User talk:Doczilla/Archive 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Category: Military brat

Please read the Military brat (U.S. subculture) article and then tell me if you still believe that the term isn't appropriate. Please note the number of resources utilized in documenting this subject and the number of them that use the term "Military brat." Military brat is an accepted term and a highly studied subject. The term is used by researchers and the community it describes. It is relevant to the subject because it does have a bearing on the individual as is supported by the research. Balloonman 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pastorwayne

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being nice

Your comment at CfD about another editor was a little rude. Cleduc 07:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

possibly justified... but when in doubt... Cleduc 08:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the Anonymous user

I think I'll be trying to put in a minimum number of hours a week on Wikipedia. I've really bonked and just haven't had the drive, especially for fiction articles that are so poorly written but so strongly defended. I'll see what I can do. --PsyphicsΨΦ 14:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please revisit and consider

Thanks for your endorsement on the Category:Categories for deletion proposal, but be advised per User:Tim! and User:Submillimeter's point, I've modified my proposal.
re: See this summary, and my comments on clear documentation all along our project pages. This alternative is more consistent with normal category practices. For your convienience this is a direct link back into the discussion. Thanks // FrankB 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Fatone411

Re: this comment - I'd suggest you ask for a checkuser comparison with User:EJBanks and User:Creepy Crawler. I don't think you'll be surprised if they turn up positive. CovenantD 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quinn Martin Productions follow-up

Hi, Doczilla -- Thanks for your help redirecting the stub and cleaning up the article.

I hope you don't mind this intrusion. I have a question I was about to post somewhere (hadn't figured out where yet), but you may have an opinion to offer. Using "Quinn Martin Productions" as an example of a page that would be listed in Category:Television production companies of the United States, would you expect to find it listed under "Q" or under "M"? The category is full of inconsistencies, and I was going to clean it up, but I can't find a style guide entry or anything that governs. The closest is the "Ordering [proper] names in a category" subsection of the Wikipedia:Categorization of people article. What do you think?

Thanks again.--Vbd 09:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And Chaos Died AfD

Metamagician3000 and I have reworked the article on Joanna Russ's book And Chaos Died. It's not a great article, but I think it's much better than what had gone before (on the AfD, 23skidoo has changed his vote to keep). While it could certainly be expanded, it maintains an encyclopedic tone, establishes an amount of notability and includes external hyperlinks. Thoughts?

Best wishes, Anville 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Otogi Zoshi characters

Since your initial comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 6#Category:Otogi Zoshi characters articles have been placed in the category. Do you still think it should be deleted? (Please can you reply at the category discussion if you want to change your vote.) Timrollpickering 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance

Doc, I could use a little help. It seems that a poster called DCIncarnate wants to dig his heels in on some ridiculously small points. A good example are the entries for the Living Tribunal and Eternity. He insists that they have omnipotence, ominipresence etc which is technically not true, as Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet and later the Heart of the Universe has trumped them both. It is fairer to say they have "near-omnipotence." I suppose it is like the invulnerability argument - no one truly possesses it so we needed another term. However, he insists that such showings are "bad writing". Can you help with this? I find it interesting that you and I and others can do solid edits on entries like the Skrulls which no one touches (or probably reads), and yet the curiously teen-popular cosmic entries take a pounding. That chap that kept pushing that cosmic list was another good example. Go figure.

Asgardian 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained this to you. But it seems you are just ignoring it, Asgardian.

Infinity Gauntlet: master of mind, time, space. I see no reason as to why this would look bad against Eternity.

Thanos: The End + Heart Of The Universe: Thanos seen everything for what it was when he had it. He was above beings like LT even in the all knowing category.

None of this makes The Living Tribunal and Eternity "Nigh-omnipotent" it made Thanos MORE powerful then them.

DCincarnate

They WERE NOT omnipotent etc as they could NOT predict Thanos or Warlock's moves once they had the IG. Therefore, they are "near" rather than totally omnipotent etc. As I've already told you, Warlock KNEW how Eternity was going to react at a meeting of the cosmics before he did. READ the comics!

Asgardian 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this is really so hard for you to understand? They could not predict Thanos or Warlock's moves because they had the goddamn IG. They had become above the LT and Eternity with IG.

DCincarnate


[edit] Hero & villain categories

Hey, Doczilla. Given your comments at the AfD for Villains from comics and graphic novels, I thought you might have opinion about this. (Even if it's "We should get rid of these categories and replace them with lists.") --GentlemanGhost 05:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actors by series

Thanks for the note. As I have just noted in the cfd debate, I really decided to air the whole issue because I was fed up of the drip, drip, drip of individual categories coming up on cfd—most of them gathering a healthy number of 'delete' votes, even when they had only been nominated for a simple rename. Like you I would be rid of them, but I thought we could do with a general discussion of the principle. However, given that I seem to have underestimated the willingness of editors to vote to delete, I am going to formalise this into a bona fide deletion proposal.

Xdamrtalk 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diabetics

Regarding the diabetic categories,[1] you might want to see what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says on the issue: "Be careful not to define a person or group of people by their medical condition. For example, seizures are epileptic, people are not." [2] Wryspy 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Samuel Johnson

Just wanted to let you know I reverted your edit to Samuel Johnson: his OCD is already referenced in the article, and is extensively dealt with in Boswell's bio - it's about as well documented as any historical medical condition I've come across - more citations could be provided if you aren't comfortable with James Boswell's authoritative bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should be corrected: perhaps you can suggest a less weasly word than "possibly" when discussing a historical figure. Have you read Boswell? Excerpts here: [3] - google will yield much more. A google scholar search on Samuel Johnson OCD yields over 200 hits - not google, google scholar - good sources. I fully support your concern for referencing, and have enforced it many times, but Johnson is the wrong example to pick :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you're not aware of the genetic relationship between Tourette's and OCD, or the difficulty in distinguishing the two, or the similarity in symptomatology? His OCD is better established than his Tourette's, and he's the most well-known historical example of a person with TS. Anyway, to avoid a protracted discussion, Johnson's not my interest - I only keep the article watchlisted as he's such a prominent TS link. My advice is to do a google scholar search, and think seriously about deleting content without further study - Johnson is not a BLP. I agree with your reasoning on the AfD of Anxiety disorders (since that's a broad umbrella), but de-populating the OCD category isn't a good idea, IMO - there are too many referenced examples. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I slightly disagree, since we don't definitively diagnose anything in a traditional sense in a historical figure, so the crossover between OC and TS symptoms is relevant. At any rate, source provided - I formatted it for you, and wuld prefer a scholarly source (I work very hard to keep self-published websites out of medical articles), but if you're happy, I'm happy. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion:Hutman Artcars

Thanks for the great summary! Really helps clear things up. Just one change - I know it wasn't me who said "userfy" and I'm PRETTY sure it was User:Improbcat so I made that change. Plymouths 06:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional characters with phobias

Give me a day or two to think about this. At the very least, the article looks like it has problems. As you indicated, it does contain a lot of original research. Dr. Submillimeter 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ra's al Ghul

Please head over and take a look at the page. I undid your revert a couple days back, because I believe the editor is acting in Good faith, but I think your input on his changes would be both welcomed, (by me, at least) and productive in showing him more about how to work co-operatively on Wikipedia. I've tried to guide him a bit through some talk page correspondence and one major edit of his animated episode summaries, but He's really running fast on the page, and could definitely use some input from other editors. Thanks! ThuranX 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of the page. I agree with all your changes (up to the metagene thing, in case you're making more while I'm typing this) and I hoep that Phunbot sees hwo to work with others. His most recent edit summary, "See talk section before editing my edits again", seems either defensive or WP:OWN oriented. I've left him an extensive message about this, and I hope we can guide him towards constructive work, instead of 'losing him to the dark side', LOL> I think with some guidance, he could do well. ThuranX 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Phunbot seems insistent on a version of the episode summary which contains speculation 'for some unknown reason, superman's powers return' (may not be perfect quote). I have RV'd 3 times, and expect him to RV it back again. He's not reading the wikipolicies. Since it seems there's almost some sort of good cop bad cop dynamic being percieved here, maybe you should go 'bad cop' him. ThuranX 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Where is the speculation, point it out.

Here is my version: He does succeed but the process is stopped before completion by Batman's interference, fighting ensues causing Ra and his daughter to fall to there apparent deaths. Afterwards for an unknown reason Superman's power returns to him.

Now point out the speculations. I see none as Batman does interfere in the episode which causes the process to stop before complete, Ra's and his daughter do fall to there apparent deaths after Ra's al Ghul bust up the area with his new power when fighting Batman and Superman's power just seems to return at the end of the episode, there is no explanation to this nor is there anything visually shown to explain why this happens which is why I say they return for "an unknown reason" because its unknown. Is saying something unknown being speculative when it is unknown, no I think not. If I said something to explain why the powers returned like because he is Kryptonian or the staff breaks would be speculative as though both are true they aren't pointed out as the reasons to why he gets his powers back in the episode. Oh and I like to point out saying the process was reversed is being speculative to as that to was not designated as the reason, one can assume it happen that way just like one can assume it was the staff breaking or something else however no matter how much one can assume if there assumptions aren't based on facts its still beings speculative. So look your being speculative and I am not because I am using facts, big surprise (Not really).

And do you know why I know all this, I have the episode currently on my computer, want to see it? I will give you a link so this can be put to rest.

And as my previous revert said, both of you may agree that the process was reversed, heck you can get 100 or 1,000 or 100,000 other editors to feel the same but in the end it's not true so why do you insist on saying I am speculating when I am saying facts from the episode and you keep saying the the process was reversed when it wasn't.

Point is I have this thing that matters here on wiki to support my version, that is facts. What do you have exactly? Except a tenacious need to mess with facts in that area. Also it does put a smile on my face having to tell you that facts matter here considering I am the newb here.

And I am not reading the policies? What policy says an editor can revert an edit that is factual with an edit that isn't factual and actually is a lie to. If there is one that says that show it to me. And if there is one then what's the point of rules here if such a policy exist that allows people to purposely be able to mess with facts here without any sort of punishment. And ya anyone can edit anything here but last I checked though a person can do a revert war with someone regardless of whether there right or not, I thought when someone does such a thing here they get scolded and eventually punished. I sure didn't think the person reverting it back to the factual version be scolded like I am being right now for wanting there to not be speculation and actual facts.

Also I won't revert it back because since you caused this mess by messing with facts I will leave you to do the right thing and revert it yourself. Phunbot 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Question?

Amended my previous statement as I am over it and from now on will just give short descriptions in those kind of areas. However I have a question which is why is it in wiki that certain things aren't capitalized like the also in See also or other stuff of that nature. I mean to me I think it looks better with the words capitalized but it seems to be the wiki norm to not capitalize things of that nature. Could you explain why this is as presentation to some extent is important here and like I said I think it looks better with the words capitalized as opposed to the current way. Phunbot 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating the ToK

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 19:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infinite Crisis - External Links

Hi Doc

I placed a link to my website that annotates DC's Infinite Crisis series and its tie-ins some months ago on the Infinite Crisis page. That link was removed so I added a comment on the discussion page on 27th Nov asking for it to be re-instated. Despite having no replies, I noticed that it was replaced some time later, but has now been removed again by yourself.

Could you let me know the reasoning behind this decision?

Apologies in advance if this isn't the place to have this discussion - please direct me elsewhere if you need to!

Cheers --Ginger2323 09:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Doc

After no remarks on the "Infinite Crisis" discussion page concerning the above, I replaced the link to the Annotated Infinite Crisis page. I looked this morning (20th Feb 07) and found that you had removed it with the note "We've removed that link several times"

Any chance you can let me know why?

Cheers --Ginger2323 07:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying to your reply back in December; things went a bit hectic round that time!

Thanks for the explanation; the site's ongoing and I have had several people contact me offering corrections and suggestions, many of whom have found the site originally through Wikipedia. I'd suggest that the number of errors is reducing as more and more information comes through not only from myself but from others and that the longer the site is linked to from Wikipedia, the more information will be offered.

Obviously I'd like to have the link re-instated.

