User talk:Hiding/Archive 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ally1884.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Ally1884.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BeanoJan6-1940.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BeanoJan6-1940.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eaglev14-41.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Eaglev14-41.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused

I'm not sure what your latest responses mean. I hadn't meant to imply you were stupid or blind, and I hadn't meant to indicate that I believed there was a cabal, I just wanted to outline what I meant in that moment. I also pretty much pulled my def of AGF out of the nutshell so if we're arguing over that, well... As to the beans stuff, feel free to email me if you like. Otherwise, no matter. A lot of this stuff is becoming highly politic now. As to writing up guidance, I don't know if you need to. I just think you need to be a bit more careful judging consensus is all. What do you think now about the close of the trout slapping cat? Do you still think the consensus in the debate is as you closed it? That's really the nub of our disagreement. Everything else has exploded outwards from that point of contention. Hiding T 14:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

k, answering the question you asked, and a couple that may be implied.
  • "What do you think now about the close of the trout slapping cat? Do you still think the consensus in the debate is as you closed it?" - Yes.
  • Do I feel that I could have been more clear in the closure explanation? - Yes.
  • Do I feel that I should have been more clear in the closure explanation? - Probably. I sincerely wonder if there were those who were intentionally being obtuse to understanding the closure in order to fuel their IWANTIT fires... If so, then a clearer explanation could have/should have lessened the effect of the intent of obfuscation. And if that wasn't the case, then I was probably remiss in not further explaining to those who I presumed did understand. Either way, I probably should have been clearer.
I hope this clarifies. - jc37 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's best if we leave it there then. I have a completely different reading of the debate to you. The only another issue I wanted to clear up was the discussion over double standards. Had that debate involved any other Wikipedians making the same points, I would still have disputed the same close. It wasn't the participants that mattered, it was the close. All the best, Hiding T 10:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(Presuming you mean "...debate than you" rather than "...debate to you")
As for the rest, I think there's a multi-faceted set of miscommunications and presumptions, which was built merely from the fact that I didn't more fully explain the closure, and (I believe) due to a difference of of "opinion" about Wikipedian categories in general, and in specific (among other things).
I've been thinking that this somewhat compares to Kbdank71 and myself (and others, actually). I consider him a friend here. He and I may disagree when it comes to Wikipedian categories, but (I believe) that has nothing to do with our friendship.
Same with you. Just because you and I may disagree on something, doesn't mean that I intend to "not talk to you again", closing the door on someone whom I've come to consider a friend. (You'll have to do more than that to push me away : )
This is our second big misunderstanding. I'd like to think we did better than last time. Let's hope we do even better in the future : )
Wishing you all the best as well, - jc37 11:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, fellow Bat-Fan

I am he who dares to call himself "The Batmaniac". I have noticed you seem to be a fan of our resident Caped Crusader and I like the quote section you (I assume) set up regarding Bill Finger. Many kudos. I have always liked his writing and feel that too many well-meaning but misguided individuals have tried to pidgeon-hole him into some sort of "victim" of Bob Kane or some other such twaddle. From my posts, you may have already gathered where I stand on that issue. I find that he was neither a victim nor Kane a victimizer especially in accordance with Bill's position as a neophyte writer(who was given that all-important first opportunity by Kane). Kane felt, and I agree with him on this, is that Bill should have taken his career even further after he left Kane's studio, definitely out of the low-paying comic book field, which he eventually did. If he suffered under the hands of the DC Editorial Regime(and some of those guys were real (expletives)), that wasn't Kane's fault, indeed, Kane had to put up with them as well.

When I or anyone selects a quote, I agree there is an element of bias. Mine comes from the position of both fairness and from personal responsibility. From what I have seen of the comic book industry, some creators seem to feel that they operate under different rules than we fans face in our lives everyday, or rather, these individuals think they live in some world other than the so-called "real" world.(Example, the next time you apply for a job, carefully read the section that says anything you "create" belongs to the company, including any e-mails you might send with their computers.) Having said that, I look for quotes based on facts and neutrality, assuming that Wiki's goal is to provide useful information and not hyperbole. I hope it is your goal too.Bernard ferrell (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wasn't sure where you were on the radar screen and perhaps jumped the gun and assumed you were the one who was including Mr.Robinson's opinions on the Kane page. As I pointed out, Jerry has flip-flopped on some issues and I admit, I found it a little strange that he waited both until after Kane was gone and when he started promoting the Finger award. Industry professionals are human too so as you pointed out, all sources are potentially biased. My own strategy has always been to take the "Rashomon" approach, in that if there are three versions of one story, the truth is usually made up of elements of all three versions. I apologize for any unintended offense..The Batmaniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.252.234 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

bad link

your link regarding earth-Two on teh Kal-L talk page doesn't go to any relevant discussion, please fix so thagt editors can find it. thank you. ThuranX (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[1] Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. You linked when closing the discussion to a bigger discussion about earth two characters. IT doesn't work. Please fix, thanks. ThuranX (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. No, I'm dense. I'll go hound him. ThuranX (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agamemnon

