User talk:ChrisGriswold/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →


Contents

Tragic villains

Do you think a category could be made for tragic villains, or would that be a case of POV like the antiheroes category was? --DrBat 03:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit POV. Who are you thinking of putting in it? --Chris Griswold 03:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Characters like Magneto and Demona. --DrBat 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I always think of Mr. Freeze. --Chris Griswold 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You could probably start a category with clearly defined criteria, but unfortunately even if your category started off as objective as possible, subsequent contributors would turn it into a bizarre mess that would certainly get deleted. One might argue that it's always tragic when a person goes bad. Contributors would probably make such as mess of it that you'd want to delete it yourself (not that I'm being pessimistic or anything). Speaking of tragic, although it about tragedy among heroes, my mind boggles at all the work that went into referencing that Civil War article. Wow. Doczilla 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Yes, well, at the time, I didn't imagine the list would be gone since it was the most heavily edited part of the article. It was attempt to justify its existence if it is to exist at all. Having failed in trying to justify it, I think it needs to go. --Chris Griswold 06:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I doubt you'll be able to get rid of that list. It will keep coming back. If it's not there, different people will keep creating it. Even if it gets edited, edited, edited, it's better than fighting to keep incoherent alternatives out. For myself, I like the list because it gives me some idea as to what's going on with a lot of characters because I am not buying every single comic Marvel puts out. Leave the list. Your contributions to it really help. Doczilla 07:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That's nice to hear, but they keep getting undone by someone who appears to want to bully me instead of discussing the issues. I'd appreciate any help you can give with the article. --Chris Griswold 07:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Facial cancer>Skin Cancer

Chris,

I would suggest replacing the Category:Facial cancer with a more inclusive one such as Skin cancer. This would also catch Melanoma. What do you think?

Be healthy,

Michael David 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You have a good point; plus, there's only on entry in the facial cancer category. Do you know how to do what you intend? It took me a while to figure it out for myself. --Chris Griswold 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Chris,
My guess is that the Category:Facial cancer deaths would have to be placed in 'Categories for renaming'. Since I'm much newer at this than you, why don't you place it there & I'll follow with a note of support. OK with you? ---Michael David 22:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly. I'll take care of it in a few minutes. --Chris Griswold 23:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Joker

Hi, I've noticed you seem to do a lot of work on comic related articles. I've been working on venom, Carnage, Scorpion and some others but seeing that teh Joker is in a state, I was wondering if you would be interested in helping me improve it? I've started some work, trying to create a more uniform formatting between comic articles but theres a lot of work and specifically a lot of history and such on him I don't know so I can only do so much. If you're not interested though, its ok. Thanks for reading Darkwarriorblake 00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on the Joker article a while back, and then some editors made some pretty sweeping changes and I've steered clear of it for a while. Your request makes me want to work on it again. I'm thinking of putting together a project kind of like the collaboration to work as a team to clean up troubled articles and elevate somne of them to good status. Perhaps you would like to be involved? --Chris Griswold 00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I've already done a lot of work on Venom but I don't know his history very well, I'm in the UK so comic exposure is kind of limited, or was back when Maximum Carnage was out anyway. I've done the best I can with Carnage, Venom and now the Joker but the Joker's has a lot to deal with. So yeah collaboration would be great.Darkwarriorblake 00:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Still figuring out OHOTMU and fair use

I was wondering if you could look at my recent discussion topic on the Wolverine talk page. I'm still figuring out what exactly can be used from the OHOTMU, if anything. I know we frown on specific, numerical representations of weights a character can lift, but what about the more general "Wolverine possesses a low level of superhuman strength, and his healing factor heightens his stamina to the point that he can exert himself at peak levels for several days"? It seems like this is either a synthesis of comic book information by the OHOTMU editors/writers or just their own ideas written down. If it's a synthesis, then it seems like I may need more of an argument, but if it's just an additional fictional fact, then my argument stands. Or maybe it would still stand in the case of the former, since it's a synthesis of fictional facts, and we're a competing product... --Newt ΨΦ 14:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I just caught your edit of the editorial guidelines. I guess we're in agreement then :-P. --Newt ΨΦ 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I cut and pasted from your Wolverine conversation because I thought you worded it better than the guideline did. I probably should have told you when I did it, but I forgot. Apologies. --Chris Griswold 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I have my cogent moments. --Newt ΨΦ 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

CfD additions

I tried to get to the CfD discussions you recently linked to on the Notice Board but couldn't find them when I clicked on the link. I don't know if the link's bad or I'm an idiot, either way I don't know where to contribute to either discussion. --Newt ΨΦ 14:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the right logs and fixed the wikilinks on the notice board. --Newt ΨΦ 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting that. --Chris Griswold 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Bart Allen

