User talk:Tenebrae/Archive 9

Orphaned non-free media (Image:StrangeAdv207.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:StrangeAdv207.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Eagle

FYI, some links were removed:

Jess Nevins' The Golden Age Heroes Directory
Jess Nevins' A Guide to Marvel's Pre-FF #1 Heroes: Phantom Eagle
Jess Nevins' A Guide to Marvel's Pre-FF #1 Heroes: Freedom's Five
The Grand Comics Database
Comic Art Fans: Frank Robbins (Ghost Rider #12) Three pages of story art —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man

The edits on Iron Man (and to a lesser extent, articles like War Machine, S.H.I.E.L.D., and Iron Monger) have been coming fast and furious ever since the movie was released. To be honest, I stopped trying to keep up with the Iron Man article because I just don't have the time! Good luck. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you'd like to know, Favreau is working on the sequel unofficially. I'll be working back in the stuff we previously removed if you don't mind. Alientraveller (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:AirboyVol2No2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AirboyVol2No2.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.H.I.E.L.D.

Well, I did not find any information on "a U.N." on the page, but I did find "a U.S." at the bottom, which is more than good enough for me. Thank you for pointing this out. Rau's Speak Page 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the backup on "a U.N." Much appreciated. MMMMMMMM (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMMMMMMM (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ted Key

Hey Tenebrae, I think the gent who is adding the info about the Shirley Booth bio really is trying to be helpful, rather than blowing his own horn. I edited his contrib so it doesn't stick out as much. Later... Konczewski (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am too trusting. Good job digging into this. Now if we can just get this dude to stop reverting your reverts. Konczewski (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We both might have to eat our words, Tenebrae. I found the listing for the book at the BearManor website [1]. I thought that pubisher sounded familiar; they publish a lot of books on old film and TV stars. I have books published by them on Paul Frees and Daws Butler. The Shirley Booth book came out May 1st. I'm not sure why Amazon is not carrying it. I did read recently that Amazon is not going to carry print on demand books published by anyone other than their service, so that could be the reason. Konczewski (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your superior Wikiknowledge. For what it's worth, "TedKey2" is working himself up in a lather on his talkpage. It's obvious he's a n00b, and you might want to visit his talk page with the points you've made to me. Otherwise, he's just going to keep reverting your reverts. Thanks for your explanations. Konczewski (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Key2 is not giving up without a fight. He posted a rather arrogant response on my talk page. I responded on his, and probably not as diplomatically as I should have. I also reverted his nth reversion at Ted Key. What a sore loser! Konczewski (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I was a disappointed with myself for loosing it with TedKey2, however much he may have deserved it. I'm just glad I found a compromise that, I hope, will stop this knucklehead from screwing up the article. Konczewski (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk Powers

that section was added during the big mess between david A and I. At the time, I was trying to figure out how to get hulk from GA to FA, and that was one item I'd decided to add, then David A hit the page, things went nuclear, etc., etc. That was part of what I'd added in terms of RWC, and consensus was that it was a good add. They only address a few dozen major heroes, and the real world content of it's worth adding. It's not like every hero COULD have such a section. No Magic heroes, or heroes based on 'Alternate universe physics', and so on. He's also one of the few for whom an alternate explanation was provided, making it a more in depth section than many,(for whom i'd simply have to say 'Gresh and Weisberg say no', lol.). ThuranX (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and deleted that section, as I felt that it was unnecessary and quite silly. I agree with you that if you put something like that in the Hulk (a science fiction character) then that is essentially opening a can of worms for every science fiction article in Wikipedia for empirical "invalidation." --Kontar (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a can of worms; it's a valid investigation of the character, and further, it's a relatively unique approach to the RWC related to the character. Remember, this source doesn't just say 'no it can't happen', they say, 'No, here's the science for why not, but here's a potential way for it TO happen'. As such, they disassemble AND redeem the material. Finally, keep in mind this sort of holistic downside and upside is not common to scholarly works in the field of comics. ThuranX (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (Also, Tenebrae, no need to apologize. I don't mind defending the addition.)[reply]

Kirby's Marvel artwork

In progress, here. I've basically copied over what I originally put, read through it for possible bias (maybe it doesn't represent Marvel's side very well. Which was even at the time pretty vague and hard to fathom, but seemed to boil down to "we don't think we need to give it back, but we will, out of generosity... IF he promises never to talk about it, touch it, sell it or otherwise do anything with. If he'll give it back to us whenever we feel like it, promises never to sue us, support anyone ELSE suing us, and..." which is quite hard to rended into sane statements, let alone try to detail even-handedly!) and tried to tone down the potential (for the hard of reading) "Marvel is evil/DC were wonderful" semi-undertones. Also made a half-hearted start at beefing up the "this is why it was an issue, because previously no-one got their work back" angle. Thoughts/comments/clarifications/sources/alternates/etc. welcome. :o) ntnon (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandman

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alice'sRestaurantCD1997.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Alice'sRestaurantCD1997.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllySloper.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:AllySloper.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Talk talk:Dave Sim

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Plrk (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Astonishing4 p2.gif}

Thank you for uploading Image:Astonishing4 p2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AstralMan bySamGrainger.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:AstralMan bySamGrainger.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackmark paperback.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackmark paperback.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BlondePhantomDetail.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:BlondePhantomDetail.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Eisner

I nominated Image:The Plot by Will Eisner.jpg for deletion. I would have nominated the other one too except that is also used in another article. The omission of for instance this cover in the bibliography section is not even remotely "detrimental to...understanding of the topic". See also the criteria and the guideline. Garion96 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other image will have to go too though. There is indeed some dispute about significance, but I don't think there's any doubt that in a bibliography of 20 or so works it will not be detrimental to the reader if it misses a cover. If if is moved to the part of the article discussing the book, or even better, discussing the artwork of the cover than it would be different. But it looks like article already has got plenty of covers. Garion96 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care on way or another about the specific cover. You know much better than I what covers should have to included in this article. But right now there are 5 fair use images in this article, which is too much. Three is already much but an improvement. If a "A Contract with God" is so significant, it should definitely stay, but then another cover could and should go. Garion96 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Chef

Easy or not, it's unnecessary to cite uncontroversial public information. The way Bravo re-runs that show, they've been spashing those names up on the television screen fifty times a week. Removing it and demanding sourcing is just silly and was certainly never the intent of WP:BLP. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And seriously, who is this mystery admin that you think is going to intervene in a content dispute? I'm an admin and I clearly don't agree with you. You probably can find some that will, but many others will not. You shouldn't be invoking mystery admin authority to shore up your weak argument. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually seen the show that you're edit warring on? As I said, the information in question (names) is presented on the show. Both stated by the individuals and also printed on screen in caption boxes. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You're lecturing me about invoking admin status to influence a content dispute when you're the one who keeps saying "An admin would agree with me?" I'm only mentioning that I'm an admin to show what a silly argument that is. Oh and feel free to bring this up at ANI, if you feel it is merited. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't even know what you're talking about. It's verifiable by watching the show. A source doesn't need to be available on the internet in order to be valid. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International availability to the masses is not now and has never been a requirement for sourcing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's verifiable by watching the show. The availability of the show is not relevant as to it's value as a source. And no, I don't think such a disclaimer is a good idea. 1) Because it's not accurate. 2) Because it's a disclaimer. If you really insist on continuing to unnecessarily cite uncontroversial public information, I note that Bravo credits all of the chefs by the full name when it puts their recipes on their website.[[2]] -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, other peopl need to be able to check the information, but that doesn't mean that everybody has to have instant access to it. Yes, a television show is more difficult to check than a web article. But that doesn't affect it's validity as a source. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you a question. Let's say that, a year from now, Bravo removes the recipes from their website. Would that then mean that you would against start edit warring to remove the last names of these people because it was no longer instantly verifiable information? -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think this is personal. I think that your understanding of policy is incorrect and I was having a discussion with you about it. I'm sorry that upsets you. You didn't really respond to my question, so I'll assume that you aren't interested in having this discussion. I'm not campaigning for unsourced information. I advocate common sense. Something which I often find is sorely lacking here on Wikipedia. Policy exist for a purpose - improving the encyclopedia, not for its own sake. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what it says. I was asking what you would do. I'm not even sure what bad faith assumption you think I've made. At no point did I think that you were editing in bad faith. Simply misguided good faith. I guess I apologize, but again, I don't know what you're talking about. Okay, maybe the common sense crack was a bit snarky and I certainly apologize for that, but your removal of the information to me certainly defies logic to me. I really do not comprehend why you think that a source cannot be used unless everybody the world over can access it. That doesn't comform to my understanding of our policies regarding sources. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. I love arguing about policy, but as the issue is settled, there's no real reason to if you don't want to. As you say, no hard feelings. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

En dash vs hyphen at Celestial (comics)

I know that issue ranges use en dashes. That's the precise reason I changed the hyphens to en dashes – these are not the same beasts. Witness:

Hyphen -
En dash –
Em dash —

--Pie'n'gravy (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Towel service

Thanks! I knew such a great detail must have come from a good source. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		The WikiMedal for Janitorial Services goes to Tenebrae for ongoing efforts to clean things up around here. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't added anything to your awards cabinet recently enough. Here. Doczilla _STOMP! 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will second this, as we've had a rash of "fancruft" edits of late, and T has been one of those helping to corral these little efforts. Also, noted on dates.

