Talk:Daredevil (Marvel Comics)/Archive 2

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.

Contents

Analysis

I think this is a good section, with a lot of insight therein with the characterisation of Daredevil. However, as I have stated in my yet-to-be-discussed-exemplarifycation above, I am tempted to blank the whole thing. Why? Because it constitutes as original research. If you can put the text into quotes from the creators (I know that at least some of it could have been got from the Frank Miller interview on the Daredevil DVD), and move it to the character biography section or publication history section (mainly biography) then the text can stay, but the section in itself has to go. Thoughts? --Jamdav86 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. The basic content, with some exceptions as noted above, seems fine. Some of the parts that are speculation/opinion/original research can probably be bolstered with appropriate factual quotes (rather than solipsistic quotes: "Writer XYZ's run was the best. Footnote -> Writer XYZ: 'My Daredevil was the best'"). This was done very effectively by GodzillaWax — I'm serious here — with his Jim Shooter footnote in the intro, for instance. Maybe Daredevil ought to be nominated for a featured-article jam? — Tenebrae 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't cope with complex posts at this time of night. It seems to me that you agree that the section is made up of original research and direct quotes, but what's your opinion on getting rid of the section and spreading it out? --Jamdav86 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, definitely incorporate the factual part of the information with the pertinent material and descriptions above, and delete the opnion/speculation. Sorry for the incomplete response earlier. Yeah, of course, a layman's analysis isn't encyclopedic. The only way an analysis section could be justified under Wiki standards is with a description of analyses by authorities, as is done with some of the Philosophy and Religion articles. Short answer: Yep, I agree your approach is dead-on. -- Tenebrae 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool, but the earliest I can look at it is tomorrow. After sleep. --Jamdav86 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I've made a small start, making the Bendis/Maleev Sammy Silke section much shorter and more encyclopedic. The Daredevil entry is such an overlong article that streamlining it and making it more NPOV is likely to be a bits-and-pieces process. --Tenebrae 08:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Did some streamlining of the section "Volume 2: 1998 - Present", to make it as NPOV and just-the-fact as I could. -- Tenebrae 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is What Drives Me Crazy

There's no sources for any of the analysis. So delete it if you must.

But then whats the point of this site, honestly? Just to say X did Y at Z? Everything good about this page is slowly being eroded. Why now? The page was mostly dormant until I came along. I had given up on it as a lost cause years ago. I come back to add some worthwhile information and all of a sudden theres an explosion of 'wiki cant do this' or 'wiki shouldnt do that'

The difference with the 'No Original Research' jazz and the Analysis section is that we all have access to the same source material. It is purely drawing inferences from a common pool of knowledge (ie the dd comics). Comics are unique in this respect. Serialized fiction with so many creators is unheard of in any other medium. Part of the fun of these characters is taking unrelated storylines 30 years apart and saying 'ohh the character's actions at Point B are directly related to him having passed Point A 100 issues ago'.

This isnt real life, this is not like adding original content to the Revolution article, which could have come from god knows where. The entirety of everything about this character is in one source that we all have access to. To me thats a pretty big difference, and reason why it should stay.

But whatever, do as you will GodzillaWax 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed content

I hid what I thought was POV. How does the section read now, and is this worth putting in the character biography? --Jamdav86 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Analysis

Most of what made the analysis section has been removed as being POV. I suggest it be removed and the main issues be incorporated into a Character Biography. GodzillaWax 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Love interests picture