Count me in! :) I'll be there discussing as well. —Lesfer (talk/@) 23:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: A future RfA

Hi, and thanks for the message on my talk page. In answer to the question you left there: if you ran for adminship, I'd certainly support you in light of your editing record. Whether or not you "should" request adminship, well, that's another kettle of fish entirely. :) RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 07:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Superman

Please explain the inclusion of Superman in Category:Fictional psychokineticists at the talk page. Thanks. --Chris Griswold 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing about Ash Ketchum and I've tried to explain the Superman-is-telekinetic bit. I was thinking that Superman and enough of his pastiches have psionicly enhanced strength. Could it be enough to constitute a subcategory of psychokineticists? ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know. I'm trying to understand. --Chris Griswold 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
How Superman's powers work: John Byrne in his 1986 reboot suggested that Superman's powers were telekinetic or psionic in their functioning (as a result of the traditional yellow sun explanation), though recent comics such as Birthright have begun to retcon this explanation away. As of Birthright's continuity, Superman's powers again work on a combination of solar conversion and gravitational difference from Krypton.
Of course, if these were retconned by Superboy punching a cosmic barrier, then at a time it would still have existed - much like the worlds of the Multiverse which now technically "never existed".
Tactile telekinesis: This ability was originally presented as a more scientifically sound explanation for Superman's feats of strength. This included exceeding the strain and mass-to-energy lifting power of his physical body, exceeding the durability of his organic body, his power of flight and most notably his ability to lift buildings without having them crumble around him under their own weight. On a side note this was also used to explain why blows from Superman didn't pulverize 'soft-flesh' opponents, however there are many characters who can still shred people like wet tissue paper even with this ability. Subsequently all fictional characters who display the above abilities are principally given the ability of tactile telekinesis by default even without the creators having to say so.
Superboy would have to have inherited it from Superman too, right? Even if Superman doesn't have the control of it in the comics, to the extent that future Superboy, Zod and his disciples seem to.
And not Superman himself, but, Image:ReedTheorizes.jpg: "...mental powers such as pyrokinesis , telekinesis and levitation."
Which is what I mean for a category of characters with "psionically enhanced strength". ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see your reasoning now. If you can think of several more characters, sure, make the category. I'd bring it up at the WP:CMC talk page because you can get more ideas for characters for the category. --Chris Griswold 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Almost every character in Category:Superman pastiches ie. Gladiator (Shi'ar) and Captain Hero, every Kryptonian and possibly a few other non comics characters, like (from the Buffyverse): Willow Rosenberg, Illyria (Buffyverse), Glorificus (Buffyverse), Vengeance demon etc. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Many, if not all, of the characters you are describing are empowered by belief. You can add Marvel's Norse gods and DC's Greek pantheon to the list. --Chris Griswold 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Marvel Greeks too? ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with those characters. "Category:Characters with faith-based superpowers"? --Chris Griswold 01:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a wordy category name. Plus, I think it would probably be too subjective. There are a lot of magical powers that would require subjective assessment of what "faith" is. (P.S. That said, I've always enjoyed your Wikipedia contributions, by the way.) Wryspy 09:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to every one of the characters whose powers derive from psychic abilities. Faith-based is subjective, too - who worships Jor-El? I was thinking more of a category to separate characters who have superhuman strength derived from build, size, stature, magic, strange genetic makeup - like Captain America, Spider-Man, Thing, Rockslide and Hulk ... from those whose powers are independent of their shape and form and so metaphysical in nature, like Buffy, Superman etc. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've detailed more extensively what my proposal is. Please read it here: User:Zythe/Project, and contribute any ideas before I implement it. Thank you. ~ZytheTalk to me! 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer

This article has been completely rewritten. What do you think? Gazpacho 21:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:84.92.54.229

