User talk:Basique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please observe the policies outlined in Wikipedia:No personal attacks when you post here.



Archives
Archive#1 (3/10/06 ---> 7/08/06)
Archive#2 (7/11/06 ---> 8/16/06)
Archive#3 (8/16/06 ---> 9/25/06)
Archive#4 (9/25/06 ---> 3/01/07)

Contents

[edit] Copperhead

Two things regarding the most recent edit...

  1. Do you have a cite for crystal ball comment that she'll appear in WW3? That may be a better cite than the one you used (see next).
  2. The cite you've linked to supports the inference of her not being called "Copperhead". It's unlikely that this crop of writers would create what appears to be a national hero and name her after an animal not native to that continent, let alone that country.

— J Greb 21:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find the cite about the Freedom of Power treaty signers showing up in WW3. Newsarama has a horrible search engine and Google doesn't seem to go deep into the site. I put that ref/ cite in there because it provided important info, it doesn't call her Copperhead but it does state that she is from India. Actually there are three types of Copperhead snake and the Elaphe radiata is native to India. --Basique 23:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
hrm... Didn't know that and I was running on the "general knowledge" of the North American snake. Still unlikely given the cobra motife of the costume. The Australian is in the right family, but wrong region.
Still... would have been nice if Wacker had named her in the interview...
— J Greb 00:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh heh, just gotta wait I guess. --Basique 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Demons Three

I just want to check something on your logic here:

Are you suggesting all fictional demons, in the parent and all the subs, be dupe catted as fictional magic users, again by parent and appropriate sub?

That seems to be your inference with your edit summary at Demons Three.

I also get the impression that you see the fictional demon cats as unusable, or at least poorly structured. Am I reading that right?

— J Greb 17:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In DC Comics as we've seen, all Demons are magical by nature and action, and I can cite the issues where every one of those Demons I tagged used magic, in fact according to christian fiction/mythology their very existence is magical. So yes they get double tagged as Demons and Magic Users especially since DC Comics Demons is such a small category and the average user won't know to look there. Project members would, but the Demons Three are fairly obscure so I see the average User's search tree as something like this ("Search for character I recognize -> Zatanna -> search Zatanna <> categories -> "Ah Demons Three maybe thats them?" -> Demons Three <> "Hey there's a demon category!") Multicatted articles allow for a wider area of coverage as long as they are relevant. --Basique 18:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the category is miss named. It implies mages, wizards, witches, sorcerers, and the link. Fictional characters from comics based on magic (or the supernatural) would be a better fit for a cat that includes praticioners of magic, those endowed by magic, magical creatures, and deities. — J Greb 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Nooooooooo! No more category wars! I'm just getting used to the categories we have now. : ) --Basique 21:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power Girl