I changed the cover to Marvel Knights/Daredevil #46 to the original cover that does not show the partial nipple ring on Typhoid Mary. The picture that was being used is either an altered version or one that was changed by the artist at some point after it was used as the comic cover. Either way, the actual comic cover is better suited for use, I think. AriGold 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but its a much worse scan. The older pic was much better. GodzillaWax 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it was supposed to look like that (kind of grainy), look at all these scans of it.
http://www.thefourthrail.com/reviews/snapjudgments/042103/daredevil46.shtml
http://www.manwithoutfear.com/issuesIIinfo.cgi?issue=46
http://www.leaderslair.com/marvelknights/daredevil/daredevilv2-046.jpg
http://www.xbee.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=xbee&file=archive&act=showcom&sid=331&rid=1942
Those are all just poor scans. The quality of the cover art resembled the orignal version. My other comments about your concerns are in Typhoid's talk page, and the image for deletion page. --DrBat 23:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
PLease refrain from changing back until this is resolved. The only other person who has chimed in so far has agreed that the comic cover is a better selection. 206.201.190.68 13:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, he agrees with me. "its a much worse scan. The older pic was much better." --DrBat 20:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Yeah but its a much worse scan." he agrees with the change but thinks the old picture was clearer. Partial quotes to defend your point? Come on. AriGold 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm with AriGold. An altered picture also brings up copyright issues. Best to stick with the actual cover, I think, --Tenebrae 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not altered!!!! Its the original cover Maleev did, which was released via the solictations (sp)! Marvel later modified the cover before releasing it. And as for AriGold; the user said the original was much better. --DrBat 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I advise everyone to check out and compare the orignal cover, and the new image AriGold wants to replace it. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v69/DrBat/marycovers.png The new version is poor, grainy, and its colors are neonized. --DrBat 01:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The one on the left, with full logo and trade dress, seems the better one to use, IMHO, but if the other is a promotional handout and properly ID'd, that's good, too. — Tenebrae 14:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It is. --DrBat 01:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Can We Archive A Lot of This?

I dont know how to do that. Can we get rid of a lot of the stuff above? Theres a lot of discussion to be had in the near future, I think, about how this site should be structured. Feel free to delete this comment also. GodzillaWax 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Done - I'll put a bit more in that archve in a month or so, when a few issues are resolved. --Jamdav86 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Page Layout Changes

Issues to be dealt with / discussed:

  • So Analysis is likely going to go, right?
  • Should Publication History be split into Pub Hist and Character History (like Wolverine)?
    • Problem with this is the amount of overlap - a lot of character changes are tied to creators, etc.
  • Should origin / powers be rolled into the intro? Or should Origin go into Character History, and Powers roll into Intro?
  • Is it necessary to have Notable Creators? Most of the notable ones would be discussed in {Pub/Char} History
  • I dont agree with the examplars attempt to move Other Media so high on a page (esp. when DD hasnt been in anything good)

My personal suggestions:

  • Remove Notable Creators (even though Im the one who put it there). Instead all the Creators could be tagged in a category of Daredevil creators, and a link to the Category page could be put in History?
    • A la the category Spider-Man artists
  • I like the idea of splitting into Publication History and Character History. PH can talk of things like the Everett->Colan progression, the cancellation stuff, the relaunch of Marvel Knights, etc. CH can be the biography
  • Why cant analysis stay if its clearly marked as being not from a source?

Anyway since there seems to be so much interest in the character all of a sudden, lets hammer this out GodzillaWax 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll use my trusty exemplars (totally useful in a spot like this)
  • Yep, bye-bye Analysis - original research. However, quotes from creators in that section can be sourced and put in Pub. Hist.
  • Also in the exemplars, except it exists as Fictional character biography. See how it agrees with you?
  • Origin in Fict. Char. Bio., powers in own section.
  • Nah, delete the list - slightly redundant.
  • We can't edit the article just because one editor doesn't like the movie. Also, below that all that exists are slightly boring lists.
--Jamdav86 18:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It probably wouldn't be a bad thing to keep the Bibliography. One does need a roadmap to follow all the various stops, starts, renumbering, and miniseries. Having a nice clear list for a quick-look reference seems practical, even if there are prose descriptions meandeirng above. - Tenebrae 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ann Nocenti