FYI, Agamemnon (comics) has been recreated as Agamemnon (Pantheon). I'm ambivalent about the notability of the character, but if we keep the article, I feel we really ought to rename it as per WP:CMC conventions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see it stay of course since it has been developed quite a bit, but if merging is the best option for now then so be it. BOZ (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability (fiction)

I've pegged you as knowledgeable and eloquent about local politics. Can I ask you to weigh in on the FICT talk page on a suggestion that AfDs must be 'notability reviews' and be closed entirely on the applicability of WP:FICT, disregarding any discussion or consensus? You'd be able to express the importance of collaboration much better than I.

Not that I want you to risk running yourself ragged and burning out. --Kizor 14:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Comics article/Alan Moore photo caption

Well, for starters, I don't care about any previous edit conflicts you may have had about the line - they didn't enter into my actions, as I removed the citation for several unrelated reasons. Moore's work, while very good, is no more or less influential in establishing comics "as a vehicle for film adaptations" than any other properties, be they Batman, Superman, Men in Black, The Rocketeer, Neil Gaiman, or who/whatever. Movies have been made from comics before Moore's work, regardless of whether he wants his name on them or not, and will continue to be made afterwards. You also say that it is wrong to remove it for being POV if that POV is asserted in secondary sourcing - well, there was no secondary sourcing, and besides, it's a photo caption - there's no need for all kinds of extra material there, especially since the line and establish it as a vehicle for film adaptations on its own does read as POV and unsourced. Also, since there is no text in the article near the photo that even deals with film adaptations, there another reason for that line to not be there. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Lantern Corps

Looks like an annon with a a block history for vandalism has decided to "close" the AfD as "Keep"... I'm not sure where to go with this. - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) nevermind... my eyes are playing up on me... - J Greb (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiding...

Hi,

Not exactly sure why you've "secreted" yourself, old friend; but, here's a wiki-bauble for the new year!

The Working Man's Barnstar
For exemplary thoughtfulness and kindness in all areas of wiki-work, Hiding deserves to be sat upon a throne for all to adore (which would, unfortunately, defeat the purpose of his name! Such is irony in the wiki-world!) Xoloz (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fictional topic noticeboard

I noticed you "banging a drum", and I thought I would ask what you think such a board would look like. - jc37 00:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, something along the lines of WP:COIN, WP:RSN, WP:BLPN or WP:FTN, if you'll forgive the shortcuts. A noticeboard for bringing articles on fictional topics to when there's a dispute, to attract wider attention. WP:RFC doesn't really work now, and mostly afd is taking the strain with articles being listed there with merge or redirect as the nomination reason. And there was that whole redirect issue arbitration case. It would simply be a place where, if all the interested editors participated, a consensus could be generated on how to proceed with disputed articles. Okay, it drives us further down becoming a talking shop and a bureaucracy,but the disputes are happening. Rather than have the dispute at WP:FICT every six months, why not try and solve the real issues. That's what I've been pondering for a couple of months now. Hiding T 13:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Mk. Giving it some thought as well. - jc37 10:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comics AFD

Another editor asked for me to explain this earlier, and this conversation has occurred on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Courier (comics). If you wish to further discuss it after reading that page, please let me know. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Just making sure on the WP:FICT rewrite

You had added text that ended up as: Such sources can include creators' commentary and interviews regarding the work or topic, bearing in mind the restrictions if the work is not self-published. (my emphasis). I was pretty sure that you meant it without that "not", so I'm just making sure that that's what you're referring to in the edit summaries :-) --MASEM 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanky

Thanky for helping to make the Buscema talk page a forum for civil and rational discussion that is focused on content and policy.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting

I already re-merged Bloodstorm, but I don't know how to report the IP address. Could you take care of it, or find an administrator to do it? Thanks!! -Freak104 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anarky