Cheers. --Ginger2323 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Comment

There's been a Request for Comment initiated at Talk:John Buscema#Request for Comment: NPOV and images, concerning a dispute over alleged violations and which includes links to two versions of an article, for comparison.

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics, and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A kind request on WP Films lists AfDs

Hi Doczilla, on the 7th of January you nominated the List of childhood-related films for AfD and it was deleted with no WP Films participation in the process. I haven't checked whether you had notified some of its (probably now inactive) creators, but I would like to ask you to notify directly WP Films if you nominate any further film lists for AfD. As you can see in Lists of films we have had several of our lists deleted lately, with only a notification in our categorization department, since a category that included several of them was also nominated. So I had a chance to notify some WP Films members to participate in the individual lists' AfDs. I don't say most of them were worth keeping, but we do a lot of work in Films and we should also have our say. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 08:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "entitled"

Wanted to give you a heads up that I'm going to change the wording back on Infinite Crisis. "Titled" is generally used in conjunction with nobility, while "entitled" better fits the usage. From Merriam-Webster Online: entitled and titled. Rhindle The Red 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm cool with that compromise, m'man. No need to get into anything over an honest difference of opinion. Should've thought of that, myself. Thanks. Rhindle The Red 16:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By-family categories

There are hundreds of them. See Category:Families and its subcategories. Honbicot 12:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Category:Women Writers

You recently commented on this CFD on Women Writers. The debate is now up on deletion review. Please comment. >Radiant< 10:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alligator story

http://www.alligator.org/edit/issues/97-fall/970908/a01death.htm

[edit] AfD

List of Marvel Comics endearments has been nominated — unfortunately, I believe — for deletion. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article and adding a comment, pro or con, at its "Articles for Deletion" discussion, then the article can at least be assured of a fair and knowledgeable hearing by editors familiar with the context. Thanks --Tenebrae 05:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoskepticism

Hi, with regard to the CfD on this, I have asked the admin concerned to justify his stance on closing the discussion, particularly in light of the inevitable edit wars that would result. — BillC talk 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking to the CfD or reconsideration request would have been helpful. Doczilla 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Villain Category response

I know, but the Marvel villains list is getting long enough for it to be sorted. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:12, 02 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mental illness

The mental illness article is listed as a "top" importance article within WikiProject Psychology. The article needs your assistance. Specifically we need new content and citations added. Any contributions you make would be appreciated. I look forward to seeing you edits :). Thanks again. Chupper 15:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Doc, thanks for the support. I think the moderator got it wrong on this one. Almost no information about something I don't believe he fully looked into. I'm just trying to get a few immature diehards to see that 90% of an article is still there. The changes made actually conform to Wikpedia (eg. sources, present tense, POV). Tenebrae seems to be the only one that has picked up on this. I've learnt a lot since the early days, and have even written a few articles from almost nothing (eg. Thanos, Squadron Sinister) and revamped more than a few (eg. Skrull, Squadron Supreme, Odin), but what disappoints me is that no one can see this, or actually appreciate the changes. Once this "block" expires, I'll argue the case in the Galactus Discussion. The silly part about all this is that I asked the players to study the changes, but it seems that once again it must be spelt out.

Anyway, thanks again.

Asgardian.

(PS. - the moderator also wiped a comment I made from his Discussion. To me that does not suggest objectivity).

[edit] How waz i 2 no

How the hell was I to know that you would have to combine Non-Fictional Doctors with physicians dwilliams 02:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joker (comics)

Hi, Doc. Just a head's-up, since I very much respect your work and edits. I've placed a note about the Heath Ledger citation you were good enough to take the time and trouble to look up. I'm sure the Ledger item is correct, but there was something in the Sci Fi Wire report that's troubling. I hope you don't mind — I don't I've queried one of your edits ever. Thanks for taking another look. I'll check for a different cite myself in the meantime. With good wishes as always to you, --Tenebrae 03:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Found an interview with Ledger, so it's straight from the horse's mouth. Or, well, the Joker's mouth, actually.... Hope we're OK. All respect,-- Tenebrae 03:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on the Joker image issue. I've madea 3RR report on him, but no avail, it was skipped. he's since made more reverts, but whatever. as long as I'm not the only one reveting him, we can fend it off for a long time. ThuranX 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue there. I had a 4 in 24 hours, 20 minutes considered and resolved with a 24 hr block with NO delay earlier the same day I filled this one. It may come to pass that i'll have to get someone else to join the complaint by adding their own additional diffs. ThuranX 11:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Grayson/Image and WP:BOLD

I agree with you, about people citing Policy as an excuse. J Greb and I chatted about it before, however that turned into a snarkfest discussion of a different color when Netkinetic followed us to my talk page to accuse J Greb of attacking him. Which is about where I got fed up with trying to beat a dead horse into listening and started asking other places to please step in :P We're working on it, and I appreciate the comment. It was needed. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing myself to be less pejorative - By snark I meant it got a little hot under the collar, and I was attempting to insert levity into the situation. The 'dead horse' is in reference to the discussion on the Dick Grayson page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought, Ipstenu, we had come to a truce, and *still* you are violating WP:CIV. Kindly cease and desist as a courtesy. And Doczilla, I appreciate your concerns, and they've been addresses. Why do you feel the need to reopen matters handled two weeks ago. Can we move past this please? Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for getting you dragged into this, Doc. Taking it back to my talk page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You offer Doc apologies, yet for your comment "turned into a snarkfest of a different color when Netkinetic..." doesn't solicit an apology? I think offering an apology towards a user that you've made a personal attack against would seem appropriate, if we are talking about common courtesy that is? Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. Ipstenu just said he/she was carrying that discussion back to his/her talk page. Reply to Ipstenu on Ipstenu's page, not mine. Side note: Without a dictionary definition of "snarkfest", that word isn't something to quibble over. What are you people doing -- arguing about how you're arguing about how you're arguing about how you edit stuff for free? (It's a rhetorical question.) Doczilla 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc, fair enough. If you wish to take this discussion back to Ipstenu's talk page I'm agreeable to that. I would assume that would mean removing the above dialogue then? If not I must protest not allowing a defense towards her adversarial comments. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd written the following about the version of your comment that cited the NPA policy before we had a system edit conflict. It still applies to the version referring to "adversarial comments": Yeah, but I don't see a personal attack against you on my talk page. Whatever "snarkfest" means, you people have clearly engaged in some energetic disagreements. If that's a snarkfest, then it's just a statement of fact. If you followed someone to another talk page (and considered that you've done that here, I have no doubt that you did it elsewhere), that's just a statement of fact. If you accused J Greb of attacking you, that's just a statement of fact. Doczilla 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc, I appreciate your frustration relating to WP:BOLD that was exhibited on Dick Grayson. I haven't exercised that principle since then in an attempt to build bridges. For my part, I was happy that the matter had concluded and was taken aback that it was reopened. Regardless, hopefully this will be the last incarnation of this particular set of dredged up "facts" lol. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Okey-dokey. Doczilla 04:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Sex_Symbols

What works best for me is the what links here button, since most previously deleted categories will be still be linked from their deletion discussions. It only works for exact matches, but you can try variations as well. I was here for a couple of months before I figured out that we can use what links here to find old discussions. It even works for redcats. -- Prove It (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, sometimes a category will have an obvious member ... so you can look at the edit history to find out what the old category was called. Once you know the original name, finding out when and why it was deleted is fairly easy. -- Prove It (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you continued

Doc, I have no idea. There was almost no commentary as you know. I have been trying to make a few posters see things a more Wiki-way with some articles (eg. Galatcus), but what I changed was positively minor (eg. present tense, removing POV) as a good 90% of the article was intact. Two of the posters involved were particularly immature, a la that nonsense about sock puppets that went nowhere. Interestingly they have not been seen since as I would definately call them out. No matter. As for Steel, I stand by the fact that he/she did not handle it very well. Zero communication, erasing a comment I made in my defence, no appreciation of how "on track" many of the changes I made were or the aforementioned immaturity of a certain group of "revert charlies."

In short, no reading of the situation whatsover, which I find to be pretty weak given that I have created/re-written umpteen articles and one of these other posters does nothing more than police one entry (cosmic fetish? Not the first I suspect. Fanboys seem attracted to these). If it had been any more serious, I would appealed, and probably would have come out on top on account of the lack of information from the moderator alone. As we know, even the moderators are subjective in their decisions and sometimes make the wrong call. If it happens again I'll drop you a line, don't worry.

Thanks for the concern.

Asgardian 07:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Doczilla, Asgardian got blocked in response to my request for page protection for three articles which this edit war spreads over, Galactus, Mephisto (comics), and Thanos. --GentlemanGhost 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You also jumped the gun, and didn't read into the situation. What did we just accomplish with Mjolnir prior to this nonsense?
Asgardian 03:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I felt the edit wars weren't accomplishing anything and so I reported them to the appropriate authority. Ideally, that is the point where cooler heads prevail and progress is made. However, I have no control over the actions the admins choose to take.
We managed to compromise on Mjolnir, which is good. I'm all for that. If that can be applied to other articles, maybe we can achieve some peace. --GentlemanGhost 08:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
And if you don't believe me, check out the edit history for HalfShadow. It speaks volumes.
Asgardian 07:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An alternative possibility

There has been a proposal for renaming to "series" some of the nominated categories in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 12#Comedy films by actor. If you think it is a correct way out of the dilemma, please assist. The prospect of nominating the whole of Category:Film series is, of course, very scarry. Hoverfish Talk 07:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review of Category:Women television writers

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 21#Category:Women_television_writers. Having nominated the category for deletion review, I am notifying all those who participated in the original CFD, plus the closing admin and the independent reviewer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of character counterparts in the DC multiverse

(my talk page)

Yes, I'm fully aware that the characters did not appear on Earth-Three pre-Crisis, however, they were already in place on the grid when I came across it, and I didn't feel it was my place to remove them en masse since I'm relatively new here, so all I did was clean-up their links and add the disclaimer (for the record, Earth-Zero never appeared pre-Crisis either - at least, not one populated by Bizarro-versions of the heroes since 'Bizarro-World' was in the Earth-One universe - but because it wasn't my work, I was hesitant to remove it also, hence the disclaimer it received as well), figuring that a majority consensus would address it eventually. The only additions that were solely mine are all of the Earth-S and Earth-X entries, and a couple of individual rows of characters. Thanks. Starmiter 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Per Degaton

Thanks for the kind words. Just so I'm clear, even though the majority of Degaton's activities happen during World War II (and 2 years after its end), an actual historical event, you still recommend using a majority of present tense for his actions? The other tricky part here (though not quite as challenging) has been the fact that trying to place his actions chronologically since the publishing chronology doesn't come close to syncing up. I'm also still trying to find out how the 'time disc' version fits into all of this (to my knowledge, after the Infinity, Inc. Annual story, Per Degaton hadn't been seen until the JSA appearances), since the characterization is also distinctly different (granted, that may have more to do with the fact of Roy Thomas not being involved than anything else, but he was modeling the personality after the original All-Star Comics appearances), since until the JSA re-appearance of the character, there'd been no mention of it to my knowledge (so far). In the meantime, I'll try refining it some more. Thanks. Starmiter 12:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding chronological order: You really have to look at how events fit his personal history. Some of his WWII escapades were not actually published back then. So try instead to order them according to his biological age. In his memory, which event would have happened first? In his memory, what is most recent?"
That's good advice, but that's actually where it gets tricky - publishing-wise, the All-Star Comics attempt at history re-writing happened first, then the All-Star Squadron #1-3, then the JLA/JSA/All-Star Squadron attempt, then the America vs. The Justice Society, all of which involved the 1947 version of the character (since the history edits were undone each time, then each time he tries again is, essentially, a 'mulligan' of the first attempt - a mobius strip that ended with AvJS, then later, the Infinity, Inc. story). Since the four storylines have the same starting point (1947), I think the best order is the one that I've put in there, which reflects publishing order (though I think I've managed to cover the tense part of it pretty well, if you want to take a look). I think it might be best to treat the 1947 version/duplicate as almost a separate character, which is why I went with the chronological sequence for the 'old' Degaton, then went with the 1947 version's exploits once he's shown as a separate being that wipes out the old version in the Infinity, Inc. story. Starmiter 11:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on List of films featuring mental illness

Hi, I noticed you recently reverted my addition of The Hours to List of films featuring mental illness. The source, IMDb - here, has "Bipolar disorder" as one of its plot keywords (in addition to "mental breakdown", "mental illness", "depression", "manic depression" etc). I know IMDb is not the most reliable of sources, but that is the one used for the other entries on the list. Can you give me any guidance on this? Thanks, Belovedfreak 20:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

There's been a Request for Comment initiated at Talk:Whizzer#Request for comment over style and content issues between two versions of Whizzer, one by Tenebrae, the other by Asgardian.

