difficult to get them under control. Whereas, if we keep a succinct character summary on the main article, it makes the information much more accessible and easy to manage, while adhering to Wikipedia's content policies. That's my two cents. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

The same user also created the article Hellfire Club (X-Men: The Animated Series). Is this just me or does this seem kind of redundant with the main article of the group. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Template: Iron Man

Sorry to bother you again about another template. But I really think this template is getting a little bit out of hand and may need to watched and trimmed. For one reason why is there an another character section and another I am thinking a lot of unnecessary villains are being added in the template when there is a list of Iron Man enemies article and some of them aren't even in there.Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DetectiveComics824b.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DetectiveComics824b.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

AstroCreep2010

I can see where you ara coming but in my defense:

Mattie Franklin:How is humanoid lion is less clearer than part man part animal?

Madame Web:Madame Web passed her powers on to Julia, so it does appear in the source!

Psylocke:Psylocke has already been explained to me.

Thank you for your time. --AstroCreep2010 (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could see where I was coming from, you wouldn't have one issue that just showed up on your talk page. Beyond that...

• The "humanoid lion" is part and parcel of your editing to your taste. The same with reminding you about the Psylocke instance.
• On Madame Web you added the phrase "and immortality" which isn't supported by the rest of the article. You also did it in a way to suggest that it was part of the cited reference. That in and of itself makes the edit suspect.

- J Greb (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"If you could see where I was coming from, you wouldn't have one issue that just showed up on your talk page" - Hey man you don't have to be so rude about it.

lots of people have called it a humanoid lion.

Madame Web's power says she has immortality, she passed her powers to Julia how is that not supported by the article?

What is wrong with the Mattie Franklin page?

--AstroCreep2010 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Asgardians at Ragnarok

Am I off-base here? This user seems pretty insistent that he is right and I am wrong - just want to bounce this off a more-experienced editor. I have decided to drop it, because it's not worth continuing. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Skimming it...

• Crazy runner has brought suspect sources to the table. The Marvel Database is a wholly fan derived Wikia site. the wiki at Marvel.com, while hosted by Marvel, is still a wiki. Neither of those would be considered reliable secondary sources. Or primary in the case of the Marvel.com wiki. The Spiderfan review is a bit of a flip of the coin.
• He also brings a valid point: "Ragnarok" is a very specific event in Norse myth - the death of the gods and and end of an age. Marvel played it that way with the death of the Asgardians.
• Flip side: this is comics so dead ain't dead. Even with a body. Marvel, IIRC, proceeded to have the Asgardian's essences star popping up (I could be wrong about when the "relaunch" of Journey into Mystery was in this). And then there is JMS re-launch and reappearance of the gods.
• There is also the normal caveat about writing about fiction - if it is in-story tones, it's the "always present" or as close to that as possible.

Bottom line for me is:

• It would be nice to have a quote from an interview with the writer that "all the Agardians are toast." That would make it easier to apply across all the articles.
• It is reasonable for the primary characters and the ones identified by name to add "S/He dies during the Ragnarok arc", if such is shown, in the plot summary section. It is also reasonable to mention it in the Asgardians article.
• Having a "The character resurfaces as..." point does not require a "The character dies..." point.

- J Greb (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. This user seems to have taken a fairly unfriendly attitude with me for disagreeing with his viewpoint, so I am not going to continue this line of debate with him, and will just leave it as he wanted it. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Artemis the New God

I've never seen the 'Artemiz' spelling in any comic book. Here are some panel examples I found on the net that spell it Artemis, both from "Supergirl" and from "Mister Miracle":

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/6535/477773-supergirl002.jpg

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/6535/477763-mistermiracle17_001.jpg

Can you give me a citation for Artemiz? The character has appeared in 12 issues, and while I've not read them all the ones I -have- read (two issues each of "Suicide Squad" and "Mister Miracle") spell it Artemis. That's a full third of her total appearances, at least, plus the issue of Supergirl with the panel excerpted above. Proserpine (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Goong v2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Goong v2.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Impulse2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Impulse2.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Blake Lively (Carol Ferris).jpg

Can you also edit another one of my upload File:Blake Lively (Carol Ferris).jpg? NeoBatfreak 04:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Just want to acknowledge and offer appreciation for all the diligent work you do adding comics-creator infoboxes. I only learned to start adding them belatedly. They're the kind of unflashy edits that go a long way to making articles all the more encyclopedic, and I didn't want your efforts to go unsung! With regards as always, --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Template comic creator

I have previously discussed the use of this infobox, and some of the problems it creates (or preceived nonexistent problems it lists as hidden categories). Now, I notice that you are adding e.g. "inker" to jean Giraud which has the effect that he is auto-added to the category Category:Comics inkers, even though "This category is for comic book inkers, specifically those who primarily make a living embellishing other artists' pencil work, rather than their own." Giraud doesn't ink other peoples work, so he shouldn't be in this category. I also note that in the sortkey, you use a minor character for the first name (Giraud, jean and Vandersteen, willy), which is incorrect. This is not just an inadvertent error, but soemthing you do deliberately[7]. Why? You also remoce the hardcoded cats from Hergé[8], with the incorrect and misleading summary "layout", despite the fact that many people have protested against the removal of said categories. Could you please stop these edits, revert the incorrect sortkey changes you made, and discuss the use of categorisation through templates (and the removal of corresponding cats from the baody of the article)? Fram (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, most of the changes that I've been making to the infoboxes are based on what is already in the 'box. In the case of Giraud the 'box already indicated him as a "penciller, inker, writer" ([9] left side), based on that the inker category is appropriate. Now, if you feel that it is more correct that he be called a writer and artist, feel free to change the tagging from:

| art =

| pencil = y

| ink = y

to:

| art = y

| pencil =

| ink =

And given the argument you are presenting here, that change would make a degree of sense. But the bottom line is that it is almost no different than if the category had been directly added or removed. The only difference is that the 'box also gets corrected.

As for the sorting, I had mentioned this with another editor, Rich Farmbrough. The up shot being that, given the internal logic of the category sorting, using a single capital makes more sense. To me, it still does, but if the change is causing trouble re the bio cats, I'll reset the handful I've flipped over.

And with the Hergé edits... frankly they do look like layout issues, and minor changes, to me. If you prefer I'll try to remember to tag such changes in the future as "cats covered by 'box". But it is still a minor edit in the category is still attached to the article.

- J Greb (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And just noticed something with Willy Vandersteen - Is "Vandersteen, W:Illy" really more correct for sorting? - J Greb (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but there is a difference between a typo and the deliberate incorrect use of the sortkey. Fram (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to the edit summary that accompanied your response - A) "deliberate errors" in this case is POV since it is a slightly different method of sorting. B) Considering your edit was a flat revert, it is fair to ask if "W:Illy" was a deliberate sort argument base on a non-obvious consensus. Rather that assume you reverted without reviewing/looking. - J Greb (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your error. I didn't correct earlier errors. And if you change a correct sortkey, like on Louise_Simonson, to one that goes against all relevant guidelines and commin habits, and where the only effect can be a worse sorting than before, not a better one, then you are deliberately making an error. Fram (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. And yes, I've gone back over the bios I've hit over the past few days to to check and revert cases where I've created a discrepancy between the sortkey and the DEFAULTSORT.

I do have a side question though. I think I've got a handle on the method for "Mc" and "Mac" - the 2nd capital is just changed to lower case - and that this is applied similarly for "O'", "d'" , "A'", and the like. Is the common practice though for the latter to replace the apostrophe with a space or just drop it? Similarly, are periods retained (St. Sr. Jr. etc)? - J Greb (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)