Chris, the edits you refer to at the above talk page were made by me. I edited anonymously because I'm a little off colour with Wikipedia and the wiki-process at the moment. That ip is my static ip address. Apologies. Steve block Talk 12:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Whilst I'm here, does Category:Peforming arts in Pittsburgh need deleting, or have you listed it for deletion already? Steve block Talk 12:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I took a break for a while, but intended to delete any scraps from my work. --Chris Griswold 12:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I deleted it for you. If you need tipo pages like that deleted, just drop me a line, and I'll do it for you. Unless you became an admin whilst I was away? Also, I'd like to apologise if you have found me patronising, you commented on that somewhere but I can't recall where, that's not been my intent but if that's how I came across I'm sorry. It's something I'll look at. I see what you are trying to do with the guidance, but to me it feels too much, too soon. You seem to be moving at 1000 miles an hour and it's hard to keep up or even communicate with you on things, at least on my end. We seem to have different approaches, and you seem to want hard rules specific to comics articles locked down where as I would rather use existing guidance. I've glanced at your current proposals, and see the ideas and their merits. I'll try and follow up with some thoughts where I can. That said, I have to say I was disappointed to see you describe the getting involved page as your creation at the project discussion page. Sometimes you come across as very dismissive. Still, c'est la vie. Steve block Talk 17:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to overwhelm editors with rules or to bind them; I want to provide simple guidance. I know that when I began to edit, I felt a little overwhelmed because with so many possibilities, I didn't know what to work on or how to do so properly. At WP:CMC, we get a lot of editors who are interested in editing primarily comics-related articles, sometimes to the exclusion of other subjects, and they may not eb interested in reading through the immense Wikipedia MOS. By providing examples or giving advice (guidelines) on topics related to these articles, we can better support these editors and help them to find a place within the project, which is all that I want.
Editors make the mistakes they do because they don't know better, not becaue they want to make mistakes. Rather than just reverting mistakes, I try to leave a message for editors who make common mistakes or make the same mistake repeatedly, so that they understand why it is incorrect. I much prefer to have a centralized message about such a topic whose wording has been agreed upon by concensus than to try to explain it each time; it is for this reason that when trying to explain the use of present tense a while back, I added an explanation to the top of my talk page. It is also why Wikipedia has warning and notice templates for use on editors' talk pages. The benefit to such templates and guidelines are that the message is worded appropriately through concensus rather than an individual who might add the wrong kind of sarcasm or personal attack to the message. Additionally, active editors may be more likely to leave a message if they can convey it in a shorter period of time.
Again, they are intended as guidelines or advice, rather than as hard rules.
Oh, and I never described the Getting Involved page as my own creation. I said, "I thought I'd point out the relatively new "Getting Involved" page I've just finished working on," which is true. After a week or so of pecking at the orphaned page, I spent several hours really working at it, I linked to it in the appropriate places, and I felt I had done as much as I could with it. That is why I posted on the talk page: so that other editors might add their own words or formatting to it. I certainly do not take credit for the entire page.
--Chris Griswold 01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Chris, I know how Wikipedia works, I know what the problems are. I simply believe that the warning messages and guidance we already have are sufficient. I find it easy to point people to the specific section of the Manual of Style rather than expect them to read the whole thing, so I find that comment a little inane. But I'm not disputing the merit of your ideas and approach, so don't feel you have to justify it. I'm just asking that you respect other people's opinions. I noticed an instance where you wrote up guidance with no clear consensus and then immediately pointed an editor to it in order to back yourself up in an argument. To my mind that's an abuse of the process.
As to the getting involved page, I find it odd you describe the page as orphaned. It was never orphaned. Relatively new is also a debatable choice of term for a page that has been around nearly a year. You also seem to have a different reading of your words than I have. Your words show no sense that the page had been worked on by anyone but yourself. Surely you can appreciate that Wikipedia is a consensual project and that your words were dismissive of my many hours of work on the page? Steve block Talk 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you are misconstruing several things that I have done. With regard to linking someone to the editorial guidelines after editing the page, I can't find such an instance; the only time I can see that I directed someone to the page after editing it was when I cleaned up some language in a section that had simply been copied from a discussion and had not been intended by the editor to be in the page. If you have something else in mind, please direct me to it; otherwise, I can't find a time I have abused the process. You're right: A while back, I did add something to the guidelines page without seeking concensus because I thought I was being bold. I was wrong to do so, but I didn't understand that at the time, and you set me straight. As you mentioned above, I have since used a more proper method of proposing guidelines.
When I worked on that page, I do believe that it was not linked to from other WP:CMC pages, so I should clarify my words in that instance. In fact, after I mentioned I wanted to write something like that, you told me it already existed and linked me to it. Maybe I am remembering incorrectly - I was focused on editing, adding links, and trying to get other people involved so I could be done with it and go to sleep - but I recall listing it with the other WP:CMC pages. Here I am adding it to {{WPCMC}}. I am sorry you read my words on the WP:CMC talk page the way that you have, but if I were claiming credit for creating that page, I certainly would have said that explicitly. "Relatively new" to me meant that much of it had been re-written, added, or re-moved, and it had been renamed re-added to the WP:CMC pages. This was never to take credit for your work. And yes, I understand Wikipedia is a concensus. I already spoke glowingly of concensus in my last comment. I know what the words say, and I understand that you read them differently from I intended; I will change the words because they appear to have bothered you, something I certainly did not want to do. I apologize for your feeling that I was taking credit for your work. --Chris Griswold 08:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It was linked to from the main page and the portal, so whilst you have added links to it, which I don't dispute, I just don't think it's fair to say it was orphaned. As to creating guidance to support yourself, the instance I noted was when you added guidance on 52 here, and then later that day refer to it here. That's the edit I called you on before regarding consensus. To me it appeared you added a section with no consensus and then presented it to someone as guidance. As to changing the words, that's not neccessary, the apology is fine. It's quite possible I over-reacted, but I figure it's better to clear the air rather than allow it to fester. I think you're a great contributor Chris, but I just feel at times you need to slow down. Use the preview button and think about what you are saying, that's all I'm asking. Anyways, I have another issue that I'm going to break out a section for. Steve block Talk 09:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are talking about now, since the previous discussion about those guidelines, I would not do such a thing again. I have since and from now on will be sure of a concensus before adding anything to the guidelines.
I also agree that I am hurtling forward a bit and should slow down. I just really like being part of something like this; editing Wikipedia makes me feel capable. Wikipedia sometimes is given a bad name, but I have been proud of this Wikiproject's articles for quite a while now, and yes, that includes the articles I haven't touched.--Chris Griswold 09:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil War (comics)