I would like to nominate the article for featured status, but as you are the main contributor I wanted to ask if you would be able to help get the article through? I don't have the knowledge regarding the character that you do, nor access to all the sources used. Hiding T 14:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see Anarky achieve Featured Article status, and have been trying to build upon the article since it achieved Good Article status for just this reason. However, I have been unable to secure a peer review, which I understand to be an optional -- but important -- process prior to nominating the article for FA status. This was back in February of 2007, and I am growing quite weary of waiting. I have, in recent days, decided to contact other editors to specifically request that they peer review the article so that I may continue the process. Perhaps you would be able to do so. As this is not mandatory, you may begin the FA nomination process, but I cannot be certain it will be promoted successfully. Regardless, I will monitor the nomination process and assist you as best I can.--Cast (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I have it when I use the Vandal Proof program, but I wouldn't mind having it for when I'm not using VP. Can't 100% trust VP. Thanks for thinking of me. Doczilla (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the wrist makes rollback even more helpful for me right now. THe wrist is why I've mainly stuck to vandal patrol using VP this past week. Thanks for the confidence in me. Doczilla (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly worth looking at. Sometimes it's surprising which editors turn out to have some blocks in their history. :) Doczilla (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This is one month I wish I'd previously accepted an offer to nominate me for adminship. Those tools would make current editing easier. (That's not a hint, by the way. I couldn't do enough typing at a stretch to answer RfA questions.) Doczilla (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on Category Redirect template

Because you are a member of WikiProject Categories, your input is invited on some proposed changes to the design of the {{Category redirect}} template. Please feel free to view the proposals and comment on the template talk page. --Russ (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Moore Links

Hi Hiding, I beg to differ :-)--Legionarius (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

New Notice Board thing

Hi(ding)! Happy New Year!

Since I'm the first to post at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Requests_for_comment/Users/2008 and WPC members might not yet be in the habit of regularly checking that page, I wanted to alert a few longstanding editors to a posting there that I think will be of interest. Thanks and best wishes for WPC in 2008, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a new page to me; thanks for cluing me onto it.
I'd thought that my edit summaries provided rationale for what I'd honestly believed was non-controv, but you're right, it can't hurt to expand on those rationales on the talk page.
And what a week it's been. I'm sitting in a hospital room trying to distract my mind while my mother dozes from her cancer treatment. Pancreatic, stage three. Many friends of mine have been or are going through similar things with their aging parents; it's avoidable if we ourselves do our folks the favor of not predeceasing them. It's hard, and it's fairly early yet; I don't want to imagine what she'll go through during the decline.
Guess something in me needed to get that out to someone who's been a veteran here even longer than I. Thanks for letting me. It actually does help. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, H. You're a good guy, and I've always been glad and relieved that you're here as, in my opinion, WPC's guiding voice. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note

Per this notice, he has been warned numerous times (on his "archived" talk page): [2] [3] and prior to that as well. There is an active ANI case and he was the source of comments at WP:WQA earlier. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's your response: [4] [5] [6]. Appearantly, anyone who disagrees with him is somehow opposed to deaf people in general, per an e-mail I received yesterday and the comment he left in reply to your notice. His reply. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE

I'm sorry I didn't try to better communicate my view to you before reverting your changes, an edit summary wasn't really adequate and I apologise. I agree that the way in which WP:DEADLINE is usually cited is not in keeping with the way the essay was originally - and is currently - written. However, I don't think that adding a sentence fragment in the introduction to the essay that essentially contradicts the rest of the essay is the answer. I think that a better solution would be either a complete rewrite, or an extra section explaining the counter arguement to the rest of the essay. Sorry for the trouble, I certainly did not intend to edit war. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Your message is deleted because of disrespectful treat

You igroned my message in Cculber007's Talk when I told you to leave the message in Cculber007's Talk Archive so I erased your message and igroned your message. I am not read your message unless it is in Cculber007's Talk Archive and I do not take more threats from you about other issues. Good-bye, unwise wikipedian. I only listen to anyone who has earned my respect and cooperated with me as a teamwork by according to "work ethics". I do not support anyone discriminated me as a deaf person either. [[Cculber007 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]]

Fiction-related topics

I'd still say they're real articles about real topics about fiction, making them fiction topics or fiction-related topics. They're not fictional topics. I wouldn't get into any debate over it because I doubt most other people will care, but I wanted to put that thought out there. Doczilla (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am surreptitious on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Hiding. Thanks. --Hiding T 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Captain Trips

That was just a mistake. Thanks for removing it and placing the {{oldafdfull}}, though. :)   jj137 ♠ 20:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

My Archives

Is there a reason you are poking about in them, editing and whatnot? :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see. I also factored out the name in the An/I page - I am sure you didn't want it there, either. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No worries. It's all fine and dandy. In the future (though hindsight is nifty that way) you might want to leave a little note about how you refactored your name, so alarm bells don;t go off oversomeone tampering with an archive. Usually, the folk who do that are up to no good. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 10:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [7]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing rationales