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film categories and CfDs

Hi Doczilla, I suggested this before elsewhere but didn't get much feedback. Do you think it would be possible to raise a discussion about Category:Films within WP Films Categorization in connection to the CfD process. It is my opinion that if the issue of unneeded categories gets discussed there, we could have a smoother and faster cleanup, backed up by consensus and good planning. My main wish is to make clear what issues should be covered by lists and navigations and where categorization is really essential. I would appreciate your feedback. Hoverfish Talk 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Card video games

I was about to close this CFD, but I found the debate there a bit confusing. It is obvious that the two cats should be merged; it is not obvious what the final name should be. Could you please look over the suggested names and indicate a preference? Thanks. >Radiant< 08:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batman

Nice, subtle edit. Good catch!--Tenebrae 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man 4 Rumors

Someone added a bunch of "he may be a villain in Spider Man 4" blurbs to a number of articles, FYI.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.11.242 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Batman film series

Hi, since I noticed that you created Template:Batman in popular media, I was wondering if I could ask your opinion on something. I recently created Spider-Man film series to address the films as a series, and I am working on subpages to do that for Batman and Superman. You can see them here: User:Erik/Batman film series and User:Erik/Superman film series. I am currently focused on Batman, and I wanted to ask what you thought about the inclusion of the live-action serials and the film based on the TV show. I suppose my line of thinking is that starting with Batman (1989), this was the establishment of a "universe" that continued with the next three films, though the universe was rebooted by Batman Begins. Do you have any ideas about how to shape the film series in this regard? Thanks! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, thank you for placing J.R. Chandler in alpha order on the list of fictional television anti-heroes. I obviously wasn't paying exact attention to the order, so thanks again. Flyer22 03:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, for something else

Thanks for your comments about Marioman22, they were enlightening. (That was not meant to sound sarcastic, but I couldn't think of a better way to say it.) --Freak104 12:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-heroes

See Talk:List_of_fictional_anti-heroes#The_Devil.27s_Rejects.
My edit was for characters like the Rejects or Patrick Bateman, who don't apply to any of the qualtities (noble goals, eventual redemptionm, ect). These characters were despicable, horrible people with little to no redeemable qualities, and the only reason why they are considered to be anti-heroes is because they are the protagonists of their stories. --DrBat 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thanks for pointing out the dangling sentences/modifiers. They were lost when I copied and pasted the edit over. SanchiTachi 07:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed no longer pertinent information. BTW, I made changes, how does it look now? SanchiTachi 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L-Ron

Thank you for your edits so far to the article, which look good. Any additional expansion with citations and/or images would be appreciated. Yours, Smee 07:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

  • Replied on my talk... Smee 07:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I, Smee, hereby award Doczilla with The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. For helpful edits to the article L-Ron, as well as a general polite and kind demeanor on both user talk pages and article discusson pages. Thank you. Yours, Smee 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Marvel (DC Comics) and Black Adam

I need some help. I also posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.

Basique (talk · contribs) seems to insist on giving people a hard time by making poor edits to each of these articles. His stance is that the articles don't fit the WikiComics guidelines of separating the publication history and fictional character history. While I agree in the case of the Black Adam article (which is a mess), the Captain Marvel article is a different case altogether. While some of the detail can be trimmed from sections, the article was structured the way it is because, unlike Spider-Man for example, Captain Marvel has no cohesive "fictional biography". The article instead chronicles the character's publication history, and discusses how different writers and companies have utilized the character. Now, if someone feels the need to have a fictional character biography for Captain Marvel, what would - or should - it contain?

In addition, Basique has a bad habit of obliterating the lead sections on each of these articles, lumping them instead into the body of the article. These headers were written in accordance with Wikipedia: Lead section; since they summarize topics already covered in the body, making the lead sections part of the body introduces redundancy.

Discussing this matter with the editor has proved futile, and I have little patience for people who continuously try to force large (and poorly done) changes upon an established article that more experienced (and likely older) editors have already made a significant number of contributions to. --FuriousFreddy 16:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For a second opinion. --FuriousFreddy 01:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batmanytb links

I did a spot check on User:Xphermg's edits, and save two, they all appear to be adding batmanytd or dcuytb links. The last time this link was added this virulently, it was by Chris (aka Beyond) who was rather understanding about the matter. I don't think this is him, but I'm leaning towards this guy editing in bad faith. Whether he means to or not, he's link spamming. Which stinks, since he's sullying a pretty darn good site, that's now going to have problems being added legitimately later. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Batman-On-Film has ads plastered ALL over it's site, Superman Database, Superman Homepage, Toonzone. Even Official sites have ads. All I'm saying, you can't justify on and not the other. --Xphermg 13:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revision of "World's Finest Comics" of 9 April

I just now found your revisions to the article World's Finest Comics dated 9 April 2007, and have comments relevant to one within the section, "In other media."

You indicate that what you deleted is either lacking in sense or is a deliberate prank, but it actually seems to be suggesting that within continuity, that is from the perspective of the DC Universe's characters, there are magazines entitled World's Finest and Powerhouse, respectively. The former, at least, seems to be dedicated to beefcake and cheesecake photos of metahumans. As I freely admit to not following mainstream comics at all since the turn of the century, and had been reading only a very few for several years prior to that, I have no idea if there is or is not any validity to this claim, but I must state that your "makes no sense out-universe" fails for me. Such use of the title "in-universe" (if I'm interpreting your term correctly and coming up with the proper opposite) certainly strikes me as relevant here, if only in an in-passing sort of way.

I certainly do not mean to be calling your competence into question (many people have taken message board postings from me that way, so forgive me if this seems paranoid), but only intend to help the site. Hope I have. Ted Watson 21:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC) I made the above change myself. Ted Watson 18:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Found your response to the above. Unfortunately, while what you say makes sense on the face of it, it is not consistent with either your reasons specified when you deleted the brief passage, or with deleting it at all, but justifies only rewriting it a bit. Do you mean to suggest that if someone was to rephrase it more properly and repost it, you would leave it? Ted Watson 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
O.K., now we're on the same page. As I said, I, too, have no idea if it's true or not, so I certainly wouldn't consider doing the rephrasing and reposting myself. Somehow need to get that note on the "History" listing for your deletion changed so the person who put it up in the first place understands the real problem, but I don't think that can be done---wanted to modify one of my own once and couldn't find any hint of a way. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Ted Watson 19:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tales of the Multiverse: Batman - Vampire.

Why is the Batman/Dracula stuff being rereleased as part of the multiverse if the Batman-Vampire story the editors state is part of the multiverse is based on a different story entirely?

Are even the DC editors that stupid?

Duggy 1138 05:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the republication of the Batman/Dracula trilogy as "Tales of the Multiverse" entirely.

Duggy 1138 06:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for helping contribute instead of repeatedly mindlessly reverting because you think you know better.

Duggy 1138 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why I avoid straight revision, but always try to adapt what I've written. This often takes a while because the middle ground can be hard to find.

Duggy 1138 06:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the possibly subjective stuff being deleted. I don't think it is actually subjective, but rather in a passive voice, another no-no. I just think it needs something else in there I it sounds like random mutterings.

Duggy 1138 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just want to say thanks

I've been keeping off Wiki for awhile, and I probably will again for awhile, but I read the kind things you wrote at the RfA, and I just wanted to say, "Thanks, man." It means a lot, what you in particular, User:Phoenix741 and User:Bloodpack posted. This was a surprisingly rough experience. Speak to you again down the road. And please accept a virtual handshake across the ether. Wishing you all good things, --Tenebrae 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twoface

How do we resolve that trivia? It's clearly worthwhile info, but connecting it seems difficult. The best I can think up offhand is putting it under it's own subheading in his character history, but even that seems tacked on. ThuranX 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you in favour of out of process deletions and opposed to running Wikipedia by consenus?

As you cannot possibly actually believe that the previous deletion of Category:Wealthy fictional characters was in line with consensus, it sure looks that way. Haddiscoe 14:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thank you visiting and commenting at my RfA, I tried to expand on my philosophy and answers, about an hour after you voted this morning. You mention a weak edit history, but I have 6 FAs, which I think demonstrates a certain commitment and involvement on my part. I do hope that these comments address your concerns. Even if they don't, thanks for stopping by! DrKiernan 14:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to add my voice to DrKiernan's because I find your oppose particularly puzzling. You mentioned insufficient involvement and unimpressive edit history both of which seem very odd considering that the candidate has helped promote 6 FAs, has been around for close to 9 months and has over 3500 edits, many of which are substantial. It might just be a misunderstanding on my part of what you meant but I'd appreciate it if you can revisit the debate to clarify that. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 22:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD is not a vote.

That is not relevant to the points I made. You are reinforcing the impression that you do not think that consensus matters when you disagree with it. Haddiscoe 01:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ck lostsword's RfA - Thanks

Image:Admin_mop.PNG Thanks very much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed successfully at 40/2/1, making me Wikipedia's 1,250th administrator. Your comments were much appreciated, and I will endeavour to fulfil your expectations as an admin.

ck lostsword • T • C

ck lostsword • T • C 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why this tag?

Could you elaborate at talk:Richard Borcherds on why you put the tag there? Michael Hardy 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When I asked if you could elaborate on this, I did not mean "Can you repeat on the talk page what you ALREADY said in the tag?". I meant: can you be specific about WHICH facts you want references for? If you can't, I'll remove the tag. Michael Hardy 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fragmentalism

Hi there. In response to a request from User:Peter morrell for a second opinion, I've rewritten the article and added some more references. Could you have another look and see if you still think it should be deleted? Thanks. TimVickers 15:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since you "don't give a remote damn" about a critique

Neither will I. Regards "Doc". Netkinetic (t/c/@) 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the 2 cents

"You really shouldn't have to worry about getting pestered at a third party's talk page when you're just trying to get advice...Shrug it off". Some advise you gave some time ago which apparently only applies when it is a different third party. This time you are thanking a third party for getting involved. Smacks of a double standard, perhaps? I'd suggest if you don't like the advise offered you simply "shrug it off". Regards. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Your quotation originates here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ipstenu&diff=122162637&oldid=122143369 if you are so curious. Explaining to one editor that they should'nt be pestered on a 3rd party page when the conversation is between person A and person B, yet then thanking an editor (a 3rd party not directly involved) for inserting themself into the conversation on a talk page smacks of double standard. Sorry you don't see that but appreciate the obsessive-compulsive display of comment revisions on my talk page. That shows some psychological accumen! :) Regards. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed remedies

What's up, Doc? Editors are beginning to weigh in on proposed remedies for Asgardian at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. Thought you'd want to know. --Tenebrae 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

...for your support and kind comment at my RFA. It's gratifying to get the psychologist vote :)--Kubigula (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something I'd like feed back on...

I'm working on something with regard to Amphibian (comics), and potentially the rest of the related articles.

I've moved a copy of the article to User:J Greb/Pasteup while I'm working on it.

The upshot is, given the relatively short history of the characters, I'm trying to blend the PH and FCB into one section. Right now I've only gotten through the first character, but I'd like a few other editors to take a look and tell me if I'm onto something, blowing smoke, or somewhere in between.

Thanks, - J Greb 10:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superman: Red Son

Hi Doc. I see that you tagged Superman: Red Son with {{trivia}}. However, you put the tag at the top of the article. Do you really mean to say that the whole article is trivia? The lead section looks OK. Perhaps you could move the tag? --GentlemanGhost 05:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent checkuser request

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. GrooveDog (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

[edit] Just a question

You're a psychologist so, is loneliness just a disease or is it at all in anyway connected to Autism or anything related to it, mainly Asperger's Syndrome. This is just a personal question, nothing wikipedia related. Just wanted to know that's all. Jade1984 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asgardian requests input.