Asgardian (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing comic books

I agree with you 100%; factual details of character biographies should be source-able from the issues themselves. Except the more deletion-minded elements of the community do not agree with us, and the fact that comic book characters and elements are sourced only to the books themselves is being used as a generally acceptable excuse for deletion. Arguments I've been having at Wikipedia talk:Notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) and, perennially, at WP:AFD, have convinced me that for the time being the best hedge against deletionist pogroms is to source comics articles from whatever published sources possible. Stuff like Melter and Ego the Living Planet have survived when they went to AfD, but other stuff does not, and the fomenting consensus of a very loud, vocal, active minority, is that articles sourced only to comic issues, no matter how many issues or how long they've appeared in the books, are non-notable. Which is bullshit, as far as I'm concerned, but it is a thing that is happening on Wikipedia and I don't feel comfortable ignoring it.

I get that it may appear I'm spamming comics articles with sources from that guy's book, but all I'm doing, what I've decided is the simplest solution, is acquiring whatever published sources I can find, starting at page 1 and going through them page by page, line by line, and sourcing whatever I can. Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clennon Washington King, Jr.

Thanks for the help! Шизомби (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk (2008)

Just a note: the indent in the cast section for Ferrigno is based on the fact he has a minor part, but it's shared with the star of the film. The section is so prosy, bullets are inappropriate, but check out examples at Star Trek, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and X-Men Origins: Wolverine about roles shared by multiple actors. Alientraveller (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me chortle with this comment! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk in other media

Please give me a minute. I undid your revision to add references for the content in the article. Just wait a second while I add them.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a topic on the talk page.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Claw "khan"

What I've been editing is the wikilink that "khan" gets piped to. Just make sure that the link doesn't go to "khan" because that will get changed. There is no article for "khan". If someone keeps changing that back to point to "khan" that could be causing the problem. I'll check it by hand now and make sure it points correctly. --AnnaFrance (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, and it was pointing to "khan" again. I fixed it. There's no problem with the display text, "khan" is just fine, but it can't be wikilinked to that word. If there is any further problem, just let me know. --AnnaFrance (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just occurred to me that there might be a massive misunderstanding and what I did would be very irritating. I really didn't mean it that way. When you said that I had been changing "khan" to upper case, I realized that you didn't understand, because I never changed the word to upper case, as is evident from the history. All I changed was the piping. OK, so I will do what I should have done before—I'll take the piping out and put a disambiguation tag on the word, allowing you to pipe it wherever you want. I've also put a message explaining the issue on the Yellow Claw talk page so others won't wikilink "khan" either. Thanks, and I'm very sorry if I've been a bother. --AnnaFrance (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo

Yes, I see what you mean. I'll help where I can although you seem to be on top of it. There seems to have been a great increase in "fancruft" in recent months, and the regulars seem to be spending more time hosing these edits down (eg. film-fuelled passion for the Avengers) than getting on with the business of improving articles that need work. Oh well, we will persist.

Asgardian (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheSpirt n6 Feb1975 detail.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheSpirt n6 Feb1975 detail.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard page

Hey, jc. Tried to join the RfC you posted in May, and found the link outdated; I tracked down the relevant page, and it looks like discussion was concluded last month. Don't know specifically this is so, but I didn't want to do clean-up maintenance on that Noticeboard item without checking with you first. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice.

As you may have noticed on my talk page, I've been "away" for a bit, so several discussions that I was involved in have concluded (or drifted off...) - I'm still not anywhere near "caught up" on my reading. (And possibly may never be. The wiki continues on and on : )

Anyway, the "short" answer is probably that Doctor Fate is also listed on the noticeboard, and probably should stay there for a little longer. But the specific talk page discussion has "wound up" for now.

Hope this helps : ) - jc37 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Perhaps you can offer an opinion on the sales figure argument at Ultimates? The article is almost there, but I see this as opening to the door to POV, and as indicated on the Talk page there some editors that seem to be using some quirky figures to make some kind of case. Anyway, over to you.

Asgardian (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American firsts‎

Hullo, hullo

I've seen that you have erased the second reference to our good friend Bill Russell in the above-mentioned article. I think that it is notesworthy enough to stay, however, inter alia because it was the first title win for any African-American in a major sports league. So the positive (notability) should IMHO outweigh the negative (redundancy in a short space within the article...but you cannot really blame Russell for winning so soon!). Kind regards. Mrbluesky (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo (II)

Could be worthwhile. Thanks for the heads-up. :o)
Hold on... I thought this was an issue over the article itself, but... it appears not to be. How odd. Oh well. We'll see, then. ntnon (talk) 00:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what am I meant to do...?! Pepper the page with my comments and disagreement/concessions, or wait for someone else to let me know what's what..? Is this for us to thrash out any disagreement away from the Vertigo Talk Page, or for someone to arbitrate and tell either or both of us who had the right of it..? I'm all confused! ntnon (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jc37 wanted a summary of what this disagreement is all about, so I've written a take on it all from my perspective, but thought it would be (marginally more!) courteous to run it past you first. :o) I don't want to attack you, since - as you say - this has all been pretty civil, but I want to try and explain why I think you were "wrong" over some issues..!! Would you care to see my - likely horribly subjective - thoughts prior to my forwarding them to jc37, or would you like to synthesise an impartial summary, or would you prefer to put down your side of things, or..?! ntnon (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A hundred?! Sure, hamstring me where it hurts, why don't you... :o)

(Incidentally, I saw your compromise suggestion over mini/maxi, and replied there. Shortly, though, "limited" refers to BOTH, and is the umbrella term. "Maxi" is the specific - and therefore most accurate - term, so I still favor "maxiseries".) ntnon (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After you. :o) ntnon (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to paragraph (2):

Puts some perspective on things, doesn't it, having the real world impinge on things in this way? My own current troubles don't really come close, so, at the risk of this turning into a mini-soap opera(!): I'm sorry to read about your mother, and you have my sympathy, thoughts, etc. I do hope and trust that >this< isn't making things worse... If it's adding undue stress at a troubling time, I'll drop it. I don't want to act like a complete ******** about all this, after all.

That written, this continues to be a great debate - perhaps even an important one - but, really, if it's in any way impacting on personal issues, it's done. :o) (If not, I'll reply later.) ntnon (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic tone

Fair play, and good work. :o) (Please excuse the edit summary pun... too tempting.) ntnon (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DC Comics

Just for a change of pace...! Good sourcing on DC, but can I respectfully take slight issue over the change of this sentence:

"The following year, Infantino managed to convice Jack Kirby to defect from Marvel to DC, and event which is often cited as the end of the core "Marvel Age" of comics (in which Kirby played such a large, integral role) and even of the wider Silver Age itself."

to this:

"The following year, Infantino convinced Jack Kirby to defect from Marvel Comics to DC, an event sometimes cited^{[citation needed]} as the end of the Silver Age of Comics, in which Kirby's contributions to Marvel played a large, integral role."

(Which I suspect may have been something I wrote, just to add that extra layer of argument..!)
The "Marvel Age" is subtley different from the "Silver Age," even as the two overlap and are almost synonymous, so it clouds the issue slightly to revise that section, in my opinion. The Silver Age was the resurgance of the superhero; the Marvel Age was the "feet of clay"/"soap opera-tising" of them. Showcase #4 began the SA; FF #1 began the MA, a key SA event, but not synonymous. Kirby leaving the Marvel Universe drew the curtain over the Marvel Age, but the Silver Age ending is more murky, even if it's seen as closing at roughly the same time.
Does that make sense?! ntnon (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Marvel Age" is a marketing phrase promulgated by Marvel Comics! Comics historians talk about Golden Age, Silver Age, etc., but not the Marvel Age. Some mainstream journalists have used the term, but as slangy shorthand and not in any literal sense.

I appreciate your discussing an edit and not automatically reverting it. I hope my answer satisfies you. In all honesty, I'm struggling to get a handle on what if any journalistic or research-paper background you may or may not have, because so much of what I'm trying to express is basic, basic, J101 stuff. I'm sorry if I'm sounding exasperated. I think we should wait for a mediator before continuing.

Please note: I haven't changed anything in Vertigo (DC Comics) while awaiting mediation. I'd appreciate the same courtesy with my edits until we've had a chance to work things out in mediation. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several comics historians use "Marvel Age," since there's a handy differentiation shorthand between Silver being superheroes; Marvel being angst. But...

In any case, I thought I'd wing by again to offer some uneqivocal praise for your work on Dick Sprang. :o) When I saw it show up on my watchlist I was a little wary, but my fears were allayed..! Good work.