Sorry I wasn't more helpful with the missing rationales. Keeping up with BetacommandBot gets tedious after a while. (Not that some of my other edits aren't tedious, but I'm sure you know what I mean.) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi(ding). Don't know if you'd be so much interested in adding pics, but I started User:BOZ/Images yesterday, and at least one editor has commented that he's not sure how to add FUR to an image. Just inviting whatever input you have to add... BOZ (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot - that's probably the best kind of help that anyone could offer.  :) I know a ton of images got deleted recently, so that would be great. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by skill

Posted a question for you at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Wikipedians by skill. User:Dorftrottel 19:29, January 18, 2008

Replied again. User:Dorftrottel 21:01, January 18, 2008

FUR

I added the images to the correct pages like you asked. Please add the FUR. Thanks! (btw, I'll be gone for a while, so hopefully you have all you need) -Freak104 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolves category

Sure, could you do that?

thanks

--Wolfdog1 (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

myspace

  • " I have no idea what per myspace means. "

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site. (It's one of the shortcuts.)

Note that this is a common comment at UCFD.

Also, just a suggestion, but another common "trick" is for a commenter to try to sideline a discussion by trying to start a meta discussion about the usefulness of Wikipedian categories in general. As I tend to try to be helpful, they have done it to me often. Just thought you might like to know where the potholes are : ) - jc37 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew there was a link in there somewhere, but I'm not going looking for it. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to warn me against, but if you've seen a bad close let me know. Hopefully someone will note the backlog message at some point and close the outstanding debates all the regular admins have commented in, otherwise we might have to cobble our heads together and come to as consensus on how to close. Whilst I have your ear, can you look at {{User Wolf}}. There's something wrongish with the categorising on it. It's categorised Category:Wikipedians interested in wolves inside itself, making a recursive loop and I can't work it out. You've more knowledge of userboxes if memory serves. Hiding T 22:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The side-effect of being a regular to XfD discussions is that after awhile you start to recognise trends, and various answers are idenitifable, even if they don't link them. "Delete per Myspace" is about as valid as any other "vote", I suppose, though it would have been nice if they would have explained why they felt that way, of course. (Reminds me of last year or so, when people would just say "NN" for their reason in an afd. If the closer had no idea that that meant "not notable"...)
As for my other note, I was referring to some discussions you were having, not to any closure. Maybe it will make more sense now?
And yes, that's been an issue with the categories for quite a while. User:Pomte clued me in on a way to deal with that. It's been added to Wikipedia:Userboxes#Syntax for including categories. I'll go ahead and (hopefully) fix the userbox. - jc37 10:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability & Comics

Thanks for your reply on my User page to my question on WikiProjects - I do appreciate that it is difficult to give firm guidance when an abstract question is posed. You asked for some examples, so let me throw one at you. I recently completed the start of an article on Sheva's War, a beautiful fully-painted 5 issue graphic novel which was released by DC some 10 years ago and then re-released in trade paperback by Dark Horse Comics. This will be expanded in due course although I suspect it will not be increased substantially more in length. What is your view on the notability of this?

I have noticed that WikiProject Comics has articles of varying length on comic titles of differing notability, for example: Blood & Water, Sebastian O, Weirdworld, Night Raven to select just a handful of DC and Marvel titles. I compared the content of my Sheva's War article to these ones.

My intention had been to write-up the start of articles for some of the lesser know SF and mature themed titles that DC released in the 1990s but I was just nervous about doing this if they would later be found to lack notability. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your tips. Kind regards--Calabraxthis 09:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Locks needed...

Given the passing of Ledger, it looks like we may need to either semi or fully protect Joker (comics) and Joker's appearances in other media‎. Both are getting the death, in some way shape or form crammed in when it really isn't relevant to the topic. - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

One wag even claimed that Nicholson had died on the same day. :P --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting bitten

I've seen Jack bite before, especially on D&D-related articles and AFDs, so I guess I wasn't too surprised when he came down on me.  :)

I have seen redirects retain their prior categories before, so that's what I was trying to do with a few comics and D&D article redirects. Retaining the categories allows editors searching through the category to see the subject and look at the history list if they desire; also, if someone is able to improve the article to make it worthwhile, it would be simple to restore using the article as it previously existed. Not sure what possessed me to put the stub templates back in though - you can't get more stubby than a redirect.  ;) If there's no reason to put cats in redirect that way though, I'll stop, but as I say above I think it would be helpful. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hey Hiding,

