User talk:J Greb/Archive Sep 2007

Re: DC Multiverse

Just a point of order Basique: You had added the Ingle ref to only to Crime Syndicate at the point where Duggy clipped out the information from DC Multiverse. That ref is the one of the two that is a direct statement that does not require interpretation, even if it is at odds with the solicited title for the issue.

The ref first put up, and is so far the only one on Earth-Three, the one that Duggy acted in good faith in removing from DC Multiverse and I questioned on the talk page for Crime Syndicate, is not clear. It an be assumed that the "note" means the characters seen in 52 are called the "Crime Society of America", but that ignores the "'Golden Age'" qualifier. That's the editor drawing a conclusion and adding it as fact to the article.

In all honesty, even with Ingel's statement, naming the team is, at this point, speculative. Ingel could have misspoke, or been refering to a backup/flashback section of the issue, or be ahead of DC's PR in changing the solicited title. Anyway it's presented an assumption is being made in lieu of having the issue in hand.

Two suggestions:

1. Add your second ref to Earth-Three to avoid a similar good faith removal of what looks like a drawn conclusion/OR.
2. Park the attitude. Duggy came here to ask you why you had drawn what looked like a bad conclusion, and to offer to self revert if there was something to support it. Accept that and move on. Don't go out of your way to paint his edits as deliberate bad faith editing, which your edit summaries here (revert w/o changing the auto text implies revert of vandalism) and here (characterization of both as "bad edits").

First sign your name when you post hon my discussion page. Second that little exchange was between myself and Duggy, if as it seems you were following the discussion then you could just as easily pointed him towards the Jamal Igle reference. Sorry JGreb but you don't get to come to my discussion page and lecture me about my "attitude" to Duggy. You have no idea what I meant by my comments, nor can you draw any such conclusion from my limited statement here. --Basique 19:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

First, sorry about the sig... I though I had put in the tildes.

With regard to the Igle comment. Since you were the one to add it to bolster one of the three, you really should have added it to all three, period. If that had been done, I could see a degree of justification for treating Duggy's edits as vandalism since it would have been removing a solid reference in stead of something that can be interpreted to support the point. As it stands, you bit someone for a good faith removal of spec. - J Greb 06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Minis and Volumes

Mini-series aren't volumes unless they have 12 issues or more. Look at any number of comic archive sites. (such as the CPG). We've been over this with Robin. Please do not revert to incorrect information. The contents of the Mia Dearden article itself also state that it's Volume Two. --CmdrClow 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Rogues

Thanks for the edit, and the understanding of who the Rogues are, and who they aren't. I've been working towards that goal for quite some time. It's been a slow road, as you'll note from the talk, and edit histories. ThuranX 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, before you gut and rework the tables, please take a look at the older text-only version. I would really prefer to expand that format into one which describes how Cold is implied to be the leader in most interactions, MIrror Master makes most of them nervous due to his addictions and the incredible power his guns wield, even Weather Wizard's nascent psychopathy (if the last set of stories about his, his son, and his murder of his brother are to be considered.) Cold's seduction of Heat Wave back to evil, their conflicts with piper for his homosexuality... all of the stuff that makes the rogues the disfunctional band of borthers they are would make more sense in that article than any table. The individual articles should cover them as individuals, and the Rogues article the description of the team synamics and so on. ThuranX 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman edits

Hi, could you explain to me what this was about? The cat seemed appropriate to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Morefun52.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Morefun52.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Spectre30.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Spectre30.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Superman

THANKS for the head's-up; I've weighed in on the talk page.

Since I can't sleep (it's 5 a.m. where I am), I'll go add fair-use rationales to those images noted just above. --Tenebrae 09:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:New avengers sketch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:New avengers sketch.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Guardians by Igle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Guardians by Igle.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

CfD

Thank you for pointing out my mistake - I think I fixed it, but then I thought the previous proofreading was sufficient as well ;-) Tewfik^Talk 10:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea

I guess you were right to decide that neither a list or category was neccessary and should be salted. I've never seen the cfd for the telekinesis/fire/shadow, etc., cats and would like to know where they are located. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

re: re: WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #13

As it asks for substantial stability and substantial numbers of editors that seems like it'd need an assessment and consensus on the whole wiki. We'd be in a really big mess if we had to go through and justify ever link each time we wanted to use it. I could also see assessing single wiki pages as being more troublesome than a whole wiki. For example you might have a solid well written page with only an editor or two having worked on it while ones with more input could be worse. Of course, this might be an arguement for the impossibility judging wikis by the criteria presented but I think we can come to a solid decision on a wiki-wide basis. (Emperor 19:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

That's it really. I assume (hope?) the guidelines are like that so we can discuss and include wikis that we think are suitable. Reaching a consensus would give editors more authority in cases of disputes over this as without a consensus you are leaving it down to an individual's opinion and with no weighting one way or the other that can lead to edit disputes.