(One very minor point - it looks like you might have changed a page reference in my second Batman Archives footnote - page 222 becoming 223, since this was referring to Desris' biography of Pat Gordon, not Sprang. Also, does your work there imply that you have easy access to multiple issues of Alter Ego, or..?) ntnon (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the removal of notability explanations from the images at DC Comics, to "[make] captions consistent with WikiProject Comics MOS"/"remov[e] uncited WP:NOR & POV from captions," and wondered which reasoning applied for the notability reasoning removal..?

I assume you're suggesting it's original research to label Action #1 as the first golden; GL #76 as a likely first bronze and Watchmen as an integral/early/first dark age comic. Is it a lack of footnotes that made you make those decisions, or something more pedestrian..? (i.e. If those were sourced descriptions, would they still violate style guidelines - since New Fun #1 and Showcase #4 aren't sourced, either.) ntnon (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger (comics)

Hey, thanks - you really spruced that one up with the images and the publication history! BOZ (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I'll admit that I too, often feel a pang of dread when I see that I have a new message, but more often than not (lately at least) it's good news, or someone just dropping a friendly note. :) BOZ (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Baily

Thanks for your note, kind offer of help, and for maintaining the integrity of the page on my grandfather, Bernard Baily. My father and uncle, Bernard Baily's sons, just drew my attention to an error in the account of how Bernard Baily spent the 1970s. The confusion on the source page cited may have resulted from the name of his Mahopac business, The Country Press, but, while Bernard Baily was the editor of dozens of magazines, including the men's magazines Ace, Caper, Escapade, Cavalcade, High, Ho!, Man's Action and Intimate Confessions, along with magazines about boxing and movie monsters, my uncle Stephen Baily, who worked closely with him for many years, including throughout the 1970s swears he was never involved with any farm periodicals. While I'm not too savvy a wikipedian yet (I thought my first edit hadn't taken, which was why I edited the second time), I thought this information might be of use. Thank you. Amy Baily (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Baily (II)

Thanks also for this very helpful note. I feared I'd worn out your patience with me after seeing I'd put my message in the wrong place on your page and then edited my own comments so many times (only noticing after doing so that is also discouraged), and I'm so glad you wrote back because I wanted to tell you I also saw afterwards you were the originator of the entire entry, which was indeed wonderful for our family to happen onto.

I will pass your suggestions on to my father and uncle -- I'm sure they'll be interested. I noticed that the remarkable and comprehensive Bails page (which, as far as I can tell, gets a great deal right) was not being updated since Bails's passing, and I worried that would be the final word on my grandfather's later career. Also, I have already written to my father to ask for a scan of a photo of his father, if that's something that can be used here. As to the mastheads of those magazines, I only have copies of a few of them but will ask my father and uncle to start looking into the others. The ones I have are Ace and Man's Action, both of which list Bernard Baily as Editor; High, which lists Bernard Baily as Editor and Art Director; and Escapade, which lists Bernard Baily as Editor and Publisher, but I don't have dates for his tenure at these magazines, so I don't know how useful that is. Meanwhile, as I say, I'll pass on your very valuable suggestions. Thanks much again, Amy Baily (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Fanboy

Hi, I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me with an article I'm working on for the comic book website Project Fanboy

I've created the article here on my sandbox and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to give it a look and let me know what you think. (whether the site is notable enough for an article or not yet) All the best, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Tenebrae. I've made some changes and chopped out a lot of the stuff you described as chest puffing (mostly the name dropping stuff) and rewrote portions of the history trying to make every word count as you suggested. I think I just may be having trouble understanding exactly what makes something notable by wikipedia standards and I thought perhaps some of that stuff may make it more notable, making it "wiki-worthy". Millennium Cowboy (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it's wiki-worthy as it stands now? Or does it need more still? If you think it's notable enough to stand as an article, would you mind posting it for me? I think an admin posting the article might give it a little more clout and people wouldn't be so quick to tag it for speedy deletion. There are a lot of wiki users whose only contributions it seems are to reverse people's edits and tag articles for speedy deletion instead of helping to clean up the article. All the best, Millennium Cowboy (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby

Good catch. As I hinted at some while back, I've picked up a good few more TCJs from around that time, one of which has a transcription of a Stan-speech (which is fascinating in its own right, and probably not much help for the Kirby art side of things, but a great piece on the actual Marvel collaborative process) as well as comments from Shooter and Marvel. Certainly goes some way to providing some balance, since most of the actualy reportage is, naturally, biased towards Kirby. Likewise the very-many letters from fans, pros and companies almost entirely side with him, so while they add insight and context... I'm sidetracking down fandom-routes at the moment, but when I have a better chance to absorb all the Kirby relevant materials, that will be "next," and the lawyer's name may well help somewhat, thanks. ntnon (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your most recent comment regarding this. :o) We will indeed get back to it, once our other differences-of-opinion/style/language/interpretation - I've been wondering for a while now if we're not really arguing two sides of the same coin and getting bogged down in semantics and hypotheticals. Certainly various input from all sides seems to be dragging us back down into the mud of new side-issues to misinterpret each other over rather more frequently than anything gets "properly" addressed... - are over and done with.

In a couple of weeks I'm either going to have quite a bit more time to be able to devote to Wikipedia or very little indeed (...far too complicated to go into...!) but hopefully there'll be Kirby-time before, during or after that. I certainly should get round to compiling/digitising (read: "typing in") my TCJ &c. source materials soon. (Famous last words.) ntnon (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vertigo (DC Comics).

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#John_Buscema

--Scott Free (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killraven supporting cast

Hey, thanks! :) Glad you appreciate it. BOZ (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nino

Well quite. I have to say I was disappointed there weren't more samples of the artwork because (as Smith says) he can really draw boats and the sea. I don't usually buy comics just because of the art but I am tempted, even though it is "Zombies on a Boat" (and I am a big fan of zombies but I do wonder how many times you can go to the well on that one - where do you go after you've already seen a zombie fight a shark?). I'll keep an eye open for more news. (Emperor (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ultimates

I appreciate your assistance on this one. When I started editing the article, I really didn't think it would get to ths level. Passion for the characters is a fine thing, but as you always said the Wiki-standards are there for a reason, so it doesn't become a case of Aladdin and the 40 fan pages. The buildup to the Avengers film is only going to spark more of these debates, but I suppose that's part of the fun. Asgardian (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Ain't it fun when we agree? Nightscream (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what's "WPC MOS", and where/when was it decided that we don't use volume indicators? Why is this, and how do we distinguish between different volumes of series when mentioning issue numbers? Nightscream (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And yeah, I do wanna learn. Intellectual curiosity and a desire to know all the pertinent guidelines has always been a part of my m.o. Btw, I notice that you had almost 29,500 edits under your belt (GodDAMN!), but there's not administrator insignia on your User Page. Are you not an admin? Are you not interested in becoming one? Has no one ever nominated you before? Nightscream (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Awards

...wholly coincidentally (honest!), I've been meaning to provide some source information for the setting up of the Eagles for a few weeks, and got round to it today. I now see that you flagged it as needing sources recently/yesterday, so please see what you think now, phraseology- and other-wise. :o)

Also, if you have any thoughts on how best to present the Award winners (not sure whether there'd be any grounds to hive off that part into "List of Eagle Award winners"), it's a bit of a mess at the moment. Not helped by confusion over what years what happened, since there's definite discrepancies over whether the "19xx Eagle Awards" applies to the year comics were released (no) or the year the votes were cast and winners announced (yes). I don't have to hand a complete list of winners for every year, so I can't check or add to those I've now tried to invisibly-tag as being of uncertain date.

I wonder if a table would be a preferable format? I presume (and certainly since c. 1986) that the "also rans" are in order, and thus would slot neatly into a: YEAR/(Country)/AWARD TITLE/WINNER/Second place/Third place/etc. style table. But I don't know if that would be a better idea than the current, hard-to-navigate list. ntnon (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreading

I'm glad to know writing the bio helped ease your mind in a tough time. It was back on my mind because a writer contacted me and said he happened to be working on an article for Alter Ego, and was looking for some information. You had mentioned that magazine to me, so I thought that was a positive turn of events. Wishing you all the best Amy Baily (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Schwartz

Thanks for watching over the re-insertion of the sexual harassment allegations. I actually knew Julie well. In fact, he was perhaps my closest friend until his death which might seem odd given our age difference. I met him just after his wife's death and he was instrumental in facilitating my rise up the publishing career ladder and then into film. He played a similar role in the careers of numerous young female professionals I know. In my experience, for a man his age, he had an unusual understanding of the obstacles we faced in those days (1980s). When I say I was close with Julie, I mean that I travelled with him for over 20 years, often sleeping in the same room (separate beds) because of his terrible fear of falling in the night on the way to the bathroom. He had several such "minder" companions over the years both male and female and none of us ever saw him behave even remotely the way described in the allegations but we did see professional women and fannish women behave incredibly inappropriately towards Julie both in public and in private. Part of our role as a Julie-minder was to keep those types at arms length!