Cool that you're helping out with the Buscema article - I'd like to ask that you take my name off the sandbox template however - my messages on the talk page are all I have to contribute to the footnote question - and also, I'd like to try to get away from a situation of two people with different viewpoints working on an article by taking a less active participation and letting other people contribute.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hopefully I'll just delete the sandbox now the edits have been made. All the best, Hiding T 20:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Suspicious deletion

Hello Hiding. I just stumbled across a suspicious deletion of an image. [8] The reason why I am suspicious is twofold. Firstly, Tenebrae reported at Talk:Steve Canyon that he had added a fair use rationale for the image. Secondly, in the deletion summary, it seems to indicate that deletion was handled by a Python script called "massdelete.py", which makes me wonder if human eyes actually verified whether the image had a valid rationale or not. I don't know if anything can be done at this late date, but I figured I'd run it by you. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I've restored the image. Tenebrae didn't remove the fair use template, so it was still categorised as being a candidate for deletion, but I have opened a discussion with the deleting admin regarding scripts. Hiding T 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pinging

Hi, H. Sorry, I'd forgotten to notify you about the Buscema sandbox. I made the footnote changes Skyelarke and I both agreed to, and took the liberty of adding a link to Buscema's obituary in The New York Times, which seemed like a significant omission. Thanks for stepping up and stepping in!

On a personal note, my mother is out of the hospital, having been given a feeding tube, and awaits chemo/radiation. Fingers crossed. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also just noticed a non-controv missing word: "as" after "Institute" in this sentence: "He also took night lessons at Pratt Institute well as life-drawing classes at the Brooklyn Museum." Thanks again. Hope you're well.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've done that. Hiding T 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"My god, it's full of stars"

The Comics Star
For your outstanding and conscientious efforts to improve the comics articles. Your efforts are appreciated in so many ways. (How do you not already have one of these among your awards?) Doczilla (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Starry, Starry Night

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For getting WP:DEADLINE to a state where it represents the views of all the users who link to it as well as those who originally created it. Guest9999 (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Comicsproj

Thanks for taking care of that for us. Doczilla (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reassessment request

The comics article America (Judge Dredd story) has just been assessed by User:MwNNrules as a stub. However I don't think a 1,200 word article should be a stub: at the very least it should be start-class. Could you take a look at it? (I'm asking you because you recently reclassified one of his stubs as a start-class article.) Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Richard75 (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Images

Sorry, but I don't know what issues the images I added are from. I have some very random images on my computer that I often don't remember why I have them. -Freak104 (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bulbasaur

Hmm, I think it's fine where it stands. "Bulbasaur" is the plural, I'm sure. Is it still confusing for you? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

Merge-multiple-to template

Hi, I noticed you created the {{Merge-multiple-to}} template a while ago. I've been having problems with it. :( I'd like to propose the merge of several of the {{Fushigi Yūgi}} character articles (specifically, I'd like to merge the three lower rows of characters into their groups indicated to the side), but I haven't been able to get it to work - it keeps on showing up as [[: redlink ]] has been proposed to merge with [[: X redlink ]] [[: Y redlink ]] and [[: Z redlink ]] to create not-yet-created-article redlink. Can you please investigate this? It could also possibly be that I'm not using the template 'right', too. Thanks. :) -Malkinann (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) I tested it out (but didn't save) in one of the articles, and it mostly works, except for the page I want to merge to - it showed up as "[[::Byakko

Seishi|Byakko Seishi]]." -Malkinann (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[9] - the one above is one I did myself, and the one below is the one you made for me. I don't know why the target page is rendering differently. -Malkinann (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I just copypasted what you gave me - can the template be made more robust? (allowing for accidental returns etc.) -Malkinann (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I initially copied the example code, but when I tested it the second time, I used the example that you made up for my specific merge. -Malkinann (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd. :/ I use large text on my screen, maybe that somehow inserted the return? -Malkinann (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A browser issue? I'm using Safari 1.3.2, if that helps. -Malkinann (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed one

Category:Wikipedians in Ōsaka Prefecture wasn't in the Wikipedians in x prefecture nomination list nor was it tagged. There were a couple not on the nom list that were tagged, so I upmerged those, but simce this one wasn't tagged I can't do it. You might want to have a new listing for it. Hiding T 16:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also is Category:Wikipedians in Hokkaidō part of the nom, as it doesn't meet the in prefecture style but it is tagged but it isn't on the list. Hiding T 16:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For the first, the most conservative way to handle it would probably to nominate it, citing the previous discussion as precedent. But honestly, I think there is probably little problem citing WP:IAR, and speedy merging, based on the previous discussion. Up to you.
For the latter, the reason was to bring all those nominated into a single standard, though I should have made that more clear, I suppose. If you look at the cat intro, it's clearly a prefecture cat. What would you suggest? - jc37 09:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind IAR on both of them, I just wanted to check that was the desired outcome. However, if someone complains on procedural I'll warn you I'll likely restore it and it will have to go to UCFD. I'm tetchy like that. Leave it with me. Hiding T 18:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Have a good day : ) - jc37 00:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