Regarding this edit: You have got to be kidding. I really hope that you aren't adding this every character with some form of heat vision. CovenantD 05:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just 2¢, but I could understand the Power Girl and Superman ads, X-Ray vision after all reads as radiation. The stuff that pushes it for me is when the cat looks like it's getting added based on an assumed component of a power or the characters origin/theme w/o a power component. Those are symptomatic of the reason the cat is in CfD. — J Greb 05:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
CovenantD you shoould probably read the description on Kryptonians. X-Ray vision for one, their heat vision is concentrated solar radiation, they absorbs and converts solar radiation (as do Daxamites). Same goes for Hyperion except his is called "atomic vision". JGreb in the most recent issue of Uncle Sam and the Freedom Fighters it's pretty explicity stated that the Human Bomb's powers are nuclear. Read the description of Multiplex's powers it's "nuclear fission" (and duplication). As for Damage I based that on the fact that his powers come directly from the original Atom (Al Pratt) and he was nuclear powered. So Damage might be a bit dubious. --Basique 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out in the edit summary for the Human Bomb: add the power to the body of the article along with the category. Otherwise you are abusing the category system.
Mutiplex: most of the editors arguing to save the category are being very explicit that the definition is limited to absorption (taking radiation into the character), generation (character is a source of "hard" radiation), and projection (projection of a concentrated form of "hard" radiation). At best Multiplex's power is "based on a nuclear process" and does not fall into that grouping. Inclusion based on theme or origin just bolsters the "overly broad" argument.
Damage: Adding the category on fan assumption undermines the category and the article as objective, reliable, and verifiable.
Kryptonians: While I agree with the X-Ray vision, and would also agree with "heat" vision as it was originally written in the comics (concentrated use of X-Ray vision), inclusion based on "concentrated solar radiation", which is concentrated light, chips away at arguments of support based on "doesn't include light manipulators".
— J Greb 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning on the Human Bomb and won't re-add the cat without citing in his powers section. Multiplex I based on the description given in his first appearances which I think i'm going to have to enter into his article. On Damage I totally see your point while he is supposedly a clone of Al Pratt they've never explicitly stated he had nuclear powers, I didn't add Nuklon for the same reason. Wait, so part of their argument is that radiation manipulation categories cannot cover light? That doesn't make any sense seeing as solar radiation is both electromagnetic radiation and particle radiation, light is radiant energy and radiant energy is a byproduct of "electromagnetic radiation". I don't think most of the people voting there really understand what radiation is. "Electromagnetic radiation" covers light (infrared, ultraviolet) and gamma rays but "particle radiation" covers the nasty charged particle alpha, beta and neutron family. There are three types of emissive radiation, and I only need one. I'm pretty sure the category will be deleted but I wanted a screenshot of the category filled in, so I wouldn't have to hunt all those characters down again when we finally get a title that even CovenantD can agree on. Have you noticed that he hasn't offered any viable solutions to the situation? What do you think of "Fictional characters with the power to manipulate particle radiation". It's direct it's focused, and it's to the point. --Basique 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to bring this down to a nutshell: The original presentation of the cat was delete in part to the argument that it was overly broad and would include any character that could manipulate light, heat, electricity, etc. Counterarguments in later presentations have boiled down to "those already have cats" and what I read as limiting the cat to "hard" radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, and fictional relatives).
I'd suggest waiting a few months after this CfD closes before re-upping the cat, name change or not. Other wise you run the risk of what kicked this round off -- Speedy as recreation of previously deleted.
It also may be a moot point. At least one editor has made it clear in the "...power of flight" CfD that he intends to put the parent cat and all the subs up for List & Delete.
— J Greb 18:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Characters that likely shouldn't be in the current list, or your revised list:
  • Comet Queen (Needs the powers described in-article to justify cat.)
  • Galactus (Lacks specific reference to rad manip, unless it is a subset of reality warping or the "Power Cosmic". If the latter all the Heralds should be in, not just the Surfer.)
  • Lectronn (Clarification of the "electron bursts" being electricity or not.)
  • Microwavebelle (At least in your redefined cat, as microwaves are not particle radiation.)
  • Onslaught (Same as Galactus.)
  • Vibranium (Needs a cite that "many other types of energy" includes particle radiation.)
Also, I can think of two that would need to be added based on the Sunfire "family": Cyclops and Havok (conversion of solar radiation into other superhuman powers).
— J Greb 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about that, I've never had any reason to subject myself to heartache of creating a category, it's easier to wait until the Project gets around to realizing we need it. I thank Srstorey for trying it this time though. Hey thanks for the Addendum. In the Marvel Universe guide for Lectronn it's "electron bursts" not electricity, but your right it is "electromagnetic radiation". And thanks for Cyclops and Havok, it looks like i'm going to have to make a list sometime soon. For Comet Queen I'll have to find my Who's Who in the Legion, I wish there was a Doctor Regulus page. The "Power Cosmic" I tried to stay away from because it is so vague so I may leave him and all the Heralds off. Microwavebelle not one of mine, but I left her because I have no idea how broad the final category may be. Vibranium, Kryptonite, White Dwarf Star matter, Nth Metal, and Prometheum are all in that radioactive Twilight Zone. Apparently they all give off hard (electromagnetic) radiation but not enough to kill humans unless concentrated over time so he's probably off unless I get the three radiation categories we need. In the real world if you're in the presence of an unshielded transuranic that is radioactive and radiant then you're most likely dead or dying. --Basique 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the fictional elements you have to be careful with from the standpoint of the cats. Some, like Kryptonite, have been directly equated to real radioactive elements/isotopes. Others, like Vibranium, are less clear since the emissions aren't clearly stated in the primary or, if they exist, secondary sources. — J Greb 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As for the category, I'll just wait for the next go round. --Basique 12:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Janusdirective01.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Janusdirective01.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use galleries

Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images clearly forbids use of cover art without critical commentary (which the gallery does not provide), and previous discussion of this on the WikiProject comics has not exactly been supportive of such galleries, either. But I'd love to take this to Wikipedia talk:Fair use if you want. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool I'll go along with that, and I'll add a brief critical commentary to the gallery which should hopefully help. --Basique 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've started a topic here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sinomanicgx1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sinomanicgx1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 16:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious how exactly would I find a "free" image of an unreleased prototype laptop from a mainland China company? --Basique 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If they want the image widely distributed, and used on Wikipedia, it should be very easy to get them to release it under a free license, so that's good news. Jkelly 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No you see I don't have to, it's appropriately tagged as a promotional image, so I don't see the basis of your dispute. Do you not understand what copyright tag was used? Uses the exact same copyright as the Children's Machine and the Classmate PC articles so you might want to head on over there and explain your logic. --Basique 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The first one was a bit of a goose chase, as every image of the machine in that article was released under a free license, but, yes the image at Classmate PC also fails Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Jkelly 17:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And both have now been tagged fair use for the single article they appear in. --Basique 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Spin-off comic book superheroes

This is a recreation of a deleted category. CovenantD 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. It should have been deleted. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_30#Category:Spin-off_Heroes. CovenantD 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2¢...
It looks like someone took it upon themselves to recreate the cat the same day the CfD closed as "Delete". And that they did so as the rename title initially suggested. It is likely that the closer used the wring term.
— J Greb 17:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What? CovenantD check the Category's history, I don't make Categories I just use them. --Basique 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orion (comic book)

I have reverted portions of the New Gods and Orion (comics) articles to the Orion (comic book) page. I have also fixed copy that made no sense, and added spoiler warnings to the Orion (comics) page. With regards to the reversions, listing the credits for the Tales of the New Gods series in the New Gods page I thought was overkill for that particular article, as TOTNG ran as a backup feature in the Orion comic book, and I think there are more apt things available to throw in the New Gods article (that haven't been put in yet) than a mention of professionals almost entirely unconnected with the Fourth World (Liefeld, Larsen, Miller, basically everyone on that list), save for the pencilling on a 5 page story. I have also added a link from the Orion (comics) page to the Orion (comic book) page, as the latter article still existed, though portions were gutted without regard to keeping the article coherent. Please let me know of any ideas you have. Toodiesel 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    • There hasn't been much "merged" into the pages. I still haven't had explained to me why my points are invalid. I understand I lost the vote, but there were only 3 voters, and one of them was you! Can this article somehow be kept? Going after the Orion (comic book) article seems like such a random thing to be hating on. Toodiesel 17:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The decision had nothing to do with the article being "hated on" it was considered redundant and crufty. The page seemed to be less about Orion and more about Walt Simonson. If you have information you would like to add to the Orion (comics), New Gods or Walt Simonson pages then please do so, that is where the information from Orion (comic book) was put. If you feel a need to help the project with your knowledge, many of the New Gods pages need an accurate going over and expansion, take for instance Tigra (DC Comics). --Basique 17:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I would disagree, as Simonson is mentioned only in context to his duties on the book, except for once in reference to "Walt Simonson's Orion series". I feel that there is no gushing. Anyways, how is one NOT going to mention Simonson, since he was the writer/penciller, and half of the time inker, on the book? "Redundant and crufty"? The design is not different than any other wikipedia article, and the information originally presented in Orion (comic book) is found nowhere else on wikipedia. You've also asked me to add information to the Orion (comics) page, yet when you did the merge, you left out the entire article that you were supposedly merging! You simply redirected the page! Tut, tut! Where's the merge? Toodiesel 17:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant text that you removed was put back into both the pages we merged into yesterday. The rest of the text in that article was filler, which is why it wasn't added to either of the Merge pages. If you can add relevant material, not filler then please do so. The design was no different, but the content was. --Basique 17:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Filler would be nonsensical, irrelevant stuff. If you could actually cite examples of filler, maybe I would be inclined to agree with you, but I have simply provided data about the Orion series on its page. Nothing more. Toodiesel 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is filler: Orion ran for 25 issues, from June 2000 to 2002. Issues #15 and #25 were oversized and priced at $3.95 instead of the usual $2.50. Sales of the title would see a gradual decline in preorders, averaging under 14,000 copies mark during the second half of the book's run. Sample sales are 14,372 copies for issue #15, and 11,891 for the last issue, #25. Anything else you need cleared up? That pretty much is the only bit of info not carried over, everything else was added in a post-merge cleanup just now. --Basique 17:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