There was an earlier version of the allegations in the article that I felt I could live with but other editors removed it and I agreed with their decision then. I was well aware of the allegations, having been present in the Comics scene during the initial broohaha which led to an investigation that resulted in no lawsuits (that I am aware of), no actions and no diminishing of Julie's stature within comics. In 1996, Gary Groth, an acquaintance of mine via Gil Kane, sat me down at WonderCon for a lengthy discussion on the subject because he said he was planning an article on the allegations. One of the alleged victims had told him some appalling things and he wanted to hear directly from someone who was in a position to see if any such behavior was typical of the man. He knew through Gil that Julie & I were close and that Julie had helped me get my first job and I suppose he thought I would have been a prime target for sexual harassment under those circumstances. I was happy to describe at great length the harassments I'd received from other figures in publishing known to both Gary & I and that while Julie had ample opportunities to dish out the same or worse, he was never anything but a loving grandfatherly figure.

Since no article was published until after Julie died, I can only assume that my in-depth and frank comments may have given Gary some pause. I also spoke to Gary after Julie's death from my hospital bed (freak illness) just before he published his article on the allegations . I came away with the impression that the issue was going to be raised somewhere because the alleged victim wanted to be heard and Gary being Gary, well, he had already done his research, had some perspective and was in the best position to publish. I had a few issues with the piece Gary eventually did publish but in light of the extreme and unsupported allegations flying around, I feel he did as good a job as anyone could have under the circumstances. Gary didn't publish the article to be mean, he did it because it was news at the time. The people who made it news by rehashing an old and often-told salacious story are the folks with whom I have issues. Gary actually invited me to respond to the article via a letter which he promised to print but I had just didn't ever get around to it.

If you like, I will go back and find the earlier version of the sexual harassment paragraph that had some inline citations. You can look at it and decide if you feel it merits inclusion. My own feeling is that is was an issue that was raised and settled as groundless during his life. It was only dug up and kicked around some after his death because his corpse could not be. I don't blame Gary for publishing the claims because the woman involved would have gone elsewhere. In fact, her claims had been blogged about ad nauseam within hours of Julie's death.

I'm sure this is far more info than you needed and I apologize for going on at length. My love for Julie (and Gil Kane) are so strong and my continuing grief over their absence from my life sometimes turns me into a storyteller when I should be more succinct. Forgive my expansive mood! - Lisa Feerick Pollison LiPollis (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty Who Made DC Great

...and I'm not done yet: One down, etc., etc..! Hopefully I can get to a couple more of the fifty before I become too otherwise-ly busy. Thanks, though. :o) ntnon (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, of course, other things have intervened. Plus, it occurs to me that this "20-some year old print source" would also be described as a "self-serving" borderline-self-published pamphlet. Is it then allowable as a citable source...? ntnon (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FJohn_Buscema

--Scott Free (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Thoughts (Polite)

I was trying to indicate what I felt what was noteable; Voodoo was working for Iron Man's side and trying to hunt down heroes and two, not happy about it. Lots42 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On IMDb as a source, and the withdrawn policy positing a description of its use

(Since - again - you're using this as a springboard to attack my character and efforts, I felt that a lengthier description of the rationale behind citing that link was called for. In a nutshell, while the link was to a failed policy, it was to a specific point of usage - cast & crews lists - for the IMDb which is seen as far less controversial, and a reasonable stand-in for the film credits scroll. Indeed, the IMDb link is included in film infoboxes as a matter of course. The wider issue is over usable material appearing in lesser-perceived sources, which has wide-ranging implications. While guidelines exist in some cases, these issues are not black and white/allowed and disallowed, but open to interpretation.)

I realised you'd pick up the (considerable) flaw of directing a point to an un-passed policy page even as I submitted it, but that link seemed the best way of attaching a rationale to the edit. Not intended to be deceptive, merely specific. The other option was a lengthy discourse on the Talk page, and... that seemed not to be a great idea for one glaringly obvious reason..!

Far from a lack of scepticism and an overdose of credulity, I directed both to this issue. Not least when reading your own rationale for the apparent discrepancy between a) calling for a source, and then b) rubbishing a source. Indeed, I spent quite a while reading though a large number of pages trying to find what - if any - consensus was to be found regarding the IMDb in whole or in part. For the edit summary comment, I had initially attempted to phrase it as bare, uncited disagreement (which seemed rude/argumentative) or linking to an individual comment or two (lack of space, clearly dubious "source" in such a case). Since no comment was obviously out of the question, I felt that - although ultimately the whole proposed policy failed (I assume you looked over it's entirety), the specific section I linked to nonetheless seemed to have, guarded, support: "the IMDb can be considered an acceptable source for things such as release dates, technical specs, credits, and anything else of this nature." ("For released films and their articles, I have seen editors recommend against IMDb as a citation. This applies to most items outside of the available cast/crew information, which is basically an electronic copy of what you see in the credits at the end of a film. I have used IMDb to fill out basic details in Infobox Film templates of released films' articles..."/"Bottom line, the only thing IMDb is good for is citing cast and crew information from released films: that should be the only acceptable criteria for using IMDb - anything else is unverifiable.")

This - withdrawn/failed - policy is the main focus I could find of any debate regarding IMDb as a source, which I was looking for because of your refence ("Wikipedia disallows IMDb to be used as a reference source") which I could not find stated either under WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR or even WP:BLP. You claimed consensus; I don't see one. At most the prevailing wind is against it in general, but it's usage also isn't addressed specifically on the film guidelines page, except to tangentially approve it as a baseline source, but warn against copy-and-paste and call for real world information:

"The key [to writing about cast and crew] is to provide plenty of added value "behind the scenes" background production information, without simply re-iterating IMDB."

Other discussions focus more on the database's usefulness for polls and boxoffice figures and biographical details - which are not considered synonymous with credits, since credits are independantly verifiable by the pertinant film's credits. Indeed, for this reason, on at least this occasion, the point has been made that:

"it should not be relied upon as a valid reference source except in the case of cast/crew, in which the list is an electronic copy of the film's credits" - where for ease of reference/formatting the website is cited over the films credits (see also: film infobox "crediting").

The policy itself was ultimately withdrawn for reasons that did run against the IMDbs use as a source at all. But that ultimate criticism is, frankly, based largely on extrapolation and hyperbole, albeit hyperbole borne of righteous indignation at found and noted inaccuracies. ("IMDb 9 times out of 10 never has the correct premiere date for a film.")

The scattershot debate over the IMDb generally highlights in macrocosm our other disagreement - whether all information contained in a particular source should be tarred with the same brush. Clearly the un-sourced and collaborative nature of much of the IMDb is cause for concern (although the sarcastic - but flawed - comments that newspapers and other "good" sources can get away with not always crediting their sources, but nevertheless be considered a reliable 'root source' are interesting theoretical debating points). Just as clearly the CORE parts of it are merely a centralized store - a "database" even - of information collated from the most reliable sources going: the films themselves.

Equally, I noted with interest an aside about a preceived reliable interview housed on a non-reliable website: "The content is valid, but the site's appearance would be fairly questionable. I've seen interviews and set visits from movie sites like these..." Reliability of Content vs. Reliability of Source.

I'm willing to grant you that I hadn't noticed this coda beforehand, wherein the specific issue of the IMDb's usefulness even as a source of "hard facts" is mentioned as being under increased condemnation. Still, I couldn't find (it's conceivable that I may have missed it, too) a specific source for your suggestion that Wikipedia generally "disallows IMDb to be used as a reference source." That being the case, the inclusion of the IMDb link in film infoboxes and the propensity of discussions on teh IMDb-as-source focusing on trivia, biographical details and user polls brought me back to a differentiation between the IMDb as a source "generally" and "specifically for cast." With non-consensual frowning upon the former, while broadly tacit or specific approval for the latter.

Your first edit called for a source. Your second denigrated a found source. Fair enough. Alternate sources - again - would be far preferable. PRIMARY sources would be ideal. Unhelpfully, my copies of Clockwise and Superman III aren't accessible and my copy of Supergirl was "lost in transit." That's assuming a direct citation to the credits scroll of the particular films would be manageable/acceptable. I don't think I've seen that citation made, whereas every (note: I have only checked a representative sample) film page features a cast & crew box that is ultimately uncited, but contains the IMDb link for verifiability. N.B. You have no problem with Little Shop of Horrors and The Unbearable Lightness of Being..? Or the half-hearted references to Dark Crystal and Labyrinth...? Is there a reason for the differentiation between these?

Added to which, your reversion cut out the Boom! part my updating the Stardust Kid information.

I very much appreciate you taking the time and effort to present your (professional, even informed) opinions on these and other matters. They carry not inconsiderable weight, even if I might find myself disagreeing on a point of interpretation. Which is, after all, the only issue. It's not ethics vs. unethical activity; journalism vs. slipshod credulity, but a terminological disagreement over what makes a "good" source - it's content or it's presentation/format/editorial board/root source.