Doc, your input would be appreciated. This is wearing a bit thin. Check out my Talk page and then read this:

Hiding, I am very disappointed to see that this has happened. I have consulted once more with the aforementioned third party - a solicitor - and he has confirmed this now smacks of victimisation. The somewhat nebulous and easily misinterpreted Wikipedia policies do not help. I have been placing comments for all edits in the Summary. They are all valid and correct. I think that this supposed indiscretion is in fact simply a difference of opinion as to what is major and minor. I regard image play and rearranging large tracts of text to be major, not the removal of incorrect information in a conversational and unsourced POV tone. If you consider "minor" to be simply grammar, numbers etc. then so be it. That's minor. However, this is hardly "earth shaking". A simple note on the Talk Page would have sufficed.

Further to this, it would appear that once again all the "good editing" that I have been doing has been conveniently ignored, which even extends to rewriting substandard articles lacking information or reeking of fan-fuelled POV (eg. Blacklash and Infinity Gauntlet).

Also, the claim that I am practicing WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPT is untrue.

As to WP:OWN, see Hyperion and Black Bolt, where I not only accepted (as we all should) new information on articles I have written but also did a slight tidy up to improve it. But, there it stays. It is only when incorrect/POV/unsourced/ information appears that I will pull it, and as promised leave a note in the Summary. As for WP:DISRUPT, it would be a disruption if I left no comments...which I did. They are all accurate.

I also draw your attention to the comments which I took the time to post on user Lots42 page, as he asked me a direct question. I also addressed the rather immature comment made by user 204.153.84.10. User Lots42 then chose to delete my comment, claming it was the beginning of a flame war, which for my part was not. You can still see my response on the page, and an additional comment by user 204.153.84.10, who is clearly not objective and is hiding behind a number (who is this person?).

I was happy to discuss the matter with Lots42 further, but he has had a "knee-jerk" reaction as opposed to asking for more detail, which I would have given. On an aside, the comments stand - the edits were subjective POV, too conversational and lacked sources. This is not Wikipedia practice.

I also find J. Greb's comment to be in bad faith. The very title "Yup...again" says as much. I would like to kindly suggest that my fellow posters show both civility and good faith, which has not always been evident. This type of behaviour has been adminished by some of my peers, but unfortunately, seems to go unnoticed by moderators.

To conclude, I believe objectivity seems to have "left the building." There now appears to a small "lynch mob" that in Doczilla's own words is acting like a " probation officer waiting to bust him". I will make the odd mistake from time to time - as will everyone else - but this should not an opportunity for someone to instantly pounce. Look at the last dozen Edits I have made - have they improved Wikipedia or not?

I still like the idea of a "monitor" who can watch for any possible breaches. Both Doczilla and Netkinetic have shown objectivity and made valid comments in this capacity.

Asgardian

I can't imagine why Asgardian would say he's consulted an attorney, and place that information here, unless it were an attempt at intimidation. Implication doesn't rise to the level of threat as per WP:LEGAL, but that implication isn't without meaning, either. --Tenebrae 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Idiot, im no Sockpuppet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RealityTelevisionFan (talk • contribs)

Holy crap. I had the EXACT same thought as you about him being CreepyCrawler. Have you requested a Checkuser yet? ThuranX 20:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
And I think User:EndlessDesign might be another, he's editing categories ins the same way. ThuranX 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have done Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Creepy_Crawler_(2nd) the paper work for a second sock investigation, we'll see what occurs. ThuranX 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Dude, I would LOVE to help you and all of Wikipedia out but you dont want my help.

[edit] Talk:Pyrokinesis in fiction

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Pyrokinesis in fiction, by Sus scrofa (talk • contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Pyrokinesis in fiction fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

superfluous talk page


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Pyrokinesis in fiction, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Fictional"

Fair enough, if that is what the Comics project uses. Unfortunately, another editor used those two articles as justification for applying the same treatment to television characters, where it is not accepted. (Using "fictional history" when the character has already been identified as fictional is considered to be redundant.) Nevertheless, my apologies for the inconvenience. --Ckatzchatspy 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if someone adds "Fictional", it gets reverted in short order (and not just by the same editor). "Redundant" is one of the various explanations I've seen in the edit summaries. (It's certainly not a big deal - as I said, if 'Comics uses the term, that is their prerogative. It would probably help, though, to add a note as to why in the style guide. I found the term, but no explanation that it should be that way.) Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfD nomination of In-universe

I have nominated In-universe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Rocket000 01:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I appreciate the back up. What you wrote was pretty much what I told him on his discussion page. I told him if he had a reliable source, like maybe an interview with the writer at the time for example, that backed up the "warrior's death" claim, then the matter would be settled. Just placing EXACTLY and simply what the comics show, rather than trying to make it "classy" and "arty-farty" as he put it, makes the content virtually impossible to legitimately dispute.Odin's Beard 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Warrior's Death of Victor "Sabretooth" Creed

Logan, trained by none other than Ogun himself, followed the code of the Samurai in dealing out the killing strike to his oldest foe. While I, personally, am not a fan of the whole "Canadian Samurai" schtick that was given to Logan by Chris Claremont back in the fall of '82, it has over the years been given considerable wieght into the etymology of the character himself.

The honorable death that is dealt by the Samurai to his warrior foe has met at least four qualifications that are, in fact, given by the circumstances written and illustrated in WOLVERINE(vol. 3) #55.

~Vendetta: Two warriors are facing each other not over land or Lord, but a personal wrongdoing suffered by one member of the fight. (The Pathos of Silver Fox's death.)

~Defeat: The guilty party has been disarmed or otherwise rendered unable to continue the fight. The fight has ended before the killing blow. (Sabretooth is gravely wounded, and not of a clear mind.)

~Submission: The vanquished has accepted his defeat in the battle, and has decided not to fight to his death. He kneels before the victor. (Logan offers Sabretooth the chance to fight for his life. Creed stays his ground, bows, and allows Logan to kill him.)

~Death dealt swiftly: Beheadding by the sword. The killing strike is of that which is granted to kings... or warriors. The highest honorable death. (Logan, without hesitation, decapitates Creed, ensuring his death.)

These warrior ideals were held by both the Japanese as well as the Chinese, as written by Sun Tzu, of which Logan was well versed by Ogun. It is not a matter of whether or not Creed was deserving of this honor... after all, it's safe to say Logan didn't have a warm spot in his heart for the bloodthirsty psychopath that has caused him so much pain in his life. Rather this is the code by which Logan fights.

The honor granted is from his noble victory of the fight: The fight is ended with one movement (one slice of the Muramas Blade removes Creed's right arm at the shoulder). Death is dealt with one movement (one slice of the Muramasa Blade decapitates Creed). not at all like any other fight that has ever occurred between them.

Logan granted Victor Creed a warrior's death, because it was the honorable thing to do. So would burial, but he has done enough favors for Creed today.

I don't understand how factual innacuracy is favoured over a hyper-critical obsession with one's interperetation of the "Point of View" clause, which is my real peeve in this discussion. The standing article is frought with blatant factual errors of the events of the issue (as previously pointed out with Odin). Nonetheless, it stands in the article, favoured over a possible dispute with the dreaded wikiscourge: "Point of View". It's as if POV, Wikipedia's most ambiguous rule, trumps any other trespass. I am not allowed to quote dialog directly, so I must interperet what has transpired to be written in the article. How can that be accomplished without some degree of artistic license? Is the notion of Creed dying a warrior's death so hard to fathom when reading that issue? Is it, really?

Is it the very concept of a warrior's death that you have no understanding of, rather than Wikipedia policy?

"Can I site a source for my claim?" I believe was your question. Is several hundred years of Samurai history, which mirrored the events in question, good enough?

I appreciate your interest in the article's development. Please let me know what you think.

Thanks, Doczilla.FA Shotgun 01:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you the same thing that I just told Odin: I do not recognize your qualifications to determine the POV rule in Wikipedia. In the future, if you feel the need to edit a statement I make, then refer it to the proper authorites to be judged in commitee. You alone are incapable of determining POV as far as I'm concerned. Is that clear enough for you? I'm finished here. There is no fun in debating with you any longer.FA Shotgun 17:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Strange

Thanks, Doc. You speak straight and clear as always. Let's keep an eye out for Jargonmaster ... er. Legobrickmaster! --Tenebrae 00:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I am sorry about the whole talk page thing. When you leave a message on my user page could you please give it a headline thank-you.The K.O. King 23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheesh!

I put it the headline there because you didn't put one there last time I do understand that you do not want to put a new headline for the same subject but last time you didn't put one on there that's what I'm talking about.--The K.O. King 02:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing to do with that

But your discussion had nothing to do with Hulk!--The K.O. King 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I get it know. I was just confused for a while.--The K.O. King 02:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hulk vs. Superman

It's me again just out of curiosity who do think would in a fight between the Hulk and Superman and why?--The K.O. King 02:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talkpage

SORRY I thought that since this was a user page I could talk about anything SHEESH!!!!!--The K.O. King 02:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kal-L

I just got done telling another user about blatant reverting; I'm assuming you only disagreed with my section change of "Fictional character history" to "Character history" and my de-italisizing of the Crisis titled sections? I'll tell you why I did these: I changed that first section title because I assumed that it was about his past in the comic story. When I re-read this, I was incorrect in doing that edit. Second, I de-italisised the Crisis sections because it looks unencyclopedic to me but perhaps there is a guideline to support that too? I now see what I did wrong, but you didn't have to prove your point by reverting everything I added to the page, like the missing categories. Is there another comic guideline I should be aware of besides WP:CMC/X? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, no offense but don't try to deny this. And about the exemplar, I was correcting the redirects and removed the {{Reflist}} there. If you notice the line at Superman: "...is a DC Comics superhero widely considered to be both one of the most famous and popular comic book superheroes of all time..." I was reflecting it upon that update, including the refs. What is the problem with that addition on the exemplar? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your name is Doczilla, is it not? If you don't mind, I prefer to do all my edits all at once. BTW, does Kal-L have every single ability Kal-El has (including accelerated healing and eidetic memory)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Got it. I'll explain the best I can in my edit summaries from here on. I'm not directing this to anyone, but I just wish people wouldn't be lazy and just go through what needs to be edited manually. I asked about the Kal-L powers because I'm trying to sort out the categories on the page and confirm if those are the ones that notably suit him. Are they for the most part correct or should any unnotable ones be taken out? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Two last questions: is there a section in WP:MOS that claims that headers/sub-headers should not be spaced, as you did here? What other categories notably suit the Green Lantern? I thought he could turn intangible also. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, regarding this, I was told that if I can explain my all changes in the edit summary then I won't get reverted. In case you're wondering, I did not add the intangibility cat., but placed the ones where Green Lantern gets the powers from the ring. And since there is no policy that says "don't make a mass amount of edits all in one time", I'm going to have to report you and J Greb (and possibly others) to WP:AN/I since the two of you (mostly you) are enforcing me to only do "minour edits" at a time because you refuse to edit the ones needed to be corrected manually and decide to undo everything per any single thing you disagree with. This is quite concerning, you should also see WP:OWN. I will take this to WP:AN/I since you guys keep reverting all of my other good faith edits. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru has indeed taken this to AN/I, here. ThuranX 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, meant no ill will. I was doing it in a bit of a rush because I had to leave home, and now I have a project to work at my desk. I did, however, say I was going to report this case at WP:AN/I, did I not? Well, you could have read my latest edits. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought it ended. Wasn't the conclusion that I'd spark a discussion on talk pages from now on? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: The AN/I discussion is now archived: [4]. Doczilla 18:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional substances

No problem. My stumbling across it was pure luck - I have Hiding's page on my watchlist and as he has been quiet around the project I check out anything that seems relevant and the poster of the AfDs was complaining about comments there and as I nosed around I kept finding more and more and realised that a big slice of related articles were up for deletion. They are not within our core remit but comics form a good percentage of them so I thought it worth flagging. (Emperor 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