I've made a rough pass at the plot section and removed the banners, they aren't fair use. I think the lists should go to, and the synopsis needs work. I'm going to amend that template on referencing comic book issues slightly and then I'll have a look at that. But see what you think of the plot section, I've tried to lean on Millar as the writer rather than the story as the main basis for commentating on the plot. Steve block Talk 09:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I love what you have done with the article. So much attention has been focused on the lists that the rest of the article has suffered. --Chris Griswold 09:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Review

Really sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are on about on my editorial review. I thought it was the policy of Wikipedia to have no personal attacks which in my book you just violated by basically stating I can't follow instructions.

Maybe I've got the whole thing wrong, so could you please explain your comments on the editorial review on my [page]; oh, and let's not make enemies of this, i just want to know what you are on about.

Cheers Anthony cfc (talk · contribs)

I have replied at your editor review. --Chris Griswold 09:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

An idea

Thought I'd run this past you first, but what do you reckon on making all the talk pages to the various WikiProject Comics subpages redirect to the main talk page. A lot of the pages aren't watched by that many people and it makes discussion hard to foster. The main talk page is watched by most of us so I think it's a good idea in that respect. Steve block Talk 18:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea, actually. I really like it. What do we do with all of the existing discussion? Archive some of it? --Chris Griswold 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
One question, though: How do we deal with editors not understanding the redirect? --Chris Griswold 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say archiving would be an idea, we could archive as subpages of the main talk page but as topic specific archives. Hmm. The issue with editors not grasping the redirect would be a problem. I suppose it would sort of sort itself out, if we didn't have a clue what page they were referencing we could ask? Something to think about, maybe ask the rest of the community. Steve block Talk 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback requested

At Wikipedia_talk:List_guideline#Criteria Thanks! --Anthony Krupp 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Please do not modify other users comments, it is considerd uncivil and bad faith. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I am glad you are realizing this. I am very happy to know that you will not be moving others' comments around "to make them tidy." Additionally, it is appropriate to add to your comments after someone has replied; it is inappropriate to change them. --Chris Griswold 12:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comic book series?

I see you have been doing a lot of moving of thins to "comic book series" - can you point me in the direction of the relevant naming convention. For example you moved 2000 AD (comic) and I'm unsure it falls within the definition and I wanted to check - comic book just wouldn't be used to describe it (see the comic book entry). (Emperor 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