If nothing else, it's a very enlightening philosophical conundrum, with no easy answers and contrary opinions on all sides. ntnon (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm very disappointed. "Insulted" also, but disappointed more than anything. Differences of opinion (and acknowledging those differences of opinion and interpretation) are surely how we grow as people. Not by ignoring differences, sneering at them or withdrawing from commenting (while it can be frustrating to continue, to try and draw a line under an unresolved - and largely un-discussed - issue can have easily misinterpreted motivations).

Surely, rather than ignoring differences of interpretation or opinion, we should all attempt to firstly understand them, and then secondly (if need be) try to change those we see as being 'wrong' or 'flawed' through debate and reason, (rather than hyperbole, condescension and tangents about unbiased or deceased war reporters). Since I'm still trying to be polite(r), I'll do you the courtesy of withholding my final (repeated) query, since you likely won't address it, and it might therefore seem rude on its own. ntnon (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey, no problem - it's long overdue. If anything, Emperor and Hiding are probably doing a lot more than I am, but I'm glad to help! BOZ (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#John_Buscema

--Scott Free (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel for you on this one. One discussion I read at one point had someone suggesting you were not to be even allowed to talk about the topic. Wikipedia out of control! Gagging people is no solution at all. I'm going to take a look at this article as knowing you, I can only assume you are trying to resolve a style or fact issue.

By the by, I could use a hand with an old friend - Vision. Another user, Dr Bat is unfortunately being very belligerent and making blind reverts, simply because he doesn't like that fact that the new material is replacing some of his admittedly below-par effort (although in the interests of keeping the peace I have done merges where possible). In blindly reverting, he is wiping not only essential information (the Ultimate Vision section which is completely sourced) but style changes. If he reverts again, he will have undone Vol. changes (I noted the Vol. before issue no.) and accurate references.

Could you help with this one?

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE ban

As the problems of the original arb case are still ongoing, User:Scott Free and User:Tenebrae are banned again for 3 months from the John Buscema article, ie, until 24:00, 11 Nov 2008 UTC. They may edit the talk page. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#John_Buscema for more info. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goliath's top height

Hello! :) I've been, as I stated a few weeks ago, working on the lead to the Henry Pym article. I haven't had as much time as I'd like to admit to have, so I haven't been able to work as much on the lead as I'd like. My apologies. Anyway, I was just wondering, do you remember what Hank's peak height was as Goliath? I keep thinking that it's 30 feet, but my memory is pretty crappy! Thanks and have a great day! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Thanos page

Hi, it seems like myself, User:Asgardian, and User:TheBalance aren't ever going to be able to settle this on our own, and given that you're generally both very professional, reliable, and reasonable for a comics-editor (although somewhat too trigger-happy), and have little reason to like either of us, you should be a good choice to remain neutral and take over, so I thought I should ask for some help. Basically (as usual) my problem is that several points are worded in such a way that they are severely twisted around from the ways they were explicitly shown, and that there is a severe inconsistency of the applied structure of the edits from Asgardian at different pages, with highly contradictory justifications, but (likevise as usual) I apparently can't shorten it down to an appropriate encyclopaedic length. My information is probably more reliable, but not as neatly packaged. I have had similar problem with Galactus and some other 'cosmic' character pages.

The best option might be if you and/or other neutral, sensible, and reliable, comic-book editors would be interested in personally quick-referencing the issues in question. (There should be a Thanos collection available at isohunt if you don't have them in your collection) Assistance would be greatly appreciated. Dave (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:YellowKidMcFadden.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:YellowKidMcFadden.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New (old) names in comics

I hope your recent absence doesn't bode too ill, and trust that things are as well as can be expected with you personally.
Continuing a trend, I've been attempting to locate the glaring gaps (which ought to be plugged) here in comics' history, with a view to addressing them. I've managed to get hold of some pretty helpful sources - particularly for Jack Liebowitz and Jack Schiff, which I hope to cobble together "soon"(...); both of which might interest you. Meantime, do you have a couple of moments to cast a quick eye over John L Goldwater..? (And should he be at John Goldwater, John L Goldwater or John L. Goldwater, would you think?) Advice and comments welcome... ntnon (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Tough times. These times are never easy, and it sounds like you're being hit from all sides now, which obviously can't help. Hopefully things will improve where they can, and be at least ..eased where they perhaps can't.

I missed a signing and talk by Blake Bell by 24 hours, which was a shame - I've heard good things about his book, though. I've been unable to find a decent judgement of how much it is history, biography or bibliography though. (You know he has a website, hosted by the Grand Comics Database..?) ntnon (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John L. Goldwater, with some edits and additions. Harry Sahle looks good, although I have an immediate quibble - Police Comics didn't become Crime Does Not Pay: Silver Streak did. So Police #37 - #102 were just "Police," not CDNP. (Apparently - possibly foolishly - Police #103 dropped not just Candy, but The Spirit AND Plastic Man to "become a regular crime comic" for its last 25 issues, so that might be where the confusion crept in. :o))

I'll see if I can turn up any more on Mr Sahle, but that seems pretty solid. Next up I hope to transfer all my notes on Liebowitz and Schiff onto the computer... ntnon (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your trick of using the SSDI comes up blank (as I'm sure you know) for "Harry Sahle," although there's a couple of Sahles (one "Fred") who died in the mid-1960s... Gil Kane in Alter Ego: the CBA Collection confirms that Sahle took over from Montana on Archie, but also suggests that Sahle "died of a broken heart before the end of the War." This would be at odds with what you've got from other sources, and the Bails/Ware Who's Who entry (likely the root source for the other sources).

Spillane knew Sahle, [who designed the first iteration of Mike Hammer. And Jan, 1945 looks like the last easily-confirmed appearance of a Sahle Candy newspaper strip, although there is obvious scope for later issues by him; it appears as if the strip ran with Dorr until 1971, though. ntnon (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're quite right - that's not the best word, is it? Not something I'd have ever thought of, myself, and it can be quite useful for birthdates. Sometimes. Unhelpfully, there seem to be gaps, omissions and possibly even mistakes... Mr Jacquet, for example. Plus the early comics fraternity don't always seem to use their own names. Still, we're getting somewhere, I think. :o) Sahle isn't in Maurice Horn's World Encyclopedia of Comics, by the way. Can't check Duin & Richardson's Comics Between the Panels at the moment. Why isn't there (or is there?) a "History of Archie," I wonder..?

I should be able to work the above in, and then you can hone it as and when. Hope your work at least is going smoothly, ntnon (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer failure just ate several hours-worth of Sahle edits, but I think I can dig some of out of the memory.. if it winds up looking a bit awkward, I blame the computer and lack of sleep..! Incidentally, this says that there should be; will be; may have been an article on Sahle in Alter Ego. I'll keep my eyes peeled. ntnon (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you - broadly - approve. :o) You're definitely right about that sentence, though. I think my computer-eaten revision had switched the "first female" and "Kapitan" clauses, so it was Sahle created.. Black Widow.., first female,.. with George which certainly is less likely to be confused than it wound up..! The "female" was the key point, in any case.
I think we've been down this mildly debateable side-alley before, but I read the wording of the WP:SPS guideline with the emphasis on the "largely not acceptable," ergo "sometimes are acceptable." And thus with the qualifying:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source."

So Mr Hagenauer's post would be a viable one, as would (e.g.) forum-based comments by Mr Evanier on Kirby; Publisher/editor/artists on their current projects, Roy Thomas on... almost anything, etc.
In this instance, of course, the information in the article is preserved so it's only a theoretical debate, and easily left to one side. (The now-sourceless Crime Detector reprints should be fine as is.)
I do think it important to note that Quality as a whole shut down only six months after Candy, however, since it might imply that the demise of the comic was not necessarily tied to the rumored/alleged/possible death of Sahle - nor automatically something as simple as falling sales - but could have been behind-the-scenes difficulties with the company itself.
And on the unknown-but-guessed death year, you're probably right to cut my wafflely "around ten years later," but I felt it better to hedge that as I suspect Ware/Bails guessed at the date themselves based in large part on the lack of new material. Hence it could be a year earlier than '54 or any time beyond that... maybe even the mid-60s of one of the more likely Sahle's in the SSDI.
Incidentally, did you look at the CBG forum link? As of this time two years ago, Roy Thomas was/was expected to be in contact with a relative of Sahle for a write-up in Alter Ego. If that occurred, dates might be findable. If not, there may yet be a piece coming sometime "soon."
Hope things are... as well as can be with you. ntnon (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. :o) I probably could have spelt out who Mr Hagenauer was, had I thought about it. I don't mean to suggest that there is a correlation between the demise of Candy and the demise of Quality, merely that there could be, and it's therefore mildly relevant, as well as interesting information. ;o) Good finds on the GCD/Max A-C front, and thinking on moving the CBG stuff to 'see also'.