Does anyone find her section NPOV? How is addressing racism and sexism polarizing? --DrBat 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else mentioned that. The section about her did seem opinionated, but I thought that was just me. -- Tenebrae 01:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Did what I could to make that section more strictly factual. Tidied up some throughout early Publication History. — Tenebrae 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
To respond here to GodzillaWax's editorializing on the History page: He clearly, from his past posts and discussions here, hates Ann Nocenti's run. That's fine for his personal opinion. Regardless, she wrote the the book for 4 1/4 years, a remarkably long run by any standard. And the term he objects to, "well-received team", refers not to Nocenti but to not Nocenti and John Romita Jr., who became a star artist from his year-plus run on the series. By any objective standard, that is a well-received team. — Tenebrae 13:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Youre missing the point, again. Anytime on this page Ive said something is "good" or "bad" youve erased it in the name of making things NPOV. Fine, I get it, subjectivity doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. That also applies to saying something is "well regarded" is subjective, and there is no argument you could give that disputes that. You cant be twofaced about the rules you impose. GodzillaWax 18:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that argument relies on an unsupportable warrant. Here's why: One can cite many references in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias to award-winning actors, or well-reviewed composers and movie directors, etc., who are — objectively — well-received. That's not saying "good" or "bad" -- McDonald's food, for instance, is well-received worldwide, but whether it's good or bad is up to people who've tasted the food.
Your use of the word "two-faced" I believe would be considered incivility; you also imply personal harrassment and arbitariness despite clearly articualted explanations being given for an edit. Finally, "There is no argument you could give that disputes that" is simply incorrect. Saying "well-receivecd" of a team that includes a writer's 4 1/4-year run, a penciler whose Wikipedia entry refers to an "acclaimed stint" on Daredevil (though I'd like a citation, certainly), and an inker who won three Harvey Awards on the title most certainly means the team was "well-received."
One could objectively say the novels of Stephen King are "well-received" even if one personally thinks they're mostly not very good. I am not saying, have not said, and would never say, "that great, awesome team." "Well-received" is an objective marketplace statement. — Tenebrae 21:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
First off saying Nocenti and Romita JR were award winning is factually incorrect. Williamson won an award for inking, which has absolutely nothing to do with Nocenti's writing. Youre addition of "award winning" team is disingenuous because it implies the team won awards, which is not true. Secondly, a writer's longevity says nothing of how well received they are. Ask 90% of comic book readers what they think of Chuck Austen, and I can promise you they would not respond favorably. Yet the man has had a long career. You can not infer that something is good because something lasted. Lastly, referencing other articles on Wikipedia as proof means nothing. Ive contributed to wikipedia, yet youve found it necessary to alter most of the things I've done.
Im not quite sure why youre arguing this, since youre contradicting yourself in the process. Ive conceeded on many occasions the edits youve made since youre such a stickler for making things "NPOV". But just because I said someone was "polarizing" you seem to have gone off headlong in the other direction. Saying something is well received is subjective. Just about the only way this is not so if they have won awards or are universally accepted by all of comics for being important. It would not be a leap to say Frank Miller was well received because you could poll every comic creator living today and find that a majority site his work as important. Moreover, you could say Bendis is well received because of his Eisners. Neither of these things apply to Nocenti. Moreover, I take objection to your backdoor tactic of implying she won an award - that is sloppy and irresponsible writing. GodzillaWax 17:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You apparently didn't read my post closely. "Well-received" is not synonymous with "good", and I gave examples. You counter with an example of Chuck Austin's long career with an unproveable opinion, that if "ask 90% of fans what they think." That's not a valid counterargument; that's just fulminating. Your hatred of Ann Nocenti's work is well-documented.
For an inker to win an award, he's part of a team. There's no inking without the penciling.
I've given solid, factual, verifiable, and confirmable real-world reasons for the words "well-received" and "award-winning". A 4 1/4-year run, JRJ's becoming a star penciler for the attention his work received here, and Williamson winning three awards.
You are specifically changing my edits based on vague opinion when I've been supplying confirmable, verifiable facts. Do this again and I'm reporting you Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines for harrassment.
We can present both our arguments to an Admin and let him decide 1) if your changes are valid, and 2) if you've been harrassing me. I look forward to it. - Tenebrae 18:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, removing the word "stable" to describe a long run of the same writer/team for four years, saying she (specifically attacking Nocenti when word refers to the team as well) may have had disagreements with editors (which you don't even know ever even happened) appears to be a deliberate misreading of the word "stable" after there had been five or six writers and a half-dozen pencilers in the single year preceding. "Stable" seems an important description of that part of the title's life, giving perspective to what had preceded it. Again, I'm giving a harrassment warning, and following Policies and Guidelines, putting this on your Talk page as well. -- Tenebrae 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I will gladly take this to an admin. Every time I make a change you threaten some sort of sanction on me and Im tired of it.
Secondly, an example: if Kobe Bryant wins league MVP, does that make the Lakers "award winning"? Absolutely not. The only way for them to be called that is if they win an award as a group, like the NBA championship. I'm resorting to sports metaphors in the hope that you can understand me this time. Saying the creative team of Nocenti, Romita and Williamson is "award winning" is disingenuous. Nocenti and Romita did not win any awards for it. You are implying they did.
As far as my Chuck Austen argument, I am trying very hard to give you examples that you might understand. Longevity does not imply "well received". Well received, by definition, means that people liked something. I suggest you look up the dictionary definitions of "well" and "good" and see that they are closely related.
You seem to keep mentioning my "hatred" of Ann Nocenti, which I regard as a personal attack. Review my contributions to the article and you will note that I said she was "polarizing" which is an opinion Ive developed from conversations other comic readers. This was POV, as you and others pointed out, and I agree, which is why I did not argue its deletion. I may personally dislike her writing, but you would be hard pressed to say that has come through in the content of the article, which makes me curious as to why you keep bringing it up.
Moreover, saying something is "stable" is absolutely subjective. Again, you seem to have missed the point of my metaphor, so I will provide you another example in the hopes that you can understand. If two people are married for 20 years, is anyone outside that marriage in a position to say it is "stable"? No, because that implies intimate knowledge of the marriage, which any outsider would not have. Maybe the married couple is perfectly in love, maybe they have been seperated. My point is that you do not have the requisite insight to suggest that something is stable. Even saying it is long is subjective (how do you define long?) but is obviously, despite being POV, an idea that most people would not argue. But even this, you are making the jump from a discrete quantity of time - 4 1/4 years - to a relative quantity of time - long. Which begs the question, relative to what?
I thought you would understand the concept of POV vs NPOV better, so I apologize for making an assumption. I am trying very hard to apply the same principles you have brought to this page - making things less subjective, etc - but you seem to be contradicting yourself in constantly fighting me on this one.
I invite you to take this to an admin because I am tired of you constantly dragging this down into childish "if you dont stop changing my edits Im going to tell on you" nonsense. Please let me know when you have begun the procedure so that I can say my piece to the relative admin. GodzillaWax 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