    • I noticed the merge you did with Orion (comic book) and the New Gods articles. For some reason, your merges are horribly mangled. The first merge you did with Orion (comics) had numerous copy mistakes that had to be fixed. Additionally, your New Gods merge for some reason took a random sentence from The Gates of Apokolips portion, without even giving context that the reprint was TGoA. Have a look. As for your filler: Giving an account of the publishing dates, as well as pricing and sales information is not filler. It is perfectly appropriate under Publishing history portion of the article. What else could be more relevant than the price, dates, and sales information? Toodiesel 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Listen guy, as I wrote up above if you feel there are minor corrections in the articles that need to be made. Then - fix - them. It's perfectly appropriate in a Publication Title Page, which Orion and New Gods are not. I'm walking away now, but I will be keeping an eye on both those pages as part of a general New Gods cleanup. --Basique 17:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • New Gods "cleanup"? No offense, but why bother when it's the merge that has to be cleaned up? I was trying to make my own publication title page, where such info, as you've agreed is perfectly pertinent, but it appears that you do not like having one. Where does this information go, then? Toodiesel 18:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've looked under the wikiproject comics guidelines and I see that eponymous publications are allowed as separate articles, but should be listed under (publication), while I've listed Orion under (comic book). Would that be an ok place to put such information?

What I think is that we need to get the Project involved in this. --Basique 18:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small New Gods suggestion...

Two things both related to this line: "Most recently she appeared in Seven Soldiers: Mister Miracle." -- Last line in Bernadeth#Fictional character biography

  1. I believe that there have been interviews with DC Editorial stating that there have been intentional inconsistanceis in the New Gods appearing in Seven Soldiers and othe resent appearances. This is going to need to be watched closely.
  2. Bernadeth, Bloody Mary, Mad Harriet, and Lashins (strangly a blond w/o the S&M getup) all appeared in Hawkgirl #61 (April 2007 cover). "Most recently" is wrong and counter to WP:DATED. Given your affinity to the articles, you may want to revisit them to clean this up.

- J Greb 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks, completely forgot about that appearance in Hawkgirl, and yes the artist seemed to have no idea who the Furies were because he put Gilotina's new costume on Lashina. --Basique 03:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As with point one: editorial has made comments that some of the inconsistencies are deliberate. It is possible that Simonson and the artist got "marching orders" to use the Gilotina image and this is part of what ever they are building to. At this point we just don't know.
Also, I think you may have miss understood my concern about the phrase "Most recently". WP:DATED is fairly clear: avoid phrasing and situations that become dated quickly. This phrase does just that, as does the section header "Current status" you added. Her "current status" is unconscious as of the end of Hawkgirl #61. If she doesn't appear next month, it becomes "unused, fate unexplained" and will sit that way until her next appearance. This seems bad form for the article.
- J Greb 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You know, I think it's nice that we cross paths every now or then... by chance, that's cool as long as it doesn't happen after every edit I make. I do appreciate and accept your constructive input when we do cross paths. --Basique 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show good faith

"What I find it funny that you keep coming back to this page expecting me not to keep an eye on it." is a weird and unnecessarily confrontational thing to say. Don't assume anyone is "expecting" anything about you. The Joshua Clay article is one of many on my watch list. Therefore I'll wind up revisiting it at times. You didn't remotely cross my mind. Certainly you could have (after the disagreements we had over it a long darn time ago). You just didn't. If I thought about it, I wouldn't have been stupid enough to "expect" that the article's not on your watch list too, given your history of possessive behavior regarding the article. I'll try to assume you didn't mean for that remark to sound as confrontational or egotistical as it did, but you need to be conscious of how your wording can strike other people. (And yes, I realize that this reply can come across as confrontational and give the impression of not showing good faith, but honestly, the only alternative is to say nothing.) Doczilla 05:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the one thing we can agree on is that we both watch that article. I watch it because of your attempt to delete it and turn it into a redirect after I had populated it, and your past attempts to camp the page and second guess my edits, after I reverted that deletion. Going forward I will assume good faith on your part and on that of your friend Wryspy if he happens to "just show up". By the way did his scholarship application go through? --Basique 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep. And not friend. Family member. I don't have a clue what you mean by "camp the page" though. Camp up the page? Camp out on the page? Doczilla 01:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It means basically making a string of minor edits to a page in order to mark your territory. After looking at your contribution history trends from the past month, I can see what I have interpreted as a deviation from your normal patterns, when you suddenly contributed multiple edits to that page. I will of course, assume good faith on the part of yourself and your family going forward. --Basique 14:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/s/User_talk%7EBasique_2d04.html"