I like parentheses, and in particular felt that reprints appearing after his main body of work did was both reasonably obvious and therefore a complete aside, and thus parenthetical. But it doesn't make much difference readability-wise. Talking of readability, I see that I've been gazzumped on Jack Liebowitz, so I've added a little, but think that it needs a lot more polish (at the very least), if you'd care to add some eyes. Sahle and Goldwater can probably be added to the 'new articles' list now, so I'll go and do that now. :o) ntnon (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

;o) That is scary...! I assumed you'd notice it sooner or later, but "just in case." Incidentally, I just noticed the Talk:Sahle page, and dumped the couple of sources there for you.

Status quo is something, at least. It's not a nice position to be in, and I'm useless at the best of times in offering the 'right' words of support, empathy, etc. but... whatever the right thoughts/phrases are at the moment: they are what I'm trying to express. Stay positive. ntnon (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Please accept my condolences; I had thought your recent absence might imply this, but even in these circumstances it can certainly come as a shock. I hope however that it is somewhat... reassuring to know that it was so peaceful, and it was very touching to read, (as you put it so well), about the thoughts and memories of those touched by her life and passing. I hope that can be of some solace to you at this time.

I hope you're holding up as well as can be expected - and your wife, too, amid all the various stresses and circumstances. (You know this already, but...) Dive right back in if it will help; return more slowly if that will help more: do what's best for you at the moment, not just what you feel you should.

(Kirby soon, then.) ntnon (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Liebowitz

Thanks for the welcome. To be honest I can't believe the article sat undone for so long. I set up Donenfeld's article over a year ago and thought someone would have done Jacks's. Always something more important to do I suppose. Thanks for your updates too, it really looks the part now. I just wish I could find out what the S. in his name stood for, and also his mother's maiden name. Thanks again. FruitMonkey (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:FF51.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FF51.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem

Thanks for your uploads. You've indicated that the following images are being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why they meet Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page an image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:HeroesInc1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HeroesInc1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:JudyGarland Skywald.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JudyGarland Skywald.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:US-Patent-Trademark-site-pg.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:US-Patent-Trademark-site-pg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC) --ViperSnake151 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_.5BJohn_Buscema.5D

--Scott Free (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:LoveRomances98.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LoveRomances98.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:MSH-Thor 1966TVtoon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MSH-Thor 1966TVtoon.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arb case

See this — Rlevse • Talk • 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Nightmare18.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nightmare18.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Pym

The battle over the lead seems to be on again :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Pym

I'm going to try for a rewrite as the current version doesn't work. Your opinion would appreciated.

Asgardian (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Strangeadventures207.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Strangeadventures207.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Glad you saw Henry Pym. I've posted a draft on the Talk Page and explained the pitfalls. It really see this as a risky proposition as by this logic all the articles then require what I'm calling an Overview.

Just by the by, Nightscream is trying to mix in and out of universe on Black Bolt and I'm trying to convince him as to the dangers of: a)Inserting information about future events and b)Leaving out of universe terms (a la Secret Invasion in the FCB.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Asgardian is doing very little in attempting to convince me, as he ignores the vast majority of the posts on his and on the BB Talk Page in which I respond to his arguments by explaining why I do not agree with them, and cite policy that instructs us to favor out-universe instead of in-universe. Three times, for example, have I pointed to why the criteria for failing WP:CRYSTAL, for example, do not apply (once on his Talk Page, and twice on the BB page). He simply repeats the statement, even after I've refuted it, and continues to revert even while the discussion is ongoing, which is against WP policy. You can see this on his Talk Page and the BB Talk Page, and I encourage you to give your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, deliberately ignoring being disproven, and re-doing the same misleading edits on false pretenses, while taking care to be particularly smarmy in doing so, (since he´s learned how to get away with it from his multiple ban experiences, including socpuppet usage which he lied as the work of a ´particularly clever hacker´) and following completely contradictory approaches on different pages is what Asgardian regularly does by my experience. Even going so far as lying about ´photographic memory´, despite clearly getting details wrong, and stating outright that he finds my attitude of deceit as something detestable as funny and childish. He´s one of the extremely few editors (such as JJonz and ThrBalance) that I generally can´t help to assume the worst of.

For example, Asgardian likely knew full well that Tenebrae answered my request for intervention about the Thanos/Galactus mess with that _his mother was dying_, so I responded that I couldn´t in good conscience ask him to bother with our crap, and rather take any time he can to spend with her, but if he knew some other reliable editor, preferably fanatic about factual accuracy, that would be appreciated. Yet Asgardian still asks him to intervene... It could be a mistake, but also a deceitful ´let´s keep up appearances by asking someone I know doesn´t have the time to intervene and then insert anything I feel like on blatantly false ´pov´ claims as usual´. It´s the sort of person my sum of experiences have read him as. Dave (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware this behavior of his predates my encounters with him, but I was unaware that he had used sockpuppets. You say that he claimed this was the work of a hacker, and that this was a lie. How would a hacker cause a sock puppet to be attributed to him, and how do you know this was a lie? Was there an IP check, or something? Nightscream (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, Tenebrae. Yes, most of his edits are quite valid in the regard that you mention, and I haven't hesitated from praising him for this, making sure to couch my criticisms of him in this point. But there is a distinction between those edits and the ones he makes that do not fall into this category, including the specific ones mentioned in the discussion I directed you to, and I would've preferred you opining on them. If you don't want to slog through the entire thread (perfectly understandable), you can simply read the few posts by me in which I specifically list the particulars, and respond to those. This post of mine seems to sum it up. You can also check out my responses to Asgardian wherein I responded to his rebuttals to get a "lay of the land", so to speak. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thought I'd give you this.

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For being involved in helping solve the Henry Pym lede conflict. Thank you once again! CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AllSurprise12 detail.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AllSurprise12 detail.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Scorpion-Chaykin1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Scorpion-Chaykin1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

résumés

Hi Tenebrae.

You've linked to WP:RESUME on a talk page. There's a discussion about that essay going on at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé#Tone - you might want to join in. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RockwellRunaway.jpg

I've listed this at IfD, since there seems to be some doubt about whether this is indeed William Obanhein or not. The article needs to be addressed as well--is there a reliable source that can be cited? Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for clearing that up. The IfD is at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 October 11#Image:RockwellRunaway.jpg; sorry I forgot to link it. I'll just link to your message on my talk page from the IFD if you don't mind. Cheers, Chick Bowen 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this bot

Can you be more specific? "Fictional character biography" -> "Character's background" is a change discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Characters are not living creatures to have "biographies". -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In WikiProject Comics I didn't find any specific guidelines for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am sorry for that. I added that in the last moment to avoid unwanted addition of a link there from by bot, which originally adds links to fictional character, the first time encountered in the article. There is one more problem: I have a spelling error! "backgound" instead of "background". I am so sorry about that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I 'll make my bot do the reverse change. The spelling error will help afterall. (Easier to find the wrong string) There is a small question for how to obtain the list but I 'm working for it. My apologies again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot started running. Let's wait for the first results. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mission accomplished. All wrong edits were reverted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Spider-Man

Please note: Fictional history of Spider-Man is at AFD again. BOZ (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galactus

This one is interesting. Only if you have the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&oldid=247883656 Asgardian (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice double team on Galactus. Just had to belt Living Laser into something passable. Cameron Scott isn't heeding the discussions on the third-party topic. Links can be found on the Talk page. I've listed them twice. He may need a nudge from another user. Asgardian (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need no nudge, you are simply wrong. If you think certain articles get a pass on 3rd party sources, then you are wrong and I'll call you on it. You remove that tag again (which is being used legitimately), then we ~~head off to AN/I.~~, get your arbcom restrictions enforced and you get blocked- the ones that limit you to one revert per week. That article has no third party sources and it is entirely legitimate for me to add a tag on that basis. If you can't address the problem of 3rd party sourcing, then you leave the tag alone. You don't say "oh we don't bother with that here" - because we do. The comics project is a organizing group, it doesn't get to opt out of community standard, no matter what's discussed in the clubhouse.

Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources., Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.. If you want to head over to AN/I and argue that core policy is wrong - best of luck to you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...tad tightly wound perhaps? Well, he can't ignore the discussion started and is only one user. What are your thoughts? Asgardian (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:She-Hulk23.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:She-Hulk23.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man-Thing

Why did you undo my edits commenting about the story from a real-world context? The idea that it was only later described as a "Super-Soldier" serum that appeared previously was a false one, and this explains the story from an out-of-universe context apart from the fictional character biography, much of which ought to be reinstated. Also, you removed the Heroes Reborn link without placing it somewhere else. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I inderstand why you did what you did, the fact that other than the term "Super Solider" no previously-existing Marvel characters were noted until the second story, and the first story's manner of telling, are significant, but don't belong in the FCB. Unless you have a good reason for taking them out, I would like you to put them back. I would do it myself, but I don't want them taken out again. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said "collapsed on the floor" because we don't know for sure that he is dead: that would be OR.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ToS #81 Man-thing is derived from chronologyproject.com : click Man-Thing and scroll up to Man-Thing I.