I'm glad you do. There are 5 or 6 of you who I see that help keep an eye on the comic's-related articles. While that's great, it does go to show how Hiding is surely missed. - jc37 19:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On your reporting to admins

Yes well that needed saying - there are ways to resolve conflicts before taking it to the admins. People pointing fingers at three editors of good standing should always ask themselves if the problem might be closer to home before starting the ball rolling. (Emperor 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for weighing in on the AN/I discussion about WesleyDodds, J Greb, and myself.[5] That was so weird. Your remarks meant a lot to me, and I greatly appreciated them. Doczilla 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. While in the past you and I have disagreed on "form" or "implementation", I've never found you to be anything like what you were accused of. The best line (to me) was:
"I was doing it in a bit of a rush because I had to leave home, and now I have a project to work at my desk. "
Soooo.... In such a rush, that they didn't have time to leave a talk page response, but he was able to place an WP:AN/I notice, all those links and everything... riiight. (There is some bolded text on WP:AGF which comes to mind...)
Anyway, things "hopefully" seem to have worked out. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 19:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and though I saw a lot of links, I never saw the discussion I was thinking of, it's here. Note Hiding's comments in particular. - jc37 20:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And thanks again

Wow! Thank you very much. I know that there are a few editors who disdain barnstars and the like, but I've value them very much. (Compare to getting a "star" in class from your favourite teacher, or any other situation where those you respect show some sign of appreciation.) So anyway, thanks again : ) - jc37 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd never been much into giving the barnstars, not out of any disdain for them (gosh, no -- I certainly like the couple I've gotten) but more because I've always felt like, "Who am I to decide single-handedly what somebody should receive?"
I just spent two months barely editing in Wikipedia because I've just been really busy gathering data (including some at Comic-Con), and then only a day or two after getting back into the Wikipedian swing of things, I run into the kind of thing that just makes me wonder why I mess with this. The thing resolved itself quickly. The facts spoke for themselves. I really appreciated those of you who stumbled onto the discussion and offered your insights -- all of which made me think that I really shouldn't wait until something like this to make sure people know how highly I think of them. All the best - Doczilla 08:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've given out a few myself. Though I don't give out many because I tend to place more value upon them. (If I gave several out every day, I don't think that they would be as cherished, but maybe so, dunno.) And I resemble the remark about RL cutting in to Wikipedia time. In a few minutes I need to get moving myself : ) - As for "Stumbling across it", I tend to do a lot of reading of editors' contribution histories. You'd be amazed at how well that keeps you informed of what's "going on" both in WikiProjects, project pages, but even mainspace/talk space discussions. (Further note on that in another section below.) Anyway, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 09:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship process

Thanks for the comment - I respect your decision to remain neutral at this point in time. I made a response on the nomination page if you care to address it. Cheers! Wisdom89 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

The Original Barnstar
I award you this for your thoughtful, responsible editing, your diligence against vandalism, and your articulate comments in talk-page disputes. Congratulations from my humble self. --Tenebrae 06:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I second this : ) - jc37 08:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The

And btw, considering your edits to the List of powers page, the "the"s actually needed to be removed, rather than just lower case. That's already been done on The Drummer (Drummer (comics) - though there is a difference between the character and the publication - I am confused by the reference on the powers page), and you may be surprised at who is suggesting it for the The Tick. - jc37 09:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

thanks for the barnstar, it's nice to know people notice my efforts! ThuranX 11:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Also thanks...

For the Comics Star. - J Greb 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the Amalgam characters

Here's my source:

[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 10:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batman

It's partly because I've been having a difficult week on Wikipedia overall (which is odd because I rarely get into disputes), but I'm becoming frustrated and fed up with the problems over at Batman. My goal was initially to bring the article up to modern FA standards using what I've learned working on other articles. I feel like I'm hitting a brick wall and it's hard for me to see the point in continued discussion on changes I feel dillute the article. I personally feel that few of the true issues with comics articles on Wikipedia are being addressed, and while I've put a lot of work into referencing and reworking the page to make it an example of what comics articles should be, right now I feel like I should just walk away from this article for a while.

Right now for my own piece of mind (and because I feel that my comments this week on Wikipedia talk pages have been crabbier than I'd prefer--this post included), I'm only going to focus on an article I promised I would get to FA by the end of the month (Joy Division) as well as the articles I pledged to work on at the Comics noticeboard talk page (Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and so forth) for the forseeable future. Thanks for your kind words of encouragement, and I hope to be more agreeable sometime soon. WesleyDodds 04:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star

Thanks - much appreciated. (Emperor 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Hulk

can you please review my sandbox version of an improved, cited, Out of Universe based Hulk article? I have a couple bits after the refs section to finish integrating, but a review would be appreciated. link Thanks. ThuranX 20:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[7] that's the newest version. It's got all the info, all the cites, more active voice, less verbosity (I deleted a whole bunch of hte incidental stuff about the artist' careers which had been in there, that was carry-over from the old version I started from, but that belongs on their pages), and I re-read it for clarity. I think it reads far smoother and more encyclopedically than the current version. Please give me feedback, if only a pat on the back.(As to the size and edit summary for that version, I stripped out all other projects, so it's ONLY the new Hulk article.) ThuranX 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardly picky, it's well needed. You say that's the only thing. You think it's read for a bold move?ThuranX 04:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. peep over sometime... I'm going to ask tenebrae, Alientraveller and Erik to look, then take it to the public. ThuranX 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speed Demon

Doc, could you take a look if possible. Tenebrae is insisting on his version, but it breaks with convention in that he wants to place all referencing and most information in PH. Definately not the norm.

Asgardian 18:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you really want to get dragged into that mess? Wryspy 07:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD contribution

Hi there - just wondering whether you really meant to say "delete per nom" when the nominator was seeking a rename? Here's the discussion. Regards, BencherliteTalk 01:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, blame me! I jumped off the cliff and you followed! // FrankB 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your information

I think that you're a great editor, and decidedly an asset to WikiProject comics (and Wikipedia in general). I remember you heavily involved with CfD when I was more heavily involved there.

You're often involved in reverting vandalism, and in dispute resolution. (Though I think there are times you share a similar bit of "frustration level" that I discussed with J Greb.)

Though you're opinionated, you're open to discussion, and usually stay more than civil, etc etc etc.

In other words, a good Wikipedian in nearly every sense of the word.

So... This is me asking if you'd be interested in becoming an administrator.

Anyway, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 04:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought. It certainly makes me wonder how other people might feel if I were nominated for adminship. Doczilla 07:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but you've allayed my concerns for the most part : )
Let me know what you decide. Also, if he doesn't know already, I'll be mentioning this to Hiding, as well. - jc37 02:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'd probably vote for you. You're all over CfD and AfD, so that's a plus, you've got experience settling disputes. I don't know how up on bigger Wikipedia issues you are, like the WP:EL debates, and some related issues, but overall, I'd probably be willing to support you. Any GA or FA articles? ThuranX 04:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think GA and FA article creation is the linchpin of RFA that it may have been at one time in the past. Though it's still applauded. - jc37 05:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't posit it as a mandate, but it's certainly the core of the project, creating great articles, so I asked. As to your clarifications, Sounds great, you WOULD have my support if you move forward, and in fact, I'd be honored to do the nom if you want, and if non-admins can make such noms. Finally, I often forget your real-world qualifications, and wish you luck with those projects. ThuranX 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Doc, the 'mandate' was in response to jc37's comment about it being a lynchpin. I was trying to clarify that I didn't see it as a hoop to be jumped through, nor mandatory line in the CV of anyone applying to be an admin. I do, however, see intimate knowledge of the process as being an incredibly huge asset. Frankly, I'm really hopeful that my Hulk rewrite will be GA quality. ThuranX 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You'd have at least one additional supporter if you were to choose to be a candidate. John Carter 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "COI"

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using that term. I think of it a lot because I'm very conscious of the potential for it. We all have conflicts of interest, and it's unrealistic to think we can avoid them all. For example, if you get asked to weigh in on a Request for Comment about someone with whom you once butted heads, that doesn't mean you should recuse yourself from saying anything because of the potential that your view might be a little skewed, not when your information is needed. Some problems just aren't clear enough for outside parties to understand what's going on, and therefore those of us involved must take action even though we might be biased. We just have to make sure to question our own motives and to analyze the possibility that we might not see as clearly as we should, and then we must do our best to either (1) distance ourselves from some areas where we might not be as objective because of personal reasons or (2) think carefully about the ones we stay involved in. (An admin, I think, needs to stick with option 1 whenever possible so he/she can maintain credibility in all the situations where option 2 is simply unavoidable.) Doczilla 05:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A valid perspective. (And thank you. You saved me from writing out something similar : ) - jc37 06:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I always try to stick to (1) but end up doing (2) a lot. That's why I stick to just deleting prods now, and even that I find at times more trouble than it's worth. If such things were allowed, I'd transfer my admin powers to you, but they aren't, and anyway, they're handy for editing. ;) I got to be an admin back in the days when that mattered. I'd be happy to co-nominate you if you wanted to run, and I haven't cracked your secret identity. Regarding conflict of interest, Phil seems to manage ok, although he had controversial moments at (what I'm inflating by referring to as) the "height of his powers", and I guess he's in something of a similar position. Hiding Talk 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and as for frustration, I tend to get frustrated a lot too. I don't think it has to be an issue, depending on how you deal with it. I'm not convinced I know how to do that, but then I'm not convinced anyone does. Hiding Talk 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I was as much serious as I was joking when I offered the transfer, sometimes they are more trouble than they're worth. Like you say, you can't get involved in something you're laready involved with, but I've found when you ask for help there's the old tumbleweed effect. There are certain users I would have just indeffed a long time ago, but I don't believe that's the way it's meant to be. And when you're an admin people find as many ways as possible to misinterpret every word you say, so I don't think it really matters. For a while I adopted the persona of an 18th century dandy, but that got a little boring. Now I just write it five times until even I'm not sure what I mean, and then hit save. Working on weak points is good, but I've found some people will find any excuse to oppose. I'm sure we had one troll who hung on rfa for a while opposing for inane reasons such as user has no edits to the category talk page. Anyway, take it easy, and you're right. There's no rush. And what's VP? Hiding Talk 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See, I'd never pass an rfa now, god knows what that says about me. I sometimes think us admins are supposed to embody the spirit of Wikipedia as was when we passed, just to sort of, I don't know, kind of like how the House of Lords used to work here, you'd have this sort of check on the processes that was completely insane and counter-intuitive, but 99 times out of 100 or better got it right. Still, enough about my mad world, I'm off to see another process I can avoid. God I hated taking a turn at recent changes. Hiding Talk 20:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 in comics

I was prepared to give you a tad more time, but since you hadn't edited 2000 in comics for more than an hour (having tea, perhaps?), I've moved it to User:Doczilla/2000 in comics where it'll be out of reach of those too eager to smack db-tags onto new pages. When it's ready just move it back. Resurgent insurgent 00:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italicized headers

Just a heads up Doc...

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings, last bullet: italic text for emphasis is discouraged, not prohibited, but it may be used when a title is used.

And COIE is a bugger since the title of the series is used to reference the in-universe event, same as Identity Crisis and Infinite Crisis. In these cases the same tag is not generally used by the characters, unlike "Secret Wars" or "Zero Hour". Even then, since the headers are supposed to be written with real world context, if the section is referencing a specific series, that should be italicized as any other comic book title.