Why do you think it does not fit the definition of comic book? Isn't the majority of its content comics narrative? --Chris Griswold 09:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
From the entry I pointed you too: "In the UK, the term comic book is used to refer to American comic books by their readers and collectors, while the general populace would mainly consider a comic book a hardcover book collecting comics stories. The analogous term in the United Kingdom is a comic, short for comic paper or comic magazine" so there is a distinction and while they may currently be similar they arise from different roots and have different meanings. You still haven't pointed me to where this name change decision was made. If there is a problem with calling it simply a "comic", as it was, then there are better alternatives I'm just unsure there is a big problem requiring a name change. (Emperor 00:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
I apologize. I misread a proposal and changed the title when I should have left it alone. Additionally, I've added an Americanism to an article about a publication in the UK, and I did not mean to do that. I'll request it be moved back. --Chris Griswold 00:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Righto - as long as we are all on the same page now. I'm not sure what the procedure is but we can sort out the half a dozen British comics that were affected if that doesn't lead to further problems, of course. PS: Its also usual to reply to someone on their talk page so they know there is a reply ;) (Emperor 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC))
  • Chris, it should be possible for you to move the pages back to where they were, is that something that you can do through awb? Remember above where we were discussing you need to slow down a bit? This would have been one of those times. :) The idea, if we can get the proposal through, is to move them to (publication). On a serious note, you've got to start thinking things through and being positive you have things right. I've seen a few comments where you have indicated you are toying with running for adminship. Hand on heart, I'm not sure you are ready. There are things you can do as an admin, which, if you rush into them the way you do some edits, would cause serious problems for people. Whilst I think nothing you can do as an admin is undoable these days, it can cause a lot of work undoing it all. I'm not always around, granted, but you have a list of people on your user page you admit to respecting. Check with a few of them before doing major things like category work or page moves, to be sure you have the right end of the stick. If I can get my mood round, I intend to remember I'm part of a team and check in with people like you and AMIB to make sure I'm on the right page. It's an idea I hope you might take on board. Also, on a positive note, there's a project somewhere that's evaluating articles for a cd or book version of Wikipedia. You'd be an ideal person to set up a working group through the wikiproject to evaluate the comics articles. For more details see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot. I'd direct any questions to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team as I'm out of my depth on bots. I hope you take this forward, our wikiproject is missing from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index, and this should be fixed. We did make some suggestions on articles for inclusion at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPLanglit#Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics but that was a long time ago now. Have a think, and bring it up at WP:CMC. I think you're the person to take this forward. Steve block Talk 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. The problem is that I have been very distracted; I have some unfortunate things happening in my life right now, and I should probably take a coouple days away from Wikipedia to focus on them. The "comic book series" thing really came about because I combined what I wanted to move them to - "(comic book)", which would have been right - with something else I saw. As for the subproject involving evaluation, I was thinking the same thing. Additionally, I started work on a project focused on working as a team to improve comics articles. It will work like the collaboration, but the focus will be on raising articles to Good status, or even just simple cleanup on articles. This is the sort of thing that would keep me and other editors in check. But I really am going to have to take a few days as soon as I take care of the moved articles problem, which should be tonight. I'll still check my talk page, though, so I'll get any messages left for me. --Chris Griswold 22:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't be too hard on your self, you don't need to be kept in check. I do think the version 1.0 is right up your street though, so bear it in mind. Hope your real life stuff isn't serious and resolves itself to your satisfaction. Take it easy. Steve block Talk 22:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
As Steve has said its not a big deal and is easily fixed. I think we all have made a bit of a mess at one point or another the whole point of the system here is that if there is something wrong someone will spot it, flag it and then it can corrected. I find that consulting with people before doing anything major can help head off problems (see the 2000 AD talk page for discussion on how to improve related entries) and you can always find someone to ask (I tend to look through the talk and history pages and can usually tarck someone down with an expertise in the area). Granted this can make one less bold in the short term but the trcik is to know where you can afford to be bold and the places angels fear to tread ;) Anyway keep plugging away the important ingredient is enthusiasm which you have - everything else you can pick up. (Emperor 02:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
Thanks for fixing things - some things aren't 100% right. At least two have been moved back to (comic book) - the ones I found are Crisis (comic) and Action (comic) - the latter resulting in a mess of redirects. They both need moving back to their original places thanks. (Emperor 15:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
Righto. Thanks for keeping me updated on progress. (Emperor 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
Just a note to flag these as still not being back where they should be (although the mess of redirects around Action is not causing things to stop working) - Action (comic) and Crisis (comic) (Emperor 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC))
The move requests for those two entries have been rejected apprently because the request wasn't made in the right way. I've dropped the guy who posted on this a note and he directs you to this. I'm unsure what you want to do but if you want me to sort it out leave me a note and I'll look into it and give requesting a shot (although its possible it might be better coming from you - or not. I haven't had to do that yet so I'm unsure). (Emperor 22:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC))
That's my bad, Chris left them with me to sort out. I can't remember why I didn't, but I haven't as yet. Leave it with me, and poke me again in a week if it isn't done. I was thinking maybe putting them at Action (publication) and Crisis (publication), if we got some sort of consensus behind that? Steve block Talk 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Icon comics

Hi! I put the interwiki to the portuguese language wikipedia... (I have an registered account now, User:Epinheiro) 193.137.47.113 09:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what you are referring. --Chris Griswold 09:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil War/MedCab case

I was reviewing the request you made at the MedCab. Do you still need our assistance, or has consensus taken up and cleaned the issue up a bit for you? Please respond at my talk page. CQJ 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure, actually. The problem we had before is not so severe, but only because I gave up. Discussion has turned from whether the list should be one way or the other to whether it should be there at all. I suspect it may turn into another battle soon, but I'm not alone in this one.--Chris Griswold 08:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. We're in a backlog at the moment, so what I'll do is leave it in the open status but shift it around as to where it's still on the radar but not at the forefront. If you don't have any further problems after August 22 or so, let me know and I'll close it - but with the understanding that you can drop me a line if you need help on it. CQJ 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, ChrisGriswold! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. - GIen 18:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

re:image tag

No problem. :) --DrBat 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Nero

Chris, at the time it seemed advisable but unsure of the logic. It probably works better under Nero (Comics) provided there are no other instances of characters named Nero, say at Marvel, Image, etal.


