User talk:J Greb/Archive May 2010

James Jean

Hi JGreb, see forthcoming discussion page entry on James Jean. Thanks. Babajobu Babajobu (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dating this also would have been nice since the bot archiving this page needs that. - J Greb (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BronzeTigerAsTeacher.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BronzeTigerAsTeacher.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) 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Who images for deletion

Hi :) I've responded to your comments on the FfD page. You did make a good point which I hadn't considered, and while I still think that the images blatantly fail the NFCC—evocative or not, and not in this case, three people sitting in a room doing very little hardly need an image to demonstrate that!—I'm not sure quite how clearly I outlined it, so if you need any clarification, please don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talkpage or wherever! Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 08:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

War of the Supermen

The image you're reverting to was never used for the zero issue, it was disposed of and never published. Besides, the first issue better represents the concept of the War with Superman vs. Zod. Similar to what you did here, the image represents the concept and actually saw print. --CmdrClow (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, I could have sworn the old one was the one I saw at my LCS.

Second - The edit summary you left on your revert (echoed here) is a good explanation of the change. It should have accompanied the change in the first place. If that meant the edit summary would have been too long either 1) break it up into 2 edits - preferable since the summaries would show in the history - or 2) link to an explanation on the article's talk page. Either avoids a lot of problems.

- J Greb (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. DC must've changed their minds. In FCBD promo material released nearly a half a year before the day, they used the image that Jones created for the zero issue, but when we received our shipment of the book itself at the shop I worked at, I counted them myself to make sure that image wasn't a variant of some kind, but they were all the newer image by Eddy Barrows of Superman flying by himself. --CmdrClow (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:War of the Superman 0.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:War of the Superman 0.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) 00:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Man 2

Hi, J. As always, thanks for your good thoughts and wises counsel. I think I see a pattern, now that enough superhero movies have been released: The first couple of weeks after a release, swarms of anon IPs make mostly, not all but mostly, unhelpful edits, vandal edits, and plot bloats. It might not be a bad thing to preemptively semi-protect a superhero-movie article for a couple weeks starting the weekend of release -- could say a lot of editors a lot of time. We've just had one new anon IP make four vandal edits in a row, and User:Horkana is fighting a valiant but seemingly doomed effort against plot bloat. If you think there's something you can do, I'm behind you. Best regards, as always, --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Flashbacks (comics)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Flashbacks (comics), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashbacks (comics). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Barry Allen image

This image by Ryan Sook: [1] may be a very suitable replacement for the Kitson image, if either the trade dress is cropped out or a version is found without it. Thoughts? --CmdrClow (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

And again with the crackling chest emblem. I'm sorry, that's today's spin on the identifiable costume. - J Greb (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It goes back to at least Mark Waid's run in the early 90's. --CmdrClow (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

For Barry? Really? - J Greb (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, for the identifiable costume. For the majority of Wally's time as the Flash, he had the identifiable costume pretty much as Barry wears it, except for the removal of the wings on the boots and the more elaborate belt. Many artists from Wieringo to Kolins used the crackling on the chest emblem. But even with that, the costume is still well represented in a three quarter frontal dynamic running shot (the most definitive pose for the Flash, doing what he's most identified doing) with the entire costume visible along with a minimal background.--CmdrClow (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK... lets de-link a few things:

Flash (comics), Barry Allen, and Wally West are separate articles. If we are just looking at Barry, let's stick with that. Yes, there is a specific style that Wally's costume fell into with regard to the "lightning aura when running", and then it changes from "matte" to "shiny" to the current "dark, hide the nose" version of the JLU costume. But, using those to justify "Use a new Barry with the lightning" invites confusing the characters more than they already are.