Because I made a typo. Also, "violently" indicates that it was an instant process, not a drowning and dying like that of Swamp Thing. Before I rewrote the summary, it mentioned that Sallis "apparently drowned," which is certainly not apparent to the reader.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible. They said John Kowalski appeared in Solo Avengers #2, when it's really #5, and they seem to have confused Ghost Rider vol. 3 #s 76 and 77.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would alomost say Wisconsin is more relevant, since it's actually mentioned in the stories, and Omaha was apparently made up for the handbook.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namora

Hi there. I added a publication history to Namora; have a look. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FeatureFunnies18.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:FeatureFunnies18.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TalesOfTheZombie1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TalesOfTheZombie1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Thor126.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thor126.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby's Art

Not too bad, thanks, hope the same applies. :o) Unfortunately rather too busy to have been of much use (here) for a while... fingers crossed, though. I have some great sources to integrate/draw from as and when.

Doesn't look bad for a first pass, and I'll rigorously-re-read when I have a bit more spare time (in theory, in just a couple of hours), but in the meantime I will say this: I can, at the very least, re-source (some/most/all of) the TCJ: Kirby book back to the issues of TCJ, which I have to hand. I'm not sure how many other magazines dealt in particular detail with the issue; most (that I've read) have tended towards comments of a: "The Comics Journal reports that... ...and we echo the sentiments, think it's deplorable, etc., etc." nature. I was reading a (UK) Fantasy Advertiser the other day which basically said that - not much comment, a letter or two, and a brief editorial saying "We are aware, we think it's awful, the Comics Journal is making this issue their priority..." (or similar! ;o)) So I don't know how diverse we can be source wise, but I certainly have comments & quotes from Alan Moore, DC (Kahn & Levitz & Giordano, I think - reprinted in the TCJ: K book), Frank Miller (likewise) and others, which could add gravitas (or bloat).

I did wonder - fairly sarcastically - whether it might be worth thinking up a New Page Title, and thereby having space to really delve in... it passes notability and whatnot, but shouldn't be necessary. Possible, though.

Do you have your writings housed somewhere in your userspace, or do you want to revise/replace User:Ntnon/Kirby to muck about a bit with sources, layout, text, coverage, etc...? ntnon (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's Sallis's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_genitive

As Sallis is not an ancient name like Jesus or Augustus, it needs to be "Sallis's," except in the case of "who is actually the Sallis' son," as it refers to both Ted and Ellen in that example.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thor

I listened to Louis Leterrier's Hulk DVD commentary, and he hinted Thor created the thunderstorm that enables Hulk to escape the University with Betty. It's not a cameo or unambigious plot device so I can't put it in the film's article, but the concept needs to be exposed somewhere. Alientraveller (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yet another Barnstar :) I believe you've exceeded the quota for the amount of Barnstars one can give another editor :D IMO, the Thor article has very strict maintainers, by comparison I'm quite loose with how much content I include in film articles. They wouldn't even allow a mention of Kenneth Branagh even though "final negotiations" is Hollywood speak for "he probably won't drop out since he's co-writing and designing". Well he's there now. Alientraveller (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References vs Reflist

Per WP:Footnotes#Resizing references, {{reflist}} should be reserved for when an article has a longer list of references. Having only 3 or 4 references is not a valid reason to need to resize references down to a smaller form. In reverting someone who corrected this in several articles, you said "rv to for consistency throughout WPC" however this has nothing to do with consistency with WPC, but consistency with all of Wikipedia. A project can not claim a guideline that goes against an existing Wikipedia guideline or policy. As per clarification discussions at WP:Footnote's talk page, an article should have at least 10 references before it needs to use reflist. Please stop reverting this edits. Also, please be aware that your claim that your reverts are consistent with the comics project is incorrect as there are comic articles that are properly using <references /> instead of reflist. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, we don't just ignore guidelines whenever we "feel" like it. We should be consistent with all Wikipedia rules, even if we don't like some of the non-policies. Why you continued to battle after realizing I was right is beyond me. If you dislike WP:Footnotes#Resizing references so much, why don't you initiate a thread on its discussion page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the Lord's talk page. --Tenebrae (talk)

Just my fourpenneth:

The guideline most commonly used to back up not using {{reflist}} when you have a few references is: "it is common when there is a long list of references (as a rule of thumb, at least ten) to replace the basic <references /> tag with {{Reflist}}" Also I read that as saying that when you get to 10 you should consider using {{reflist}} and it doesn't work the other way round to say under ten you shouldn't use it (so WP:Footnotes#Resizing references can only really be invoked when swapping <references /> for {{Reflist}} and not vice versa). The guideline leaves the matter open on this issue. This is reinforced by the other usage guidelines:

From WP:FOOT: "{{Reflist}} displays the footnotes in a smaller font. The choice between {{reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule."

From {{reflist}}: "Note that there is no consensus that small font size should always be used for all references; when normal-sized font is more appropriate on an article, use <references /> instead."

Which is, as far as I'm concerned, pretty clear - around 10 footnotes the editors should think about using {{reflist}} and below that it is up to the editors. It is clear enough to me that I don't think this needs further clarification but that shouldn't stop editors from asking if they feel they are unclear on what the above is saying. (Emperor (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Black Cherry Bombshells

T, thanks for the note - I do have the page on my watchlist but it is so large and my attentions have been elsewhere, that a point in the right direction is always appreciated. I'll have a look over it and see what I can see.

It might even got me to check out more of the Zuda offerings as I haven't really been following along after the initial burst of excitement, although free comics are free comics!! (Emperor (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Marian Wright Edelman

i was wondering if i might have your opinion on the inclusion of marian wright edelman, that keeps getting removed. i personally feel the first lawyer in the entire state is notable...i'm not too sure what i think about an anonymous editor deciding what is or is not policy. --emerson7 17:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine

Thanks. You can see all the pics I took this weekend here. (The first twenty, however, were taken back in June.) Regarding Carmine, however, he was one of my teachers during my sophomore year in art school, and in my experience, he was a very nice guy. I don't recall him ever being grumpy. Nightscream (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And you're welcome. Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby

The problem with the first sentence in the lead is that, yes, it explains why Kirby's important, but it doesn't do so in a straightforward, concise fashion. It's a rather long, rambling sentence. Simply saying he is a comic book artist would establish his basic notablity. Also, listing his major creations off the bat is problematic in my view, because as this is a biographical article, we should be focusing on his life and noting seminal works and accomplishment in a logical, orderly fashion (and some of these major character creations are separated by twenty years). Compare to lead sections in R.E.M. and Joy Division, articles about important rock bands I've written and brought to FA status. The first sentence for each gives the most basic of facts, while notability and importance are steadily established over the course of the lead sections. This I feel is the best way to approach lead sections, since it results in well-structured and well-written "brilliant prose". Saying "Kirby is one of the most important comics creators ever" right off the bat is overwhelming to unfamiliar readers and frankly peacockish. There's plenty of great things to say about Kirby, but we shouldn't rush to praise him right when the article starts. Explain who he is in the most straightforward way possibly, and then explain why he is "important". In short, we need to establish the "who" before we get into the "why". WesleyDodds (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make is that it's not an ideal way to begin a well-written encyclopedic article, and the examples I provided were just some I am intimately familiar with that have been extensively peer-reviewed and received a lot of critques in order to become the best articles possible. From experience (and I've worked on and reviewed a lot of biographical articles), it's generally not a good idea to begin a biography article with anything more complex than "This dude (born this date - died this date) was a [nationality] [occupation]". Start simple, then get complex. This is why people frequently remove endless variations of "award-winning" from the first sentence of biography articles. Of course we have to establish Kirby is very notable in the field of comic books, but having a long winding sentence listing his importance and his creations at the start of the article is not the way to do it. Frankly, most comics articles are poorly-written, and we can do better. There's a lot to say about Kirby; it's folly to try and fit it all in the first sentence.

On another note, do you think we should create a Kirby nav template? There's a hell of a lot of templates at the bottom of the page that are included because Kirby created a certain character. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's something else I wanted to bring up that might be hard to consider: all of those cover images need to be removed. They can only be included if the content of the covers themselves (such as talking about the composition or Kirby's style in regards to a particular image). We don't need the covers if all that mentioned is that so and so issue came out, because then it's replaceable since the same info is conveyed in the prose. It's the same reason why we remove album cover images from band articles on site. A better use of a fair-use media would be to find fair-use images of Kirby himself (maybe one of him and Simon or Stan Lee?). As for his art, it's better to scan images of specific pages will be highlighted in the article as an example of his work once all the sourcing is done (an example of what we could do is include an image from Mark Evanier's book that shows Kirby's original Jimmmy Olsen page next to the same page with Superman and Jimmy redrawn by Murphy Anderson, which would highlight the fact that DC felt Kirby's rendering of the characters wasn't in line with what they wanted). WesleyDodds (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good work. The section may be a bit too-detail oriented (but this wouldn't matter if you wanted to create an article solely about Kirby struggle to get his artwork). I've been taking a short break from working on the Kirby article at the moment because I've been working on other things, but I might get back to it by the weekend (I still have Tales to Astonish checked out form my library). WesleyDodds (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd cobble onto the bottom here, rather than open an older section or create a new one.