Pitt Userbox

If it's the kind of thing you'd want to advertise, I've just finished a Pitt alma mater userbox. The template is {{user University of Pittsburgh}} if you want to use it. Boot 'N Rally | talk 11:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

New Super Mario Bros

You said you will re-add the section in New Super Mario Bros. Frankyboy5 01:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Batman and Superman renaming

I am not keen on your renaming... what ambiguity is being fixed? Comic book series vs. comic book what?. I don't think anything was broken with this wikis that they needed to be fixed. But, if you must do this and believe you have consensus, then when you rename a wiki, as you did with Batman (comic book series), it is good form to also fix the redirects to the previous Batman (comic book): they are listed here. Same goes for your rename of Superman (comic book) to Superman (comic book series), listed here. There are ways to use a robot to do this as well, but I am not sure where those are located. I haven't listed all your renames, but I think you get the idea. So, if you plan to rename every comic book series on the WP and the linked wikis to them, you have just acquired quite the project. Thanks. -- Dyslexic agnostic 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I missed this comment.Yes, I've fixed it. --Chris Griswold 14:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Human Torch Help

If you have the time, would you please check out the Civil War section of the Human Torch article? Seems poorly written and unnecessary to me, but could use some input. CPitt76 02:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. CPitt76 01:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. --Chris Griswold(☏) 01:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Choosing sides" on Civil War (comics)

While I personally agree that the list should be removed, the votes are roughly 7-5; not exactly a consensus. It's pretty tough to say that consensus is in favor of removal, and especially difficult to consider this "consensus" in favor of calling the readdition of the list "vandalism". Shouldn't we keep the discussion open a bit longer and see if we can't get some policy and guideline speak in there to back up our side of it? This could be rather inflammatory as it stands. --Newt ΨΦ 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I count 8-5 with Kusonaga a possible ninth (Wants to keep the information but in a different format.) Please take the reins of the discussion. I have been too deeply involved in it, and it became personal. I will add to the conversation, but I don't know what else to say at this point. It looks to me like the people who argued for removal gave more reasoned statements than the ones who wanted to keep it. But then, maybe that's because I disagree with keeping it. --Chris Griswold 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm there. Started it up and feel free to comment if you start feeling better about it. I'm in agreement that the more reasoned statements come from the anti-list, but I'm in the same boat as you. --Newt ΨΦ 01:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Decimation

Ummmm Chris.... I kinda need your help with Decimation..... Anytime ya feel like stopping by.....Merlin Storm 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I gave a week to find citations. No one argued, and not one was provided. I waited three more days, and then I did what I said I would do, and I removed the list. --Chris Griswold 12:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll get to work w/ the citations some time this weekend. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it.-Merlin

Oops, I screwed up

I just did some research on Google and it looks like I got the two Franklins confused. It looks like the Franklin Center I want is in Erie County! I'll fix the citation.--Coolcaesar 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem; I am putting a disambiguation page together now because I realized just how easy it is to confuse them. There are at least 20 Franklin Townships, for instance. --Chris Griswold 02:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


re: Image:Venango County pa seal.jpg

State flags are normally public domain or released under another copyleft license. On the other hand, county seals are normally copyrighted, and thus have to follow Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. Hope that helps. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh... it does. Thank you. I will have to look into it. --Chris Griswold 07:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Kingdom character articles

Both Vary and I seem to think that if the articles are radically shortened and put in a list of 10th Kingdom characters (per WP:FICT for lesser important characters), there'd be no need for deletion. I'd even be willing to do the grunt work. Would you please return to the deletion debate and consider changing your vote? - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My e-mail

Though I think you can figure it out, this is my actual e-mail address. I put ".org" instead of ".com." Sorry about that. --Newt ΨΦ 14:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That explains it. I didn't even look. --Chris Griswold(☏) 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Neither did I at first, but for some reason, it's a habit to put ".org" when I type "gmail" as if it's some non-profit. Sorry again. --Newt ΨΦ 14:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Disambiguation page guidelines

Hi, you recently edited Veterans' Memorial Bridge. Adding a second link to an item on a disambiguation page goes against wikipedia guidelines. I was about to revert the change, but noted many piped links (also against guidelines) so it turned into an edit, rather than a rv of just your change. But I figured you weren't aware of the guidelines, so take a look.--J Clear 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Other than the piped link, which was an accident, I guess I don't understand why, if there is not link to the specific memorial bridge, why you would not want to link to the town in which it exists. --Chris Griswold(☏) 03:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Golden Age comics

Do you have good knowledge about them? Recently, there has been alot of new ones added as stubs. I don't think all are notable for Wikipedia though, but I'm certainly no expert on Golden Age. Wikipedia shouldn't list every comic character, so the non-notable ones should go. RobJ1981 01:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Negotiator

No, is that even how you spell it? Darkwarriorblake 10:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. I was trying to figure out who this person was who has been writing on Talk:Venom (comics) solely based on editing the article. I figured I'd ask rather than make any assumptions. --Chris Griswold (☏) 11:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well from what I've read he's against merging ultimates and I'm the one who merged Ultimate Venom into the main article so nope not me. Do IP's not show up in peoples profiles or anything?