With the Barry Allen Flash, the lightning effect is new and isn't indicative the of what is usually associated with the character. Also, it dies hide a traditional part of of the costume - the stylized lightning bolt in a circle logo. - J Greb (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more apt to agree with you under similar circumstances, but the logo on the chest isn't hidden. The crackling only appears on the edges of the logo, as it seems that Mr. Sook wanted to maintain the iconography of the logo while still taking it in a dynamic direction. The bolt itself is in fact brightened by the effect and the circle is still very visible. --CmdrClow (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the logo is not the "normal" logo whether it is apparently replaces by "real" lightning or miscolored. And do you have a source for the artists intent or is that your interpretation and putting words in his mouth? - J Greb (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, your tone floats on the edge of WP:CIVIL. Why you're being so aggressive towards me, I have no idea but please discontinue that. All I'm attempting to do is foster discussion about bettering an article. Second of all, the logo is the normal logo. It's simply highlighted a bit. And as far as artistic intent, call it an educated inference. He's not obscuring the Flash logo and it is in fact the regular three pronged lightning bolt, as opposed to the single prong that's on Wally West's current costume.

If I can have an actual civil conversation with you about this then please let us continue, otherwise I'll take this issue elsewhere. --CmdrClow (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that about the question regarding Sook? I'm sorry, but guessing about why an artist did or didn't do something isn't proper here. If there is a citable reference for it, then it may, may be a reasonable argument for inclusion of the image. But not as an infobox image.

If it's with regard to the images in general, the same could be asked about pushing for today's image rather than something that is indicative of the bulk of the character's appearances. To push for that is to skew, however slightly, the article on the character. And I really don't think it is "slightly" since the article text is already weighted to the past few years. Adding to that, adding to the recentism puts undue weight on the current over.

I'm sorry, this isn't a news site nor is it a specialty reference cite. This, Wikipedia, purports to be a general use encyclopedia. As such it should treat subjects as a whole, try to put things in perspective, and try to use a scholarly approach. Part of that is the Project level guidelines for infobox images. Give the weight to the most generally accepted/recognized costume design. Present it in the clearest , most scholarly manner. - J Greb (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There are too many examples of images for comic book characters on Wikipedia that contradict your logic by not using an image that is "indicative of the bulk of the character's appearances" as the main images, Wally West, Tim Drake, Hal Jordan, Green Arrow, Roy Harper (comics), Sinestro, Punisher, and Iron Man just to name a few. I've made a few points on the talk page, feel free to move there.

But beyond that, you've just failed to address the near incivility that you've consistently been leveling at me for the past several months. Whether or not something may be "proper" in your eyes is no reason to treat an editor discourteously, and you of all people, especially as an administrator, should be aware of that. --CmdrClow (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fourth World

You're a genius! :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unprotection for Template :Batman/adversaries

This has been protected for an long time. But I don't think there is an clear reason why. There was never any vandalism or unconstructive edits. Just differing opinion on who's worthy to be on an template which (in my opinion) is not fair. Semi-Protection for that maybe but not protection. There is no clear cut determining on who should be on an template. And sources are not really necessary on templates for the article itself should show the similarity and they are also not something to determine who should be on an template. This can be consider as bias. Now I can understand if it was bloated with a whole lot of villains but it never hardly was. Personally I liked how the Spider-Man template determines. There is an hidden comment saying that the villains or supporting characters have to be in media adaptions or on alternate version of comic books or have been around for an long time and that section of the template has never really changed since. If an villain or villains has determined himself notable to Batman fans and has had media adaptions I think they can be in. Besides this is an encylopedia that ANYBODY can edit. Simple as that and less biased. I want to hear your thoughts about this. How would you determine who goes on there and what do you think about an requestion on it being unprotected or at least merged back in Template:Batman which is already semi-protected. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem becomes: Based on the templates history and the history of all of the super hero centric navboxes it will bloat to include each and every bat-foe and bat-character. That will make the template useless.

Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia. But Navboxes have a specific function they are supposed to fulfill - facilitating easy navigation among closely related topics. Cramming in every related article generates a template with so many links it becomes hard to use. This is part of the reason the template was protected. There is a rough consensus to limit the 'boxes to 1) characters primarily associated to the topic (So, Superman or Lex Luthor shouldn't show up in the Batman 'box even though they have shown up in Batman stories) and 2) non-minor characters ("one shot" characters that somehow got an article) which was originally presented as "the notable ones". Notability in this case would need to be shown not assumed.