- J Greb 15:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hi, Doc. I'm not canvassing or anything, but alerting just you, as a fellow editor who's had long dealing with Asgardian, that you might want to comment at what has at last gone into arbitration, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comic_book_characters. If you want, let others know. --Tenebrae 12:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Doc, forgive me for butting in, I've seen your comments at Tenebrae's talk page, and whilst I agree in part, there is the scope to demonstrate a pattern within an arb-com case, simply by pulling together the edit history to demonstrate behaviour. There are also other aspects that can be brought up if a case is opened, but to do that the case needs to be opened. Hiding Talk 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, I misread you. The arbitration actually might be a good thing, if a case opens, because then we might see probationary clauses placed on people which would then help define the issue in the future. I see where you're going, and it's certainly another tack to try. Hiding Talk 18:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe in my gut that things have reached a saturation point, and that there's concern throughout WikiProject Comics' regular editors and admins. I think if enough people step forward and comment that a positive change will take place. I don't think hope is misplaced. --Tenebrae 03:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Doc, I read your comments. What can I say? I feel it is a vast overreaction by several users who have lost their objectivity (here I don't include you or Neil, whom I worked together with on a page). Hiding lost his obj. sometime ago - just look at Blood Brothers. JGreb has almost always been snide. Tenebrae? Well? He's overly melodramatic (phrases such as "My God" and "I'm so tired..." ) and likes to play the martyr if he feels he's been wronged. The problem here is that with the exception of Neil no one invloved in the Arbitration is fit to judge anymore, and will jump on the anti-Asgardian bandwagon if they perceive the slightest faux pas, whether it is real or not. This is where they all failed - they first assumed then forgot civility. Not one of them could acknowledge the good work done recently, such as the compromise on Awesome Android. Very disappointing.

I'm getting better, and would be better still with some civility.

Asgardian 04:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

True. I agree. At its' most basic, the point of contention with Tenebrae seems to be the PH. Neither he nor anyone else really has any issue with my adding images or rewriting poor FCB. Perhaps we should start there.

Asgardian 06:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Asgardian is unrepentant to the last. Why am I not surprised? This could have been resolved months ago, but then he's never been interested in working collaboratively. If there's any doubt of that, one need only to look at his new tactic: legal threats. It's an unwelcome addition to an already odious editing history. --GentlemanGhost 08:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I was simply making people aware of the fact that they need to be careful with what they say. And - an already odious editing history - what is this? This is provocative, immature and incorrect. This is EXACTLY the kind of behaviour that needs to stop. Very disappointing.

Asgardian 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Doc, and thank you for, as always, a calm and to-the-point analysis. I agree I can use language more emotive than neutral at times, and I even agree with Asgardian I can be little bit melodramatic when extremely frustrated or tired, though not to the stage of incivility. There's only one regular editor who brings that out, and it's the same one who brings out the frustrated tendencies of a very large number of other contributors.
It might not hurt to copy your comments from my talk page, or an adapted version, to the discussion Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comic_book_characters. And thank you again for taking the time to analyze and comment; this isn't easy or pleasant for any of us, I know. --Tenebrae 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar. I am a believer in WP:WAF and always looking for story arcs with real world-relevance. —Onomatopoeia 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

Ouch. I'm looking at Category:Comics-related lists and Category:Lists of superheroes and I'm thinking that there's some culling needs to be done. Have you got any thoughts, i.e. is it woth it? I don't really want to do a block listing, since you get the odd list everyone wants to keep and it muddies the issue. Ack. Hiding Talk 19:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It's because it is a redirect. I didn't realise it happened in categories, but when you call up the special page which lists all pages, Special:Allpages redirects are shown in italics. Hiding Talk 22:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's up.

I've placed a link in the Hulk talk; tomorrow night I expect to put it up, unless there's major objection. ThuranX 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

almost all those are done now. I have to fix that dangling sentence, whic hwas where 'the Maestro' stuff goes, and find a couple sources, I guess. ThuranX 05:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Forsources, how about [8]? not perfect though... I'm having a hell of a time finding a better cite. Clearly there's bad blood, per my first find, but beyond that... ThuranX 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC) The John byrne creative differences on teh new Hulk series. I can't find a thing online. Maybe I'll have to root through the edit history of the current article. blech. ThuranX 06:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Both cites found, I'll finish that Maestro thing after work. ThuranX 12:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maestro done, you changes all done or addressed, tenebrae's all done or addressed. I asked for comment a day ago, I've got you, tenebrae, Alientraveller, J Greb, Erik all behind it. think I should put it up? ThuranX 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation? You want Citation?

I got yer SI-tay-shin right here, bucko.

that's marvel's new line-up, they're usign the 'origins' term. It was cited at the entry on the films page at one point, I thought ,but i guess it's gone again, LOL. ThuranX 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert on Forer effect

You say that the Forer Effect and Subjective Validation are related but not the same thing so it doesn't warrant bold text on subjective validation. Try typing in subjective validation in the search box and see what page you get taken to. Therefore, I just made it bold for the purpose of making it easier to find on that page for those users who actually typed in subjective validation. SWik78 03:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

The Original Barnstar
For all your work here. Your help on my rewrite, and your careful entry at the Arbcase for Tenebrae and Asgardian. (who I almost referred to as "T and A".)ThuranX 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Brook-right Romero left.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Brook-right Romero left.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --OrphanBot 09:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:SpamCop

Hi. Would you please review your comments in Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:SpamCop, given the fact that Category:SpamCop had existed for a long time, since before creation logging, per this log? Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:LSMR-401 class landing ship mediums

Given your participation in this October 30 discussion, you may be interested to know that the involved categories have been renominated. The new discussion can be found here. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some RFA spam

Thankyou for supporting my successful rfa which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. Woodym555 14:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:AFD Closure

At Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Closing_an_Afd, there is some discussion over the question of how you can close the Princess Frederica AfD if you're not an administrator. Since the discussion is about you, I felt you should know. Doczilla 03:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, it's always helpful to get pointers from the community. Rudget zŋ 11:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I've reviewed your contributions and would be delighted to offer you a nomination for RFA. Would you be willing to accept? Rudget zŋ 18:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marvel Zombies (homage covers) deletion announcement

Sorry about that, I didn't realize I was breaking any rules. I listed the nomination on the noticeboard as well. I wanted to give anyone who wanted to be involved in the debate as much chance to see what had been done as possible. Once again sorry if I overstepped my bounds. Stephen Day 08:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Admin nomination

Thank you for your offer to nominate me for admin status. It is very gratifying. What's particularly gratifying is that you're the sixth person to raise this issue with me in the last week and a half. I'm definitely considering it, although for the last 24 hours I've been clearly inclined to say no. If I accept a nomination, though, it will have to wait a little bit. (1) Despite the massive amount of editing I've done in the last week, I actually need to cut back for a couple of weeks because I need to finish writing a textbook chapter before Thanksgiving. (2) I want to take this month and next month to work on what I consider to be my weak points, getting to know Wikipedia policies even better and working in areas where I haven't done much work. For example, prior to this month, I'd made a grand total of one image edit -- ever. (3) I'm really not sure about becoming an administrator. Right now, I get to pick and choose when I try to help people resolve disputes. As an admin, I'd have a responsibility to get involved in some hairy messes which won't be fun to crowd my brain with.

I see that you'd like to become an administrator. May I ask why? For yourself as an individual human being, how should the advantages of using admin tools outweigh the grief that can go with them? Doczilla 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's quite alright [regarding the nomination thanks], you do deserve to be an administator. I'm sure that waiting a little bit would be of no matter, it will only further your demonstration to !voters in your RfA (if it goes ahead) that you should be a sysop. The fact that you say

"Right now, I get to pick and choose when I try to help people resolve disputes. As an admin, I'd have a responsibility to get involved in some hairy messes which won't be fun to crowd my brain with".

, to me, shows that you have contemplated the issues you will come across, and by doing so will have already thought of the right reprimands for vandal users. Your experience here at the wiki, is unbelievable, and this co-inciding with your anticipation of what will happen, to me, shows you have a greater understanding of Wikipedia policies than many more users who are admins now. And yes, I would like to be an admin, but that's neither here nor there now, I've learnt from that experience at RfA, and I'll probably wait until I'm nominated way down the line, in February/March or something. But my reasons for becoming an administrator aren't for all the glamour and hype that surrounds them, nor the powers that they inevitably will have, but the moral and indepedent responsibility of each and every admin has: a duty to protect Wikipedia from users who are here to cause trouble through the many ways possible. The grief from the users, mainly IPs (as I'm sure you already know) is undoubtedly the biggest rationale for some admins leaving Wikipedia, you just have to retain your cool, stay well-balanced, and become level-headed and bold in your actions. I'm not sure whether the admin tools do really outweigh it because it's would seem to be like an MP without any supporters, just opponents. And what shall you do?, please your own party? or another that has the opposition and support they need? I'm pleasantly optimistic that you will become an admin this time, because you truly do deserve be one, and I would be honoured to nominate a user such as yourself. Regards, Rudget zŋ 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
So you gonna let me nom you? :) Rudget zŋ 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)#
Okay, well thanks for replying back. It's only in order, though there will be many co-noms! :) Rudget zŋ 12:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambrose Chase

Based on WP:WAF and WP:FICT, as well as WP:PLOT and WP:V I redirected Ambrose Chase back to Planetary (comics). To my mind there's no real need at this stage for an article on a bit-part character in a minor series to receive an article, especially not one with no outside sources and which simply summarises the plot of the comics. Someone has challenged that redirect, and I'd appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Ambrose Chase. Hiding Talk 15:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the images cats...

Mostly I'm using "common sense" and what I've seen happen on CfD (ie - I haven't seen an actual codified "Guideline" page).

Basically I'm using the following criteria/questions:

  1. Is the image comics derived or spin of derived? So, comic art from Batman Strikes1 would be lumped with screen shots and art for the show, not the parent "Batman images" cat.
  2. Which company owns/licensed the character(s) depicted? Fairly self explanatory, and yields things like Batman/Aliens getting properly lumped with both DC and Dark Horse material.
  3. Is it a cover as published or just the art? This is a nomenclature issue with me, if some thing is called a "cover" it should appear as it would on the newsstand: logo, copy, price "box", trade dress, UPC box, etc. (This is also why I'll replace cover art with covers if they were uploaded and are used as "cover" instead of "promotional or cover art".)
  4. Is the image part of a substantial group of related images? So a Joker & Luthor panel would be a "DC Comics image", but just the Joker would be a "Batman image". I'm doing this for two reasons:
    1. To make the cats manageable. If they are small enough, and editor can use an edit preview to see all the images and if a particular one they want is there.
    2. To have cats that are proof against "Too little material/too little room for growth" deletion arguments.
  5. Character/team wise, which category is the primary fit for the image? I've had a slight back and forth on this with TAnthony. I'm leery of taking an art image into all the potential cats it would reside in. The last examples I gave him would be catting an art piece of the current JLA line up or the original 5 Teen Titans. Either image winds up with half a dozen or more cats based on characters as well as team groupings.
    We did hit a compromise of sorts with the covers though: Grouping anthologies that are not intrinsically tied to a character/team in self-named cats if there are enough images in use and add the "Covers from Character related titles" to the appropriate individual images.
  6. Does the television/film cap fit in a character cat other than the primary focus of the show? An example would be the Superman image fro The Batman. Primary catting puts it in the "The Batman screenshots and pictures" cat, but it also so into the current "Superman images" cat. (My final intent would be that the Superman cat would have a "Superman television show screenshots and pictures" sub like the Batman cat. The Batman image would slot in there.)

I'm also striving for a consistency in cat naming:

  • Company images - "DC Comics image", "Marvel Comics images", etc
  • Company comic book covers - "DC comic book covers", "Marvel comic book covers", etc
  • Character/Team images
  • Covers from Character/Team related titles - With Captain Marvel being a slight exception for the need of a company qualifier.
  • Character film screenshots and pictures
  • Character television show screenshots and pictures
  • Show/Film screenshots and pictures - Depending on the amount of collected images from the film/show and the amount in the potential parent.

I've been thinking about taking this and placing it as a guide line, but... First, I'm not really sure where it should be placed. And second, it's pretty much just myself and, to a lesser degree, TAnthony that are playing around with it. I'm leery of coming off dictatorial or ownerish... - J Greb 16:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Category talk headers

Hey man, I think I owe you an apology first; sorry for whatever made you think negatively of me. And concerning the talk headers, maybe I should have asked about that before acting, however, they looked erroneously placed. Aren't they really for articles? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to know from you which categories really need talkheaders, if possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I may do just that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Image cats...