I've been horrendously busy, so apologies for that. I've taken a stab at the artwork issues and dumped it here for ease of access/editing.

I can't find Michael Dean's "Overview" in my (to-hand) issues of TCJ, so I'm wondering if that wasn't specially created for the TCJL collection... Maybe.
I think we should be alright without specifically underlining quite how many characters were created by Kirby (and thus what a big deal this was) because a) It should be covered further up the page when this is inserted, b) It should be reasonably obvious from the juxtaposition of "1976 Copyright allowed for claims" with "Kirby was given a quadruple waiver and restrictive terms." Otherwise it's potentially a hammering home of a made point.
I think that the New World Pictures deal is infinitely less important than the 1976/78 copyright rulings. It's far more important to stress that Kirby was never under a proper w-f-h agreement - if that can be accurately cited. (Do we need to suggest that he may have been thinking about suing for ownership, or holding out for better terms? Such ideas were floated - and shot down by JK himself - and may or may not have a place here.)

(Commentary)

I felt it important to stress that early artwork was destroyed, not stored (as per most sources and the DC letter); think that artists requests were few and far between (indeed Kirby said HE asked and didn't get), while Schwartz et al gave prizes, and various people allege theft was the major outlet of art; I also feel that Neal Adams could be name-checked in the "protests were raised" sentence. Can we source Atlas/Seaboard's decision to return? Can we explicitly confirm the content of the initial Marvel 4-line agreement? Is it reasonable to add in (as I began to) that subsequent to 1978, there was a mass drive to include "retroactive work-for-hire" agreements (2000AD in the UK did this, too)? Ought there be a mention that, while Kirby did not get his artwork back, pages were returned to his inkers? (And, should we stress the import of the sentence "Marvel did not offer Kirby a freelancer contract until August 1984" and/or talk about his time at DC - including (or not) that DC bent the rules for him, in relation to his New Gods work which was w-f-h in 1976, before licence fees had to be paid, and so re-created in 1978 to give him recompense - i.e. away from Marvel, which may have affected his standing with the company?) DID the one-page contract allow other artists full-ownership... I thought that they still weren't legally allowed to re-sell it..? The line that "the four-page agreement became three agreements, with modifications" is somewhat ambiguous and tricky to fully follow, I fear. Plus the 1700pg figure doesn't obviously jibe with 300 monster; 300 westerns; 24 covers and a handful of others..!

Any help..?! :o) ntnon (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all over the place, too, so no worries. Hope you had a good Holiday time, and Happy (early) New Year, too. ntnon (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DaringDisc-p2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:DaringDisc-p2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Article on Marvel & Stan Lee

I get Heritage Magazine for collectors and saw this article which made me think of you. I thought you might find it interesting. it has some nice photos. I liked the one of the Marvel Bullpen. (I can hear Julie whispering in my ear now, "Marvel..bah!"... LOL!)

Stan The Creatorfrom Heritage Magazine Fall '08 issue. Enjoy!LiPollis (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to properly cite my edits when it is I who am the source. I am Syd Shores' daughter and would like the information provided about my father to be as accurate as possible. If you can assist me in going about accomplishing this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Nancy Shores Karlebach User: CKarlebach

Editing for Syd Shores

I am not sure how to properly cite my edits when it is I who am the source. I am Syd Shores' daughter and would like the information provided about my father to be as accurate as possible. If you can assist me in going about accomplishing this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Nancy Shores Karlebach User: CKarlebach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckarlebach (talk • contribs) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Funnies

A TOC is only generated if you have at least four headings, and this article has only three. I tried WP:TOC and found the answer :-) Fram (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-Prize

Great editing job! Once we get a couple more citations, that article could really shape up into a nice little entry. -- Stoshmaster (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AlexNinoInvisibleMan.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:AlexNinoInvisibleMan.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TalesOfSuspense48.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TalesOfSuspense48.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:300pxAllSurprise12 detail.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:300pxAllSurprise12 detail.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Reign

Just a heads-up really: WT:CMC#Tis the season to be guessing.. (Emperor (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DetectiveComics adv.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:DetectiveComics adv.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pussycat-BillWard images.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pussycat-BillWard images.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Killjoy.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Killjoy.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EricStantonBoundBeauty.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:EricStantonBoundBeauty.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Grandenetti art from Creepy.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Grandenetti art from Creepy.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Legion232p29.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Legion232p29.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:OutlawKid11-pg2.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:OutlawKid11-pg2.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:PabloMarcosBond.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PabloMarcosBond.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lenahyena.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lenahyena.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ChanderlRedTide-panel.GIF)

Thanks for uploading Image:ChanderlRedTide-panel.GIF. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SkyMastersPanel.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:SkyMastersPanel.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pym-civilian.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pym-civilian.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wraitheart4.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wraitheart4.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:VioletBarclay.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:VioletBarclay.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tiger-BudBlake.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tiger-BudBlake.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Eric Leiser

An article that you have been involved in editing, Eric Leiser, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Leiser. Thank you. Martin 14:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:AlexNinoInvisibleMan.gif

Thanks for uploading File:AlexNinoInvisibleMan.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Strange/Joe Quesada quote

Concerning the Joe Quesada quote about Doctor Strange that you deleted from the latter's article: When I tagged it in reference to the external link not working, I had no doubt that the site there had taken down the feature story in which Joe's statement had been found, and merely wanted to begin a search for it someplace else, say in literal print somewhere. This was intended as nothing but a "heads up" to a problem, not a suggestion that the quote was bogus. I strongly recommend putting it back up, tag and all, and give people with access to such magazines an opportunity to find an alternate citation.

BTW, if you'll check the edit history entry for your deletion, you'll see that external links obviously do not work in edit summaries, so I advise you not to go that route (and use the "Preview" function) in the future. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm sorry for forgetting that I am ID'd one way in edit logs and another in talk page posts. Surely it's something I did upon signing up in the beginning, I'm sure.

Second, I find so much blatant vandalism here (albeit to varying degrees) that I don't find some as sneaky as you suggest this might have been to be plausible enough to consider the possibility when a link doesn't work out. This one did indeed go to a generally relevant site, with various postings involving Quesada, and the alleged quote was something that any writer or editor who used Dr. Strange significantly might well have said. If it was vandalism, it was downright devious, and absolutely lacking in any genuinely vandalic effect. So I stand by my lack of doubt that the cited article had been simply taken down, and presumably on a time factor.

Third, yes, when I put the "link" in my address window it took me right to the appropriate diff page. No problem, there. However, I must say that when I put a (Wiki)link in an edit summary, I feel obliged to check it in "Preview" mode. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Ebony White

Having considered the options, TTN and I sorted out the facts that the controversies regarding Ebony were already discussed on the main page and that each of the character articles had been honestly merged, not just redirected. You can see our discussion of them all here. I will set up the merge proposals on Talk:Spirit (comics), although I suggest that you contact any other possibly interested users, since the articles are low-traffic. Tealwisp (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on List of African-American firsts

You removed the Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. edition to the page. Although there is a separate article for African American mayoral firsts, the "main" firsts page already has mayors listed on it. I saw that as a bit of a double standard, so I reverted your edit. Thanks, --Danteferno (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm not "horning in," but I don't know how to create my own comment in this section. David DeJernett's status as First Afro-American cager to star on a major tourney champion is of greater significance than merely "breaking a color line" as Bucky Lew did in 1902 in an inconsequential league. The Indiana (IHSAA) high school tournament is 100 years old and of course still running. After witnessing the tournament in 1925 Dr Naismith called Indiana the "center of the sport" of basketball. Major motion pictures and books have been made about this tournament. In 1930 DeJernett stood tall as First Black Champ in Butler FieldHouse, the nation's largest basketball venue. His feat in the face of the infamous Indiana Klan foreshadowed the later storylines of Jesse Owens in Berlin and the Louis/Schmeling rivalry. As Indiana's first college basketball star, DeJernett made it conceivable for George Crowe to become Indiana's first Mr BasketBall (black or white) and a triumph like his is the stuff that makes One Shining Moment the theme song of the NCAA championship. Thanks for the interest!

Will add that, besides the website already mentioned, the book Pioneers of the Hardwood by Todd Gould also states DeJernett was the first black star of such an integrated championship team -- http://books.google.com/books?id=RYHmvgAurOwC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=dave+dejernett&source=bl&ots=aaZxpDZwpD&sig=5osx0V8-ocAhHlrJI2dRSINYye8&hl=en&ei=r6-rS93rF9GOtgfI-6C7Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CB4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=dave%20dejernett&f=false

PS -- hope this request isn't out of order but I've written an article about Mr DeJernett -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keith_Ellis -- and would like to make it better/put it on Wiki.

Keith Ellis (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:AlexNinoInvisibleMan300px22.gif)

You've uploaded File:AlexNinoInvisibleMan300px22.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]