And considering the "bloat" was coming more from registered users, I'm not ready to say "This now seems stable" and move it down to semi-protection.

Last thing, I have proposed a compromise in the past - essentially coding it so that the "full rogues gallery" only shows on villain articles. But only the current 15 notables showing elsewhere. (Maybe, maybe, including 2 or 3 more like Hush, Black Mask, and the Ventriloquist.) But no one has really seemed to like that idea.

- J Greb (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I get that you can't use every Bats-centric character. Defianetly when there is already an list article for them. There does has to be an limit on what you put on an template but I am not sure locking it is the answer. Lately I have hardly seen problems with superhero templates enemy sections including minor villains for an while(Except for the Iron Man template) and I keep an watch out for them. I also question why this is the only template doing such an thing. And P.S. there was an lot of people that wanted those villains you mentioned to appear in the template. Just check the archive of the discussion of Template:Batman. There was quite a few requests that they should appear in there and they tried to use sources for them too. Jhenderson777 (talk)

Merging Beetle characters

Sorry about me merging the characters. I see what you mean when you undid it but I do tend to disagree a little bit. The reason why I did that is because of the redundance of information that Beetle (comics) and Abner Jenkins had. Just about everything on there except for the fictional character biography on Abner Jenkins (and it's still talking about him as the Beetle mainly) is the same information. And plus I didn't think civilian names such as Abner Jenkins and Leila Davis are necessary to be seperate. Those civilian names don't actually meet the critera of Wikipedia:Notability guidelines (although I know Wikiproject Comics is less strict with that) and aren't really necessary to have as an seperate article. Keep in mind that Mysterio has more than one alter ego (and one [Quentin Beck] is more famous than the rest such as the case with Abner Jenkins being the most popular one) yet they are all in one article. (Now in some cases such as Venom hosts Eddie Brock and Mac Gargan I understand. They are notable enough and have been more than one character. But I don't feel the same way about this one.) Plus I think the article Beetle (comics) looked better (for it contained nothing of high importance before) and there was less redundance that Wikipedia had to share with the same character. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitting the highlights:

• Beetle (comics) is a different situation from Mysterio, so using that comparison doesn't really work.
• It is closer to Venom (comics), that that one is a royal mess spread out over half a dozen or so articles.
• At best, Beetle should be closer to Spider Woman - a set index that provides the basics and directs to the other articles. In such a case, the IOM and AV sections should migrate as needed. Looking at those, almost all are Jenkins, so they should be there not on the set article.
  • Just a side question... Was the Ultimate Beetle's civilian ID ever given? If not, that character could stay on the set index instead of us making an editorial assumption.
• Abner Jenkins is pretty much stuck for the same reasons as Eddie Brock and Mac Gargan - multiple codenames. The naming convention is to use the "civilian ID" in those cases, even if it isn't the "notable" name. When all is said and done it prevent move wars every time the character changes codenames.
• There may be room/reason to compress Leila Davis into the article. If that is done, the bulk of the Jenkins material still gets moved to that article and the infobox swaps to a character one with Jenkins only present as a link under "Alter ego".

- J Greb (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I am getting you. But there's one think I am feeling like mentioning. You asked if the Ultimate Beetle civilian id was mentioned and I do believe that is an no. But that isn't the only one with that problem. Every media adaption he has had his alter ego was never revealed so I am not sure they need to be in the Abner Jenkins article becuase it is only an assumption that that was him in the tv series or video game and like I said they share the same information there thus not necessary to say twice. So I think something may need to be done about that. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, at least to a point. "Ultimate" is a re-boot continuity where the character "may" be the same. The others are pattererned strongly off of the older stories. Moving them to the Jenkins article isn't a stretch, especially those that occured while Jenkins was the only Beetle. And the Ultimate one wouldn't have been before Marvel revealed the character as a Latvarian. That's enough of a deviation to bar the assumption of the atler ego of "Abner Jenkins". - J Greb (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg

Thank you for undeleting this image. The {{di-orphaned fair use}} template shouldn't even be on there. User:TreasuryTag was told specifically this during the ANI here, and I have since explained it in a lengthly discussion here and a shorter discussion here. User:TreasuryTag just wont listen. I am at a loss to know how to handle this user. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. (Please respond here.) HairyWombat (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Later. Predictably, User:TreasuryTag has appealed the community review decision of no consensus. The appeal is here, should you wish to contribute to the discussion. HairyWombat (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Even later. If you are interested in the result of the ANI for canvassing, it is here. As the image file can be relisted for deletion, I have made sure it is on my watchlist; you might like to do the same. (If you wish to respond, please do so here.) HairyWombat (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Article for deletion

You may want to go to here to express your opinion about the proposal. Spidey104^contribs 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Galactus - the final solution?

With Asgardian removed, David A and TheBalance have continued to go at each other over Galactus, and related Marvel cosmic articles such as Living Tribunal, Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics), and Template:Marvel Cosmic. Rather than let that siutation go on ad nauseum (although it is currently much less than it once was), I think there needs to be a resolution that either gets them to work together, or to stay away from each other. I suggested the idea of volunteer mediators to the two of them; David seemed skeptical but willing to try. Balanace said he "wouldn't object" but was too busy at the time, so I asked that he let me know when he was less busy; I have yet to hear back from him on the subject. I'd like to explore our available options for resolving this situation, maybe on the Galactus talk page or somewhere. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring has resumed between these two users, and they have also been using edit summaries to discuss their differences rather than talk pages (and when they have used talk pages, little resolution has come of it). I think it would be good to discuss the best availabe option for keeping the two of them away from each other; please join me at User talk:BOZ#David A and The Balance for discussion. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:TARDIS1.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:TARDIS1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amazing Spider-Man 574.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amazing Spider-Man 574.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) 05:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it J Greb. I used it for the article Flash Thompson when I noticed it was an orphan. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain America

it's not that it's new, it's that it has little background giving steve more focus. the line is stronger and the colors more vibrant, too. Ganthet2814 (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

Confusing Could you please explain this edit on my talk? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'm a little dense here: so you're saying that this option allows multiple infoboxes to be stacked? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Genius Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

David A and TheBalance have agreed to mediation, so I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Galactus. If you feel you should be a party to this case, you may add yourself to the mediation, or I can do it for you; I believe that non-parties are not allowed to comment on active cases, so please take that into consideration as you decide. Also, please keep in mind that inactive contributors can cause a stall in the case, so if you may have trouble in continued participating then you should not add yourself. If you are added, make sure to sign the agreement – mediation cannot proceed until all parties have agreed.

If you do join the case, you may consider adding your own statement under the "Additional issues" header (please wait for David A and TheBalance to add statements first). This should be brief and discuss succinctly the issues between the two of them regarding article content, as you see it, not how you feel about the editors' conduct. For example, you would want to say "I feel the article should include X, but he removes it; I feel the article should not include X, but he restores it; I try to rewrite parts to fix them in a particular style but he reverts it", and describe, in brief, why you feel these edits are appropriate. Brevity is the key here; assuming the case is accepted, you should have ample opportunity to explain your feelings later. Remember that Mediation is about trying to resolve differences, not about proving who is right or wrong, or getting the editors in trouble. It is not about providing evidence of wrongdoing on an editor's part, because this is not an Arbitration case. The idea is not to discuss how you feel about an editor's conduct, or what kind of person they are, or focus on the negatives – this is an attempt for these editors to try to see the positives in the other person's point of view and find a middle ground.

Also, if you feel that I have included any articles in the case which should not be included, or that I failed to include any articles which should be included, please let me know as I can change that before the case begins.BOZ (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SecretAgentX9Williamson.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SecretAgentX9Williamson.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, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jack Frost v1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Frost v1.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) 06:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)