CC of response to above, from GodzillaWax page

You say: "if Kobe Bryant wins league MVP, does that make the Lakers 'award winning'?" Movies and Broadway shows, to give two examples, are routinely referred to as "winning five Oscars" or "winning five Tonys" when some of those awards when to, say, the sound designer, or the makeup person. I could give hundreds of examples, but here's one from Amazon.com "Ben-Hur scooped an unprecedented 11 Academy Awards® in 1959..." These include Franklin Milton for Best Sound and Robert Surtees for Best Cinematography, Color.
You say: "But even this, you are making the jump from a discrete quantity of time - 4 1/4 years - to a relative quantity of time - long. Which begs the question, relative to what?" I have already answered that: Relative to the preceding year of five or six different writers and pencilers each.
You removed my reference that reference to a long, stable run. First, please understand that Merriam-Webster's #1 definition for the adjective "stable" is "1 a : firmly established : FIXED, STEADFAST b : not changing or fluctuating". So please don't remove "stable" again. It means whaqt the dictionary says it means -- not, with all due respect, what you say it means.
Many times you have left alone the phrase that someone else wrote, that "Ann Nocenti was put in charge of the title and remained on there for several years" to which you yourself added "with one of the book's longest runs" (Revision as of 11:09, 7 January 2006 GodzillaWax). Leaving someone else's and your own phrase "several years with one of the book's longest runs" and removing my shorter word "stable" certainly appears like personal harrassment of my edits.
I look forward to working this out with a third party. -- Tenebrae 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Further Response