WP:RELAX

I know, but I set the standard a bit higher for WP:FA articles. I'll go relax on general articles. Don't worry. Thanks for the message. Dekisugi (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comic strip rationales

Hi there. I noticed you added a rationale to Image:Totaleclipse4.jpg, for its use in Total Eclipse (comic). While looking through Category:Disputed non-free images as of 15 January 2008, I noticed lots of Star Wars comic cover images. Most of these are over-use, but I wondered if you'd be interested in adding rationales for the few that can reasonably be kept? It's mainly the ones from "swempire" onwards, though you may find it easier to work from articles or categories like Star Wars: Empire, Category:Dark Horse titles, Category:Star Wars comics, and so on. Though I see there are rather a lot of these comics! :-) Anyway, just a thought, in case you were interested. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedia:There is no deadline does look good! Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could use and addmin

Could you look at something for me?

It involves Tarantula (Marvel Comics) and the edits dune under 67.141.241.71 see here and User:IhateJGreb (and I've already posted that to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention which the user in question immediately blanked.

Suggestions?

- J Greb (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully... The sad part is I can see where he was coming from with the Tarantula article — he's got a solid cite that is as good, or bad, as a lot of the cites used for "full" names on other articles. If he had taken it to the talk page, the debacle wouldn't have happened.
So now I'm hedging about undoing his last edits... I'm very tempted to move them to the talk and ask for an uninvolved editor with the book he's referencing check it. And make sure it isn't a role playing game or supplement. - J Greb (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

There's a difference between how I feel about it and how I think about it. I dread the potential hassles, and yet I know I can do some good. I'm "really really sure" that I can help clear up XfD backlogs, do page moves, protect or semi-protect pages, make appropriate edits to protected pages, fight vandalism better, and deal with block-evading socks. I hate asking other admins to do some tasks for me (like certain page moves) when I'd have been able to do those things for myself if I'd previously accepted some of those same people's offers to nominate me. In December, I had to make a 3RR report against two people who each reverted an article about 9 times in one day. One of those two was an admin. I made the report anyway because I couldn't report the other person without reporting that admin, but I did realize that I'd have felt better about making that report if I'd also been an admin at the time. As for those potential hassles which I dread, it's not like I can't set limits on what I get dragged into. Based on the things I've been involved in and how I've handled them, numerous people already thought I was an admin. (Every time I discover this misconception, I point out that I am not one.)

Best, Doczilla (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Slowpoke

Regarding your warning of an edit war. The relevant facts seem to be:

  • a) my most recent edit was to add some detail from an excellent source which I have found.
  • b) the opposing editor, TTN, has reverted this entire article to a redirect - a practise for which he is notorious.
  • c) you seem to have warned me but not him.

I suppose that you are not impartial in this matter and are using your admin status to try to intimidate me. This seems improper so I shall continue to edit this article as I find more good material to add to it. If there is some way of resolving the dispute with TTN short of another arbcom, I shall be pleased to hear it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for apprising me of your warning to TTN. I still fancy that your involvement in this matter is not impartial as you seem to be in the camp which prefers lists to individual articles for such material. Myself, I consider lists to be poor style for this encyclopaedia. I have been contemplating AFDs for the lists of Pokemon n to m, as these seem fairly arbitrary selections which are inferior to both the master list of all Pokemon and the articles on notable Pokemon such as Slowpoke. I'm not familiar with the mechanics for this though and the matter seems so fraught with wikipolitics that the action would be futile. Where there are differences of approach, it seems better for them to coexist and compete, since constructive competition is healthy. By improving the article on Slowpoke, I aim to make the corresponding list article seem inferior and redundant. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You directed my attention to a procedural motion calling a halt to edits. Be that as it may, I'm not seeing the relevance as that seems to be about TV episodes. My interest in Slowpoke relates mostly to the game. Are you claiming a general freeze on the entirety of fiction/games/pop culture? D&D? Comics? Movies?Colonel Warden (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed the history of the Slowpoke article as I didn't recall having made many edits to it - barely a skirmish rather than a war. The basis of your concern is revealed: you seem to be upset that I trampled on some edits of your own. You're trying to stifle both me and TTN so that your own version of the article can prevail...? Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had wanted a civil conversation about the content of this article as a fellow editor, you could have had one. Instead you started the conversation with "you may be blocked from editing". Please see Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing Archived Page.