No, they don't. I think maybe I saw that you had posted without signing once or twice and that you were actively editing the article. I didn't intend to accuse you, so I asked. --Chris Griswold (☏) 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoever the guy is, he's been threatening me because I responded to him on the Venom talk page and he thinks I'm merging the articles. --NewtΨΦ 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Skeets

I've been getting nothing at all done today thanks to 52 speculation, since I woke up thinking that Supernova was a Superman robot with a built-in Phantom Zone projector (yes, lame). Anyway, not my work, but someone linked to this excruciatingly slow loading image on Imageshack with the arrows extended. It's not convicting, but it's compelling. Also Stephen Wacker was interviewed by Newsrama, and he just happens to namedrop that Skeets is still around. (Also he confirms that Supernova is wearing the logo of Galaxy Broadcasting System).

And I'm officially done geeking for the day! --El benito 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-stress rising...

I'm kinda looking for validation here, that or a correction. I'm of the understanding that not every comic book character needs their own article and minor one should be merged or not branched off or anything. We're looking to add information that people may actually look up, right? Sorry for putting this on your talk page, but between Syndicate (comics), Ultimate Spider-Woman, and the Negotiater threatening me, my stress level's up. It just seems like the more we put up for merging or deletion, the more mistaken editors come out of the woodwork to defend them and the more these editors validate each other. Feel free to just delete this without comment. --NewtΨΦ 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would this bother me? You know I'm right there with you on this. Always give me a heads up when there's an article you think needs to be merged. I will look at these again and add my thoughts. --Chris Griswold (☏) 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it might bother you because I was just really frustrated and felt like I was bitching and moaning at you, which I didn't consider to be proper talkpage fodder. With all these editors against us on what seems to be obvious I started to feel like maybe I was the one in the wrong. --NewtΨΦ 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No, we're still right about these merges; it feels like our cleanup taskforce has fallen off. I have been planning a comics cleanup wikiproject that will help interested editors to collaborate on individual articles as you and I have done before. I plan to get it all together by the end of next week. Oh, and Steve mentioned putting together an evaluation project for WP:CMC. Interested? --Chris Griswold (☏) 17:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's farther up my alley than creating new articles. I don't know the first place to really research and find citations for comic-related articles, but patrolling, condensing, and ordering are what I do best. As for the evaluation project, are we talking creating better guidelines and giving statuses like "B-class" and such? Sounds great. --NewtΨΦ 18:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The first project I mentioned is for cleanup, and everyone will do what they can. If necessary, we can even form committees to focus on specific needs: grammar, citations, etc. I also am much better at cleanup, but I want to organize resources for editors to use in citing articles. --Chris Griswold (☏) 18:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
My friend Shawn started with some editors at WP:CVG a magazine project to list what old back-issues of video game magazines they each had and what's discussed/reviewed in them for other editors to use when trying to cite sources and research. That's an idea we may be able to adapt. As for other resources, what would you mean? A list of oft-used citation templates? --NewtΨΦ 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure. It's an an extension of what I've tried to do with WP:CMC, which is put the relevent information and tools within reach. I would like to create a couple lists of citation resources, such as Comic Book Urban Legends, Lying in the Gutters. Both of these columns cover their bases in terms of citation. We could create a checklist and just go through finding uses for each column, I am sure it's like the video game mag thing you mentioned above. --Chris Griswold (☏) 18:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Just let me know what I can do. As it were, this is helping rekindle my hopes for this project. I was getting very cynical about it recently. --NewtΨΦ 18:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If you'll let me chip in, citing is something I actually love doing, so any help there let me know. And if you need any help with merge votes let me know, I'm always willing to either vote or act in admin capacity to close a merge request. Don't lose the faith, we need all the good editors we can get. Steve block Talk 19:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, does this seem at all indicative to you of a misunderstanding of WP:COMIC editors of the purpose of these projects (both Wikipedia as a project, and WP:COMIC)? Should we write a section on WP:COMIC's project page or the editorial guidelines talking about "What WP:COMIC is not"? I know defining something negatively is generally frowned upon but there could be reason for it. --NewtΨΦ 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • What we can do is define positively, so say that the project works towards the wikipedia goal of providing sourced material which os presented in a neutral point of view, and then note some examples of material which wouldn't meet that description, and point people to WP:NOT and other places for more information. Steve block Talk 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Merges