Using your example of movies, no one would say "The award winning team of director Spielberg, sound mixer Jimmy Johnson and grip Sally Sue..." unless the award was for best picture. If the award was for best director, it would not make sense to group the other two with Spielberg because it implies the other two had a hand in the Directing. Likewise, the award was for inking, which is not something Nocenti and Romita had anything to do with. It was Williamson's award, which is why the award was given to him and not the comic as a whole.
As Ive tried to express to you innumerable times, I agree with you. Lets get rid of POV statements. Ive made an effort to try and work with you on this premise. So saying "I edited this" but "didnt edit that" has no bearing on anything. Its not an attack. If anything it is an admission that Im trying to work with you. Yet you are continually obstinate about the matter, which makes one wonder if you really are striving to make something NPOV or just striving to put your words above all others.
Lastly, saying a run was one of the books longest is factually verifiable. Saying something is stable is not. Whether you realize it or not, you are implying all sorts of things about the condition of the book by saying it is stable. Which is where my analogy of Chuck Austen came in. He had longevity, but I dont think anyone would say he had a stable run anywhere (and if you really want to find a source for what Im saying of fan's reactions to Austen, go ask the question on any comic site board. Honestly, try this, and tell me what the responses are). Longevity does not equate with stability. If your point is just that it was a long run on the book, simply say so. A key to good writing is analyzing word choices - youve already said it was a long run of 4.25 years, what more does stable add? I am not disputing it was a long run. What do you think you gain by continually adding it?
Additionally, I do not appreciate the personal insult that I am somehow interpreting a word according to my whimsy. Nor do I appreciate you asking a fellow collaborator not to make a change. It is certainly not your place to do such a thing given the open source nature of wikipedia.
Likewise, I look forward to a third party arbiter to finally put an end to your attacks on me and the childish nature of your argument. GodzillaWax 21:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll arrange it. Please stop using insulting terms such as "childish", "obstinate", etc. I've held my tongue about your apparent age and about most of your other verbal behaviors. As for interpreting a word according to your whimsy, I cited a dictionary definition; you cite your own definition. — Tenebrae 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Please stop passive aggressive attacks like "held my tongue about your apparent age". GodzillaWax 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex Maleev

Just wondering if anyone else thought that having 6 of the 10 comic drawings in this article all done by Maleev is overkill considering all of the telented artists that have teken part in this characters history? It just seems odd to me that Miller has one panel here and Maleev has 6. Opinions? AriGold 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and maybe speaking out of turn, but it seems to me there's one editor who loves the work of Brian Michael Bendis and Alex Maleev out of proportion to the whole 42-year-history of Daredevil. I've just realized -- there isn't a single piece of Gene Colan art here! -- Herculaneum 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to go around replacing Maleev art, a good place to start is with Elektra. I like the guy's art, but I hate that picture. Frank Miller is more definitive, too. --Jamdav86 21:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think all Maleev work needs to go, I think having some is important, just as important as the other artists. I just didn't know if anyone else thought that diversifying would be a good idea. I changed the Eelktra pic, per your suggestion. I was not a fan of that rendition, in particular, either. AriGold 22:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I mixed it up a bit, changed several of the pictures. Feel free to critique. Just trying to help out. AriGold 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Frank Miller Daredevil #181 picture works because it depicts both Elektra and Bullseye, two important series figures, in poses that show them and their costumes very clearly. It is also an important issue historically. Since there are at least of couple of important, unrepresented Daredevil artists, particularly Gene Colan and John Romita Jr., of whom I will try to find a picture from their entries or somewhere, I'm wondering if maybe the Frank Miller Daredevil #171 picture may be one Miller too many, since no Colan or Romita Jr. are in the DD entry presently? - Herculaneum 14:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I totally see where you're coming from. The reason I put that issue there was because I wanted to add a comic that had a prominent enemy on the cover (since it's in the "Enemies" section). I thought Bullseye or Kingpin would be the two best candidates for the section, and figured since Bullseye is in the 181 picture (which should not be taken down for the very reasons you stated), I'd use one with Kingpin, and 171 just happened to be the one I found. Not attached to it by any means, that's just why I did it. AriGold 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Greg Horn