Not sure if you noticed Doc, but I responded to you post on my talk... (hrm... I may need to add that banner...) - J Greb 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And a massive Homer moment... (BIG 'doh at noting the reply was on your talk...)
As far as the Category: Comics creator image needed... the project header already has a "Needs-image" parameter. It may be a case that we need to add a photo specific one like the Bio header that feeds directly to a cat. It may seem redundant, but it allows us to separate needing a photo of the person and an image of works. - J Greb 18:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment about Problem

Hi Doczilla, can you please take a look this discussion in reference to images that were uploaded from WWII in Color website, the copyright status is in question and there have been many users who are part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft who are upset about the Wiki Policy about image licensing WP:IUP. Thank you! -TabooTikiGod 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asgardian

When did Asgardian make the claim that he was disrupting for a school project? I don't recall hearing that one before. Hiding Talk 14:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No one

QUOTE:Maybe you're doing this in error, intending to replace something else, but please stop replacing no one in various articles with something that isn't the same thing. Doczilla 19:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for you attention. I am not changing no one as an unintentional result of trying to replace something else. I am a native English speaker born and raised in the United States. I believe that noöne IS the same thing, only better, but I will stop because you asked me to. People would write English with dieresis marks if our educational systems were better. I am trying to raise awareness.

I did not realize I had been asked to stop until your second message, so I did not intend to ignore you or the other user.Sometimes somethings (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ears burning

Ah, it was a Finger exercise!  :-)   --Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting old, empty categories

You can just tag them with {{db-catempty}}. The only hard part is there's really no way to tell how long it's been empty ... it's supposed to be at least four days. If it's more than a week old, and still empty its probably fine. Please don't take this as a criticism, I've done exactly the same thing. -- Prove It (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Doczilla! 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. βcommand 17:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I interrupted my wiki-break to test VP with some edits now that I finally have it. Doczilla (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heh

I figured it would throw people completely if all of a sudden someone called Hiding started butting in to Hiding's conversations, so I'll figure I'll run with this until Christmas, when I should have some time to attempt to go back and update 5000 or so talk page sigs. I was amazed the name was not taken, to be honest. Hiding T 11:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah. I had planned on usurping a different name, even to the point of listing it, and just after I listed I thought, it's a shame someone is using hiding because, really that's what I'm doing, and it'd be a bit of a bad pun. (We like bad puns in my house) And so on the off chance I checked and found no-one else was hiding there. To be honest, I wasn't prepared for the odd feeling I get when I see myself logged in as User:Hiding, it is a refreshing sort of liberty, coupled with a different license. I've always identified on the internet as me, and now that I'm not I think there is something in the research that suggests people are more likely to disassociate when using pseudonyms on the internet. So if I go crazy, we know what to put it down to. :) Hiding T 11:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WPMED tagging

I've requested further guidance about tagging categories as being supported by WPMED. You are invited to join the discussion at this location.

Part of my motivation is due to a technical problem: There is no "cat" class article in the WPMED template. Therefore everything you've marked as Cat-class is turning up in the list of unassessed pages at this link -- which was already a couple of thousand pages long before all of these categories appeared in the list.

Oh, and here's the requested reminder about your deadlines and the dangers of any addictive behavior.  ;-)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for help : )

Please see talk page for more information. - jc37 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And to keep User:Horologium company as the only non-admin : ) - jc37 00:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, 00:01 - I don't think I could have done that if I tried : ) - jc37 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buscema

Unasked for, perhaps, but appreciated, always!

I think I'm in trouble — I've expanded into a TV entry. But Mel Tolkin died and he didn't have an article! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that, bro'.
You're one of the good ones! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References - Reflist

I don't think this is an appropriate bot edit.[9] As Template:Reflist says there is no consensus that it should always be used. Haukur (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There's also no consensus that it shouldn't. To refrain from including it in AWB edits would be impractical. If you think it's incorrect, you should address it with the programmer of AWB. Doczilla (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You are yourself responsible for your own edits. But I don't terribly mind if you include this in AWB edits that do something valuable (like fixing typos). What I mean is that you shouldn't make edits whose only purpose is to make this change. Haukur (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You won't be the only person to think that, I'm sure, so I will keep it in mind (even though I still say that anybody who cares enough to complain about that particular change should voice the complaint an AWB programmer). When AWB pings an article for nothing but that, it is appropriate for me to look for anything else worth editing instead of just clicking Save, though. I really don't care about the reflist format myself. I just feel it will help others if I do what I can to keep AWB from stopping at an article every time any uses AWB for a group that includes that article. Fair enough? Doczilla (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As long as you keep in mind that there is a small but real cost to every edit you make and if you make a whole lot of them then it starts accumulating into something significant. To me the most important cost is in clogging up watchlists and page histories. Haukur (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
And leaving it unedited clogs things for AWB users. Doczilla (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And this one is definitely not appropriate.[10] Note Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use, in particular "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space". Haukur (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One for the future

I've just noticed Letter column red links. There must be the sources to get a decent little article on this topic up and running, and I thought you might be someone to ask where to scope them out. Might be a nice little one to get featured at some point, if we get a team together. Hiding T 10:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Obviously I meant comic book letter columns too. Ta. I'm sure Goulart or... Dennis Gibbons? may have done something, they've looked at the culture. It's one to keep on the back burner in a sandbox. I'll scope about too. Cheers Doc. Hiding T 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noted

Thanks, Doc. I'll amend that. One of those articles where a good image is notoriously hard to find. Plenty of shots of Superman with Mjolnir and Cap's shield, but that doesn't reflect the two teams.

By the by, your input would be appreciated on the current "vol" debate at Exemplars. A thorny one indeed!

Asgardian 01:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oh

Oh. I see. I tried reading it, but with all the Wikicode in there, it was really hard to read. I thought there was a verb in there. Anakinjmt 01:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amalgam apology

All apologies. I missed the discussion entirely as I'm not in the Comics project and just happened upon one edit which led me to your edit list and questions for which I did not have answers. Also, my word choice at 2am is apparently not optimal. - Dravecky 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed

Yes. A bit of both on that outcome. Still can't believe it got taken to that level given the work I've put in over the last few months, but so be it. No one seems to have real issues with my edits of late. Glad I can still contribute, as every article I touch up only seems to open the door onto a dozen others...

Asgardian 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madame Sapphire

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Sapphire_%28comics%29&diff=175318739&oldid=174811544

Erm... why?--Marhawkman (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Anna Clark

You may want to revisit the AfD in view of the citation count I found. DGG (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amalgam

Actually, I don't care about the Amalgam characters at all, I just didn't realize what you were doing until I had reverted a few.  ;) 24.148.15.188 (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Amalgam

You're quite welcome. It is a tough, complicated issue. I've tried being fair and objective. It's something I know I need to work on here, and I was trying my best to come across that way. Nice to know my efforts are being noticed. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding Amalgam characters and there removal

I don't know about the other characters and intially I thought it was a hoax when someone added it to the Emma Frost page however I recently payed a visit to my local comic book store and found that this is not a hoax. Emma Frost was called the White Whip in an Amalgam comic in an issue called Generation Hex (June 1997). I believe this occured during the Marvel/DC Amalgam Crossover.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1977/generationhex00hh9.jpg http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/8502/generationhex06ee1.jpg86.43.171.190 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be really spiffy if you would hold off on removing all the Amalgam characters until discussion on the topic is actually concluded. Reverting changes and pointing to older consensus' is kinda disruptive and edit-warring. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I can understand that, but seeing as we are in discussion with how to treat Amalgam entries, might it not be prudent to hold off an wait? I don;t see the consensus pointing towards removing any notation of them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Er you maybe have posted in my talk page before reading the above; this is my response to what you posted. You are actually participating in the discussion where we are seriously discussing revising that policy. Going ahead and removing all of the entries with a bot doesn't seem a bit less than open-minded to you at all? Are you aware that others might see it as 'doing whatever the hell you want, despite what gets worked out'? Honestly, i don't think you are like that, Doc, but reverting all the Amalgam entries whist conversation is ongoing about an alternative method to address them is in discussion can easily be perceive as less than genuine. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sooo... Busy?

I'm asking because I have an idea for a new (rather necessary) guidelines page, and would like some help. Basically, I'm looking for someone knowledgeable with categories, CfD, lists, template navboxes/series boxes, and with fictional topics (characters, locations, and things).

Sound like anyone you know? : ) - jc37 01:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JLU's Detective Chimp

You removed the mention of Detective Chimp's appearance in the comic Justice League Unlimited saying it to be merely an appearance. You do know that the comic is based on the Animated Show Justice League Unlimited. It's not a mainstream appearance, thus I believe it qualifies as other versions does it not? Antiyonder (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, he is the focus character of the issue (rather than a cameo), which I believes justifies mention of the issue. Antiyonder (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I get that, but another member of the comic project told me that it does count because he appeared in a comic based off the cartoon, not the cartoon itself. In order for it to be other media it has to be TV/Movie/Video Games, not comic. Besides, was deleting it necessary when you could have retitled it? Antiyonder (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
But, the animated continuities portray the characters a bit differently, so it's not the same exact character. Deadman for instances, had his origin connected with the Batman cast when his comic book origin didn't. Linda Park in her Justice League appearances differ in personallity from the Flash comics.
And don't I have to be a member of the comic project to type on there? Though I did read a comment on there and I believe someone commented that the appearance is notable if the character did something in the issue rather than being a part of the background. Antiyonder (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

Sure, happy to help.  :) And yes, sometimes just having one extra editor in the loop, is all that's needed to turn a situation around. Like at Franco-Mongol alliance, an article that is on this really obscure point of history, a dispute has been running for months. But if there were even only one or two other editors actually editing the article, I think the dispute would have been resolved long ago.  :) --Elonka 07:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, for a summary, check here: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. If you'd like to participate, I'd love outside opinions (from anyone!) at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article rewrite, Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction sentence, or Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment, or Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Concerns about Dailliez (wrapup). --Elonka 07:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't help missing that Amalgam of mine

The wikicomics page currently has four different topics going simultaneously on Amalgam and treating alternate versions. this seems like a mad recipe for Jiffy Pop disaster to me, with folk missing discussions and decisions and badly burnt popcorn everywhere (I went a little far with that last part there, didn't I? I just get so caught up...). You are both an admin and possess a great big brain capable of redirecting the flow of mighty rivers. :)
Might you know of a way to bring all these threads together is a single conversation? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to anyone who happens to read that: I'm not an admin. I have made sure A knows that. Doczilla (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Doc gotta swim, And Doc gotta fly, he aint's an admin, though wow how we tried... (chorous) - jc37 09:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so you aren't an admin. You are helpful, keep your cool, and do a lot of the scut work - things not at all required of admins (and gol-darn it, they should be) As well, you aren't a crotchety bastard. which is in fact the downside of many an 'sadmin's' life. Let me know next time you get nominated. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And thanks for letting me know about the 'the' issue. I kinda already knew about it (as it follows grammatical rules), but it's nice to know where to find reinforcement. The issue in the Midnighter was over whether the proper term was 'Batman' or 'the Batman'. If I used capitalization with 'the' in discussion, it was only to stress usage, not grammar. I will look over both Midnighter and Authority articles and check 'em out. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I think most everyone involved either is watching your talk page, the comics' project talk page, or the notice board. If I missed a location, feel free to let me know : ) - jc37 12:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe it's because he's got a pert wee sexy mind. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my 2 cents

I've been trying to keep out of your way lately, but since we actually have a difference of opinion about how to handle that archiving/copy stuff should go with the past Amalgam/alternate versions discussion, I had to go ahead and post a comment. Wryspy (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guess who's back

Guess who's back. See [[11]]. Wryspy (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batman: Forbes and Business week

I honestly don't see how anyone can truly observe the wealth or intelligence of a fictional character from a completely objective point of view, since that character's wealth and intelligence can vary from author to author over the course of their history. I personally view both as a general consensus as opposed to "guess work." In any event, I think it warrants inclusion in the article since it displays the character's cultural impact. Especially in regards to business week, since they do not normally focus on fictional characters. I think that is fairly significant. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to offend you with the "mini-edit war" thing. I was just trying to make a point as to why I was somewhat hesitant to add it to the article in the first place. That was not meant as a personal attack. I just meant there is an argument on whether or not it should be included.Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of merge source

What does that mean, please? I can't figure it out, for example, in the Amalgam info in Vance Astro was sourced but still removed. I understand (but don't agree) to the part about noteability Lots42 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look

Look, I'm sorry if I offended you, but that is how you are coming across. That's just how I see it. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking potshots at you. To me, it seems like you don't like the list because it's from a source that normally doesn't deal with intelligence. That seems to me like IDONTLIKEIT. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I am sticking to the issues. I'm also being perfectly civil. I can only interpret things how I see them. I won't apologize for stating my observations, although I will apologize if they offended you. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Buscema arbitration

If you'd like to make a statement in this case, as a past RfC commenter on this article, go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema. This is a "Neutrally worded notification". --Tenebrae (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For the arbitration

Just leting you know that the statements you made can be put in, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Evidence, I was told this by one of the people in charge so I though I would pass the word along.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] K

Soooo. Does "back in business" mean you're ready for some collaboration? : ) - jc37 09:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On what?