I was in the middle of replying to a couple of threads when he archived. As such, I inadventantly edited after he archived. (I replied at 13:23 & 13:27, he archived between 13:24 and 13:26)

I immediately apologised (13:32) and reverted the apology (13:33) so as not to fill his page, by that time he had already reverted my change.

I feel what I did was an accident, and immediately moved to apologise for it. Thus I feel I acted in good faith. I understand if he doesn't feel that way, I'm sure this whole Timeshift thing has unsettled him as much as it did me. I certainly don't feel that I was deliberately impolite, just a victim of bad timing.

Thank you for your input.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


I don't recall the events perfectly. I don't think there was an edit conflict that particular time, but I can't be sure. There have been a few on that page tonight... even OrderinChaos himself assumes there was one that lost a edit he made... so these thing have been missed and gotten confused. There may have been an edit conflict and I don't recall it.
The other thing is that the conversation was long and there were many threads. The one I mistakenly made was somewhere in the middle. I have a recollection of having trouble finding the things I was replying to in quick succession. Perhaps I should have seen the archive thing, but I really didn't. I've made a couple of excuses, but I just didn't see it.
I saw it when I'd made the edit.
So I apologised.
And so I felt it was done.
I realised it was impolite, so I apologised, and acknowledged his right to revert it.
I'm not sure why I needed to be told that it was impolite 50 minutes later, but there you go.
I've apologised to him. I've explained myself to you.
I'm not sure what you're trying to accuse me of.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You said that what I did was impolite. I agree. When I do something impolite, I apologise and figure that that's that. Impoliteness -> apology.
When you told me I'd been impolite, I figured you'd missed the apology, so I pointed it out. Pointing out impolitness -> Pointing out apology.
Yes, there should have been signs that something was up. I missed them. Clearly. I thought that went without saying.
When you pointed out this I began to lose good faith and figured that you weren't correcting me in good faith.
Please respect other people's wishes. If you feel you are doing that, then there is no problem.
As soon as possible after I made the mistake, I apologised and acknowledged his right to revert my changes (although he'd have that right even without the archive). By acknowledging his right I felt I was showing I was trying to respect his wishes. I really did.
I made a mistake. I apologised. You said I was impolite, I admitted that I'd made a mistake and pointed out I'd apologised. You pointed out how I'd missed signs that I'd made a mistake, I admited that yes, I'd certainly missed them.
Now you say If you feel [I'm] [respecting others wishes] then there is no problem. Great. I felt that before you posted. I'm not sure why you felt the need to re-enforce this idea. It feels like an accusation. I'm sure it's not. However, that hasn't been a fun incident. I've been looking since midnight for trivial changes to make to "calm me". I haven't really found any but for a while the search took my mind of things. I was hoping to get to bed at midnight tonight, but hyped up like that I wouldn't have slept. Your contribution, I'm sure, was meant to help everyone involved, but it's dredged it up again for me. It's one in the morning here now. I'm tired. I'm annoyed again, and all I can see is you picking. Accusing. I'm sorry, I'm sure it's not there, but at the moment it's all I can see.
I'm nuking my second Horlicks, and I'm hoping that I can find some calming trivial changes to make. I hope that tomorrow it all looks better.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well, who needs that sleep thing anyway.
I'm sorry if I read too much into your comments and didn't assume good faith.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Feel free to add your nomination text. I'm still trying to gather my thoughts. - jc37 11:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The exact words of the DRV closure?