Can we get a better pic of Elektra that isnt Maleev and isnt Horn? Horn's just seems a little too traced for my tastes. He's one Elle magazine subscription away from being Gred Land. Anyone agree? GodzillaWax 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not put up that picture, so I say this without any personal feeling. This is the same comment I would make to anyone who wrote the above: I don't understand what "my tastes" has to do with whether or not it's a clear full-on shot that displays the character. I also don't understand your need to make a homophobic reference to Horn and Land. You've been insulting to people before, but this is a new low. — Tenebrae 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Without reading the entire talk page, I'm noy sure where the homophobic thing is coming from, but I'd agree whole-heartedly that Greg Horn's stuff looks like ass. Without published porn and/or celebrity magazines, he'd be doing greeting cards...poorly air-brushed greeting cards...ka1iban 23:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
What other interpretation would you give for saying a man is "one woman's-magazine subscription away from" something? — Tenebrae 01:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he's referring to Horn's propensity to use published photos of women to directly source his art...the aforementioned "tracing"...I can't count the times I've seen Horn's work and thought "that looks EXACTLY like Josie Maran in the latest Maybelline ad" or some such. A lot of artists use photos for inspiration, but he's literally copying women into his "art" ka1iban 03:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
As ka1iban pointed out, there was nothing homophobic about what I was saying, as I was referring to Land's propensity for swiping character models from fashion magazines. I think an apology is not out of order considering I was just labelled homophobic, insulting and at "a new low". GodzillaWax 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If GodzillaWax really believes his comment doesn't sound homophobic to any of the 99.99% of the people in this world who aren't following the intricacies of what or whom some comic-book artist is basing a drawing on, then I am flabbergasted by the insular nature on display.— Tenebrae 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is that if someone who has no knowledge of who I am talking about comes along, sees an Elle magazine subscription mentioned next to a man's name and comes to the wrong conclusion, that I am somehow homophobic? Actually there is quite a bit of reverse bigotry at display here: I hardly think its fair that you immediately associate homosexuality with a man reading Elle magazine. You are perpetuating an innacurate portrayal of the gay man as one who obsesses over womens fashion and the like. You may be surprised to hear, given your insular disposition, that many gay men don't talk with a lisp or wear high heels. In fact, many gay men look just like straight men, much to the horror of many south of the Mason Dixon line or in the White House. GodzillaWax 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I've read it can be hard to pick up on the subtleties of intent online...e.g. http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-6039074.html ka1iban 22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Since no one can really agree with either Maleev or Horn, I decided to opt for Frank Miller in the mean time which hopefully no one has a problem with.--CyberGhostface 04:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. GodzillaWax 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say

That I think the Publication History section is just great. I think it's to-the-point and yet very evocative. I wish to compliment all the more-experienced Wikipedians who produced it! (Oh, and I found a Gene Colan Daredevil picture and inserted it!) - Herculaneum 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. Youll find that editing entries on wikipedia can be very taxing because there are constantly those who believe they are superior that make poorly thought out changes. Its the benefit and the challenge of wiki: everyone can contribute, but that also means anyone can ruin an article. Anyway, glad you like it. GodzillaWax 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for writing. With all due respect, I'm afraid I wasn't referring to you. As a woman, particularly, I've been appalled by your language and the way you treat other people. Some of the first things I saw on the Wikipedia were your writings here, and the rude, nasty, things you say to other people made me ask people who'd welcomed me if there were many like you here. They said there were not, and so far that's mostly true.
You are a very angry and bitter person, and you take out your frustration on people who have been polite and patient with you. For shame. Or are you going to be rude to a middle-aged woman now, too?-- Herculaneum 00:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ha, cheers again. As a woman, particularly, you've been apalled? As if somehow every word Ive written has dripped with misogyny? I think you sell yourself short if you have to qualify your distaste with your gender.
Ill follow Tenebrae's example and tell you to knock off the personal attacks. I've done a great deal for this page and have only taken issue when others make capricious changes. You'll note that in recent weeks I've tried to spark discussion on page changes on two occasions and yet somehow it has devolved into a Tenebrae v. GodzillaWax battle again. And why is that? Because I tried to change factually incorrect contributions of Tenebrae's.
Anyway, I will just simply reiterate that your personal attack has no place on Wikipedia. Im sure Tenebrae or someone could quote the relevant part of the wiki handbook or something. GodzillaWax 10:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing. I have awful, terrible news for you. 7 out of 10 words on this page were written by me. So I appreciate that you like my writing so much. GodzillaWax 10:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
My goodness, what an obsessive young man you are. You actually counted how many words you say you wrote?
You make me sorry I complimented the page. Just to make things perfectly clear, I was not commenting on the so-called "Analysis" section, which I understand is going to be taken down since it is not "NPOV". (I'm relatively new here but I'm learning the "lingo") So when you're counting your words, I hope you don't include any that appear in there.
Daredevil is the only super-hero comic book that I have read since I was a teenager in the 1970s. My teenage stepsons thought I might like it. I like them, and so I gave it a try. They also introduced me to the Wikipedia. And I am sorry now that I have tried come to the Daredevil page because of all the people who are contributing here, you are simply the most awful person I have seen either here or on any other page I have contributed to.
My teenage stepsons wouldn't talk to a woman the way you do. "I have awful, terrible news for you". What an angry and sarcastic young man you are. I have awful, terrible news for you: You need to do some serious self-reflection or you will never find a girlfriend with the attitude you have.
You won't have to worry about what I think anymore since I am leaving this page and not coming back. I thought I could share something with my stepsons, but this part of the Wikipedia is no place for a woman, no matter how creative her background and profession may be. I guess it's a place for 14 and 17 year old boys. But my 14 and 17 year olds have much better manners than you.
Please don't come to my page and bother me. I won't be back to bother you. Herculaneum 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Miscommunication