Collaboration on what exactly? Doczilla (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(Evil grin)
Sigh, I can't keep up the suspense. Though if you were here in person, I might have considered it : )
Essentially, I'm looking to start a proposed guideline concerning fiction.
Basically cross WP:OC with WP:CLS and apply it only to fiction, and you should see what I'm talking about. - jc37 09:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
So guidelines for fiction categories. That makes sense. It could help keep people from having to dig back through months and months of CfDs to find relevant precedents and reasons for past deletions. Doczilla (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No, just lucky us, will : )
And it's more than just categories. For example, the current precedent that navboxes should be used for teams, rather than categories. And it would (finally) give a guideline for how to deal with lists of fictional persons, places, or things. (I think episodes and publications are beyond the scope of what this guideline should be.) Make sense? - jc37 09:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Make sense?" I think so. Right now, I'm realizing I'm sleepier than I should be while editing or even reading. Talk to you again. Doczilla (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok : )
(Hope I didn't scare you off : )
Have a good night : ) - jc37 09:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Gordon

Hello,

I wanted to ask a favor of you. I'm considering nominating Barbara Gordon for featured article, but I want to make sure its as ready as it will ever be before I do. I believe I've corrected all of the issues brought up in the Peer review. There are only two things that bother me at the moment:

  • The beginning of the publication history Batgirl (1966-1988). I've literally been working on this article for months and I have no statements from editors or reviewers during the "Batman Family" run or her other comic book appearances during the seventies. Anything added to this point would be basic plot summary, which is already mentioned in the Fictional character history.
  • I fell as if I should expand "Adaptations into other media"- but not to the extent as it was before it was redirected to another article obviously. Or it may be fine as is-I'm not sure.

If you could make some observations either on my talk page or on the article page, I would appreciate it. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a comment about the cn in the LEAD. I purposely removed those citations per WP:LEAD which stated the lead is the only part of the article which does not require citations unless it is an extremely controversial issue. From my understanding of it- if claims are made in the lead, you don't have to cite them in the lead if you cite them in the body of the article. Batman for instance only has one citation in the LEAD.
I can replace them using the citations that are in the body of the article, but per WP:LEAD I believe it seems "redundant." Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re the D+D Mutant cats...

Just a note... the same used created the two, the "Depowered" first. If that one had been properly capped, it would have brought up a notice about the deletion last October. - J Greb (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Role-playing game supervillains

A tag has been placed on Role-playing game supervillains, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tommosimmo (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My mistake :-)

Sorry about my Speedy Deletion Template Doc, but it seemed to me to either be non-context or nonsense.

If i had know you were creating a category, which doesn't require more then a sentence explaining it, i wouldn't have "jumped the gun". Also, when creating an article, you will usually find that people will put either SOME credible information on it, or put in the Article Comment "This article is being worked on over some time period."

I also believe that there is a template especially for these circumstances, or you could simply apply the stub template.

Cheers, Tommosimmo (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply apply the stub template when you create the article, or dont create an article with no information/nonsence information in the firstplace? In this case, the article was to be deleted anyway, because it was supposed to be a catagory? If it wasnt in a catagory format, I wouldnt have applied the template in the first place. Tommosimmo (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, you could apply either template:inuse or template:underconstruction to new articles which you are working on. Cheers, --Tommosimmo (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)--

Yes but still, it would stop much un-needed confusion. as the template description states, This template page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. --Tommosimmo (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)--

[edit] Thanks

Just remembered to reply top your note on being a janitor. Thanks. I can't see it lasting a long while, but it made me happy. Glad it did something for you too. Hiding T 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Apology

I said it there, but I'll say it here too: I'm sincerely sorry for any possible confusion. It seems that I'm inadvertantly hurting those whom I've come to consider friends, these days. My sincere apologies. - jc37 14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amalgam FYI

If you've come to ask about the Amalgam edits, read the reasons[12], read the past discussions at the top of the page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Character_alternate_version_guidelines, and please weigh in on the discussions down lower on that page. Your thoughts on figuring out the best way to handle them could help a lot.

[edit] Formatting in Infoboxes

Please stop putting italics markup on book titles in Infoboxes--for example, you edit here. The Infobox template automatically italicizes whatever is placed in the "name" field, so your additional marks appear as unnecessary quotation marks. (Book titles should be formatted in italics, not put in quotation marks.) Regards--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agustinaldo

Why is User:Loremaster posting a user box on the page of User:Agustinaldo? Doczilla (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does User:Doczilla care??? --Loremaster (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Because no one should place a userbox on a userpage than the user themselves, per Wikipedia:Userboxes, it is considered uncivil. (Though in this case, it would seem more likely to be an accident of sign-in by a sock-puppeteer, but be that as it may...) I'll be removing the userbox. - jc37 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Sigh. I'm moving it -- not so much because of Wikipedia's general statement that people ought to put it at the top, but simply because it's not working. People just aren't paying a shred of attention to what it says. Along those lines, though, I think people who go straight to the bottom of the page so they can post a comment will be even worse about paying no attention to the box that's up at the top of the page. Doczilla (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand, hence why it was a suggestion. Sometimes it's tough to stand against the torrent : ) - jc37 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reign of the Superman disambiguation paragraph

I added the disambiguation to the top of this page because "man" and "men" are very similiar words and a typo is all too easy to do, I've done it myself all too often. I figured I'd add the disambiguation to make navigation easier. Stephen Day (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, you're right I did mispell it. Like I said, its an all too easy typo to make. :) Stephen Day (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Although Lara is quietly sleeping, and would be the best reviewer, I have left some comments on the talk page for your approval. the_undertow talk 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my edits. I'm positive that Lara will take this under her wing, but I'd like to make a few revisions. the_undertow talk 10:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Cool, cuz i know nothing about wikiproject comics. the_undertow talk 10:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second set of eyes...

Doc,

If you don't mind I need a second set of eyes on something. Specifically:

User talk:Basique#Image sizes and the following images:

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copying your remark

I hope you don't mind that I copied a remark of yours directly from my talk page when replying at User_talk:Loremaster#Agustinaldo. It was easiest for me just to say, "Exactly." It's a pretty rare thing for me to copy someone else's remark without making it clear that I'm quoting someone, but I felt that this time it just looks better this way. Doczilla (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You may want to add your final comment to this page too, for completeness. (Though it's not necessarily mandatory or anything : ) - jc37 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

Regarding[13], I find it interesting that A has never asked why L edited that user page or, if that userbox came and went before A even knew about the edit, expressed any puzzlement as to why the user page now says that the page has been deleted. L's utter lack of response to your puppet remark is even more interesting than L's failure to answer my original question. Doczilla (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it's worth watching. If you see both in the same discussion... checkuser. - jc37 16:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reign

Thanks for deleting the The Reign of the Super-Man redirect page. Doczilla (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No Problem. (Looking around for that mighty yoke of guilt to pass your way about adminship, and why having the extra set of tools might be helpful etc...etc...etc... : ) - jc37 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction CfD precedents

Just indexing fiction-related CfDs from December took an hour. This might not be necessary, but if anyone really wants to put together fiction category guidelines, an index like this would ultimately save a lot more time than it would take to assemble. Assembling it is tedious, though. Feel free to work on it. Doczilla (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I bet it's tedious. And imagine going through to find all the fiction-related lists at AfD, and the fiction-related series/nav boxes at TfD.
There's got to be a way to automate this. (I know AfD had categories, though those are removed upon closure. I wonder if that can be useful...)
And I'm looking to go back roughly a year and a half (that's when, for me at least, fiction discussions started getting "interesting" at CFD).
Well... We know it's all there. And I think you've been along for this "ride" too. Let's be dangerously BOLD and start the guidelines. I have no problem trusting you to work from memory. (And I'm sure we can trust each other to let each other know when our memory is "shaky" on something, at which point we can always "look it up" : )
I'm essentially looking for someone to help start the ball rolling, who (hopefully) remembers at least some of what I do (and I at least some of what they do) about various previous consensus in the various discussions.
And my goal for the guidelines is to (hopefully) have some consistancy. - jc37 10:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image categories -- game plan...

Originally I had started working with the DC and Marvel Comics images cats to make sure the images had FURs, fit with in the size guidelines, and that actual covers as published were separated from cover art only.

One of the things I realized along the way was that, if the cat was under 200 images (or less if there are subs) an editor can "cheat" and look at all the images in a gallery to see if Wiki already has one that can be used in a new article or section. At that point I started moving things around and started generating the character image cats.

Since there were a few major changes to the FUR template, I've wound bouncing back to the alphabetically first cat twice to re-gig the FURs, but I think I'm at the point where I'm going through "fresh" images.

Right now I'm going through the following:

I'll pull up a few image in sequence in the cat to check FUR and image size. I'll add or tweak, if it needs it, the FUR. I'll also scale down images that are outside the 300px across or 0.1 megapixel size, unless there is a good apparent reason for the image to be larger. In those cases I'll scale it down as much as possible. I'll also check to see if the image should be moved to a sub or sib cat.

Before I close the image I'll pull up the article(s) where it's used and the Wikilink(s) in the FUR that I haven't passed through. I'll check those for "new" images and to see if the article's been tagged with appropriate project headers, ratings, and workgroups. With the "new" images, if they fit somewhere I've already gone through, I'll give them a thorough going over, otherwise I'll just pop them into the appropriate cat knowing I'll get to them eventually.

I've also been checking the "Related changes" for the cat's I've gone through every four or five days to see if new images have been added ot if images have been tagged.

As for the cats themselves... I've been trying to stick with the following conventions:

  • Company images (ie DC Comics, Fantagraphic Books, etc) - With a mostly standardized boilerplate and linked back to Category:Non-free comic images and Category:Images from comics.
  • Company comic book covers (ie DC, Charlton, Fantagraphic, etc) - Also with a boilerplate specifying covers as published and linked back to the appropriate Company images and Category:Comic book covers.
  • Character/Group images - Boilerplated and linked to the appropriate company and, if it exists, character cat. I've been trying to limit myself with these so that images don't wind up with multiple cats of this type. So a Nightwing solo image winds up in Batman images but not Teen Titan images, though I'm starting to re-think this.
  • Covers from Character/Group related titles - Boilerplated and linked to the appropriate company covers and character/group images cats.
  • Series covers - Limited to specific anthology series such as Adventure Comics or Showcase which have a fair number of covers used, but aren't tied directly with any one character or group.
  • Character television show screenshots and pictures
  • Character film screenshots and pictures
  • TV series screenshots and pictures

I think that about covers it...

- J Greb (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're creating a nice set of guidelines in relation to images, for the WikiProject (at least) : ) - jc37 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
(response from my talk page)
I've done that once, with a an editor that was uploading heavily Photoshoped files supposedly from DC comics. There are still a few of them in use, but most of the worst are gone. But it beings me back to the original reason I was looking for a second set of eyes: I've got an editor who feels wiki-stalked, or unfairly targeted, because I've hit a knot of his uploaded images in rapid succession. Actually using the logic of "hrm... if those we problems, what else has that editor put up?" and running down his upload history would exacerbate that no end. - J Greb (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)