As you say with updates to WP:FICT I can see more material being transwikied (officially or unofficially) and it'd be in our interest to establish which are the reliable wikis that we can work with so that any gaps not covered by us can e addressed in a wiki that is more indepth. I found the MCDP very helpful the other day for resolving an issue that wasn't clear from the Wikipedia entry and while they will never be WP:RS they, like Wikipedia itself, can be useful springboards to tracking down the information you need. While the MCDP links were removed due to WP:COI I don't have a problem with proposing it for discussion as linkable in line with WP:EL along with DCAUW and some others. It might be worth getting a small list together and kicking them around, those that get the thumbs up for external linking can then be added to some section of the comics project. (Emperor 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC))

I've set the ball rolling [1] we'll see how that goes ;) (Emperor 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Superboy-Prime

Thank you.[2] Would you mind dropping a note on the talk page so it's not just me and Zeal beating our heads against a wall attempting to reason with him? Pairadox 05:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Since he was warned about the 3RR in the Sept 1 run, and was warned again after his 4th tonight... see here. - J Greb 06:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry... forgot your note on your talk...)

Oh... and you may want to take a perusal of WP:ANI... - J Greb 06:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL thanks for being respectful! ...and he's blocked.[3] Pairadox 06:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... that was fast. - J Greb 06:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Batgirl pic

I can understand reducing the file size, but why not use the original "million dollar debut?" since it was the cover for her first appearance? Bookkeeperoftheoccult 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for explaining. I guess its also a moot point but I also disagreed with removing the Killing Joke image from Barbara's article, only because that book had the the most significant impact on her character history. But if it is turely inappropriate, I wont argue about it.

I also had a question, are you good at properly citing references? because I can't figure out how to do it correctly to save my life. I'd love to see the barbara gordon and batgirl articles get the star/A quality rating but both need about 1,000 references. I own the BOP issues 56-99 and im sure I could find external links to other important points, but id need help putting them in the right place. Thanks!Bookkeeperoftheoccult 22:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

ps: I found another web site that appears to have to original scan with all relevant info Million Dollar DebutBookkeeperoftheoccult 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"Comic book references" template

Hi, J. This looks like a really handy template, which I've just run across at your Whizzer edit here. I couldn't find it on the WPC templates list, and we need to make an adjustment: It's using the format "v1" etc. rather than WPC MOS "vol. 1" etc. Can you adjust, or let me know where it is and I can do it? Thanks, -- Tenebrae 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you. That "one-year" rule is just arbitrary. I find The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators to be a very solid and consistent source of keeping volume numbers straight. Oh, and thanks for all the info and the template fix!! It;s good working with you, man. --Tenebrae_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Dell Horror Heroes

I like the idea, I just based Werewolf (comics) on the Frankenstein (comics) page that existed. Previously the Werewolf page only redirected to Werewolf by Night. Make the proposal on the 3 talk pages, I don't want to take credit for your idea. -- 69.183.15.244 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

...

Are you floating my edits? --CmdrClow 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to Dick Grayson and Robin (comics), not exactly. I've had those two on my watchlist for quite some time. And I stand by the actions I've taken with regard to those two and the Sook image.

1. There was a large harangue last time the Sook image was placed, not proposed, into the infobox. The result of that was the current 'box image. Given that history, treating it like the 'box image on Joker (comics) makes sense. In hindsight, the note should have gone up when the image change was finalized.
2. Placing it at the "One Year Later" section break is just decoration. It doesn't add to or reinforce anything in that section. It's just another "Nightwing in costume" image. The other 5 Nightwing image do directly relate to and support the text they're beside. The weakest of those is the Blockbuster one, and it's still, unfourtunatly, got stronger reasons than including the Sook image.
3. With the Robin article, since the focus there is that codename, it seems just plain wrong to use an image that minimizes Grayson's appearance in that role. Also, it doesn't make sense to include a second image for just one of the characters the article dabs to.

All things being equal, I do see a use for the Sook image, but the page is a royal mess. It would work on the Nightwing article for a dab section to the Grason article. But Nightwing needs to be put into a format similar to the Robin article at the same time.

Or was there something else that you were looking at? - J Greb 20:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Impulse2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Impulse2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Impulsekidflash.jpg

I have tagged Image:Impulsekidflash.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bartflash.jpg

I have tagged Image:Bartflash.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Rayner edit

The only reason the image was in the wrong section was because I didn't want formattin issues. The image itself matched the header of the Countdown topic without moving below. --CmdrClow 06:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the lay out issue. Left justified, yes, I can see an issue with the header, or bullets if they were there. But right, only is it "bumps" into the image lower in the article, which by all rights would be pushing screen resolution to the top and font size to its smallest. And even then, that section is one of the two "Story so far" points, so it is gong to be fleshed out. - J Greb 07:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Isis image

I can buy the use on the Isis article (though would much prefer to see it replaced, in that case, with the panel of Isis's first appearance), but I'm still very skeptical on the Black Adam article. Phil Sandifer 21:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)