People might want to keep an eye on any merges performed, noting the WP:3RR policy. Remember to base any merging on policy and guidance, and note that policy and guidance when merging. Steve block Talk 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Chris, regarding clean-up, have a look at Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Cleanup sorting proposal. I'm off to bed now, but there's a proposal there that looks like it would run a bot over clean-up tagged articles and list them out for relevant wikiprojects to clean up. Have a look. I'll try and catch back in with it later this week. Steve block Talk 22:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

VS System

You reverted my revert removing the wikilinks for Marvel TCG and DC Comics TCG. According to UDE, these are separate games that use the VS System. Technically, the Batman and Fantastic Four starters from last year were their own games too. At some point they should have their own articles, but I don't have the time right now to set them up and I'm not going to revert your changes. Just thought you should know why they were linked in the first place. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Franklin Silver Cornet Band edit

Chris--

I'm the one who's twice edited the FSCB entry. It's not accurate to call us the oldest community band of any type in the US-- there are several that lead us for a couple of reasons. We are probably amongt the top ten, but it's a tough ti9tle to nail down.

Peter Greene

Oh. I see. The newspaper got that wrong, then. I had always understood it to be the oldest and was unable to find something contradictory. I will make sure that it stays the correct way, then. Thanks for clarifying. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikimeet?

Since you indicated on your user page that you live in Pittsburgh, you may be interested in a proposed Wikipedia meetup in Pittsburgh that I'm considering. If you wish to discuss this, please go to Wikipedia:Meetup/Pittsburgh and/or its talk page. (Note: If for any reason you do not wish to participate, simply ignore this message.) Scobell302 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your list IS worthwhile despite some deletionsists' point of view

When you're back- The list (dead comic book characters) you created is/was up for deletion. I want you to know there is a place for it: http://wikitistics.com . No one will be able to nominate it for deletion because it fits one simple rule: it's a statistic, list, or figure. Good luck with your endeavors!Joe 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Young Avengers

I'm curious as to why you reversed the recent edit to the Young Avengers entry. You stated "This WikiProject does disallows OHOTMU as a citable resource" - is that for copyright reasons? Because, if it is, then firstly the Handbook merely clarified information given in the comics - it did not originate the information, which means it is usable here, and the information currently on the page is wrong, given what is in the comics and then explicitly stated in the Handbook. Secondly, if information from the Handbooks cannot be used, then you will need to edit the Bushwacker (comics) entry, as his surname has only been given in a Handbook, and also the Multiverse (Marvel Comics) page, for the same reason.

Yes, it's for copyright reasons. Check out the WikiProject guidelines at WP:CMC/EG. Information, if it appears in a comic, is fine for inclusion, but it must cite a source other than Official Handbook or Who's Who (for DC). Thanks for the heads-up on the other articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I appreciate trying to avoid copyright issues, although the Young Avengers one is trickier, because by trying to avoid breaching copyright, you aren't just leaving information out, but maintaining inaccurate information. As for proof from the comics - several issues of the Invaders, and notably the recent (within last year) Giant-Size Invaders #2 shows the Invaders, including Steve Rogers as Captain America, active together during 1941; The Truth clearly shows that Isaiah Bradley does not enlist until after Pearl Harbor, and that the experiments on him don't begin until 1942. The Handbook simply clarifies that Isaiah was victim of an attempt to recreate the Super Soldier process, which had been lost with the assassination of the original Dr Erskine. NB - re-reading what I said about the Multiverse page, to clarify - I didn't mean Bushwacker's surname is on that page too, I meant that several of the Earth numbers there have only been given in the Handbooks (and many of the others are unofficial, and copied from the Marvel Appendix site).

Stop accusing me of vandalism

I removed original research. You disagree. That's fine; we'll go to the talk page now.

But do not accuse me of vandalism. It's rude and does nothing to create an atmosphere of cooperation.

From WP:Vandalism, for your edification:

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated."

Please also read "What vandalism is not":

Bold Edits - Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.

Vandalism is not an accusation to be taken lightly, and I'd appreciate an apology. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My first revert on Superman wasn't in response to your edit. I reverted to a version from before your edit and you assumed my vandalism comment was for you. After my comment, you blanked out a section of text. And yes, blanking is a form of vandalism, whether your link mentions it or not. You don't blank out text just because you have an opinion on it. You bring up the issue on the talk page. —scarecroe 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't blanking. I think you need to do some reading. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like blanking to me: [1]
Also, it looks like someone else had to put back what was taken out previously: [2] —scarecroe 22:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)