I was pretty shocked to hear you say that somehow my language has been crass or whatnot. I mean, Tenebrae doesn't like me much but I think even he'd have a hard time saying I speak like a sailor. And so I went back and read the archive of the Talk page here, and noticed you freaked out over the phrase "Put Your Knickers On, Sally". You seem to think this implies oral sex or somesuch, to which I would respond to you that that is so far outside the realm of meaning of what we were talking about that Im puzzled how you came to that conclusion. As a tip for a new user of Wikipedia, if you feel something isn't right, you should probably ask that person what is meant by it, instead of attacking them in a variety of ways over a misunderstanding.

The worst of my verbal transgressions, it would appear, is having called Tenebrae pepe (which is about as non-insulting a non-insult can get, but I never used it again, did I Tenebrae?), and that I said something about a virgin brigade. Which was funny, come on people. If anything, I've been the voice of reason around here lately, doing my best to spark discussion and working to make the entry better.

And what do I get for my troubles? Tenebrae thinking I'm harassing him because I disagree with an edit, and you throwing just about every generic insult you've got my way. That I'm 14 years old? That I need a girlfriend? Christ. Those stock comic-book reader insults never get tired do they?

Anyway, long story short, you're completely off the mark re:the interpretation of my "knickers" comments. And certainly, I would have welcomed you to ask me what I meant by them if you interpreted them so differently. I would have been happy to explain why I saw them as innocuous. Hell I would even have changed them for you.

And really again, you sell yourself short by saying "as a woman...". Being a woman is not a handicap! Be proud! We're all equal here.

Lastly, though, I am grotesquely offended by your actions, and so I am taking this to the admins. When I've followed through on this, Ill be sure to post a note on your Talk page to inform you.

Cheers! GodzillaWax 16:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Being a woman is not a handicap!" Could be the funniest thing I have read in a while, just kind of caught me out of nowhere. AriGold 16:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation has been filed

This is a notification, per Wikipedia policy, that a request has been made by User:Tenebrae, with the consent of User:GodzillaWax, for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. — Tenebrae 23:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Recommendations

Some suggestions for splitting Pub Hist into Pub Hist and Character Biography (or whatever it is called)

Publication History - for talking about changes in direction / creative teams / etc
Early Years (Stan Lee, early artists up through Colan)
Gene Colan
Frank Miller 1st and 2nd runs
Nocenti and change in focus of book to societal issues, etc
Man Without Fear
Nineties - new costume, change in art style (McDaniel was real rough back then)
Kelly and Lighter tone - return to a swashbuckler
Relaunch at Marvel Knights - includes out-the-industry talent like Kevin Smith, Bob Gale, as well as indy talent Mack and Bendis
Fictional Biography
...dont know how to break this up... Should be a timeline of a character. I would think here inferences from Analysis could be placed.

(forgot to sign this earlier) GodzillaWax 17:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Character History

A start to Publication History / Character Biography. Shouldn't character history be higher than Characters? Its a good start. I think now analysis and all should morph into a character biography with the character element of Publication History moving into it as well. So in effect Publication History will shrink dramatically and CB will grow. Agreed? Thoughts? GodzillaWax 20:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)