Um, regarding this edit, [10], so what? So they were the exact words of a deletion review closure. Since when does that mean anything. Since the drv closure is disputed, and even above that, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I think that using one admin's words and opinion to decide consensus is completely and utterly anti to the Wiki spirit and Wikipedia:Consensus. Are you prepared to negotiate over this? Hiding T 11:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It was exactly because it was contentious that I was trying to stay where consensus has been already determined. (3 DRVs closed by different admins, with a myriad of commenters seems like "current concensus" to me, at least...)
So to stay with the exact wording (which was also bolded in the closure) seemed to me the better course of reducing further confusion (which in some cases has been leading to disruption).
That said, I typically have no problem with BOLD changes (as you know). So I guess let me ask, what about the current wording do you find problematic? - jc37 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My issue with the wording you are insisting upon is that it does not reflect either consensus or community practise. That there have been three drv's indicactes the issue is not as cut and dried as waas stated at that third drv. I think one can also look at UCFD and see it is not that cut and dried, but also, I think the responses at User talk:Hyacinth/User categories indicate the wording does not represent consensus. I have tried to edit it closer to where I believe consensus lies, so that should indicate better my exact problems with the text. Hiding T 13:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The text from the diff:
  • "Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default, as user categories should be explicitly oriented toward collaboration."
  • "Userboxes should not automatically include categories by default, as user categories are generally intended to be aids to collaboration."
You know, I've tried several times to explain my thoughts in this edit, and each time they've turned into a discourse on Wikipedian categories themselves, which, while on topic, is, I think, a bit broader than just dealing with the semantics of the sentence.
So I'll spare you the length (hopefully), and just offer a suggestion, let's just drop the sentence fragment
If we're not going to quote the closer, then the rest of the text of the section should explain/say the same thing. (I find it interesting that the word "aid" is already in that section, for example.
And speaking of bolding, I think that the first part is the part that really should be bolded.
Anyway, I'll make the modification. Let me know what you think : ) - jc37 10:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It'll do for now, that seems a sensible suggestion. Also, I think you left out an important part of the quotation first time around. Regardless of where you feel the conversation was going, you were quoting what was explicitly stated as being one admin's opinion; <my emphasis> "I think there is consensus on this: user categories should be explicitly oriented toward collaboration." This also ties into the discussion above. You're probably right that we are mis-communicating on some level. It would help me if I had a better understanding of your position. Do you believe that consensus on Wikipedia is driven by closures of debates by admins, or by the actions, edits and discussions of Wikipedians? Hiding T 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that any discussion of Wikipedians can result in a consensus, and especially our 'process-driven" discussions, such as XfD/RfC/etc. Though being bold is a valid way to edit, it does not particularly equal "consensus" by the act alone (since I presume "consensus" means having at least more than a single person discussing - Silent consensus aside, of course).
Note that the discussion closers of an XfD process discussion have an "oversight" (as it were) of DRV. And reslly, any discussion has an "oversight" of the community, such as at WP:AN/I, or through the dispute resolution process. (Though personally, I wish we had a DRV-like page for those who close non-XfD discussions, such as RfCs.)
So yes, I think it would be wrong to dismiss XfD discussions as not being consensual discussions, when in truth that's what they're actually supposed to be. - jc37 10:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally

Your recent comments about how you seem to characterise previous CFD and DRV closures seems contrary to my understanding.

If a closure is the result of a discussion, and the closure is determined to be one of consensus (in other words, not an overall "no consensus" closure), then I presume that that should be considered a consensus of Wikipedians. And I would think that this is even more clear when the closures continue to be consistant, and further are upheld by a DRV closure (which is also a result of a consensual discussion).

I guess I don't see how (as it seems) that you can offhandedly dismiss such discussions as not being a consensus.

Yes, consensus can change, and you know I'm a proponent of that. But to claim that, the persons making the claim should probably have a better handle on what Consensus means (which unfortunately hasn't always been the case), if they're going to claim that it has changed. (Not to mention the typical issues of forum shopping, "vote"-counting, and so on.)

If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. - jc37 10:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think probably why we disagree is because you support a position and I don't. And I don't think anything I can say will change your mind. You appear to hold the view that the category system should not be used to categorise wikipedians in a manner that wikipedians choose. I disagree with that position. I also disagree that that represents the consensus on Wikipedia. However, again, I can not seem to iterate my position clearly enough to you. Consensus is not determined at a cfd. Consensus is not determined at a drv. Consensus is decided by Wikipedians. If one group of Wikipedians says you can't do something, and another group of Wikipedians says they will do it regardless, it is pointless to say consensus exists. For another example of this, see the arbitration case regarding television episodes. Hope that clarifies my position. Hiding T 13:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "You appear to hold the view that the category system should not be used to categorise wikipedians in a manner that wikipedians choose."
Well actually, I hold the view that it's been determined repeatedly at CFD that categories should not be created at editors' whims. As categories are technical constructs, not just pages to be edited, category groupings should exist for a purpose. And there are several things categories should not be, which has been determined by consensus. (See WP:OC, for more information.) For example, categories should not be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If there is information to be noted, note it in the article. If there is a valid reason to group the articles together for navigation purposes, then by all means, use a category. If the validity is in question, well, there's always WP:Categories for discussion.
Usage of Wikipedian categories stem from that idea. They shouldn't be used as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If there is information to be noted, note it on the user page. (This is directly why personal identification cats have been repeatedly deleted.)
And so what would be the "valid reason to group the [user pages] together for navigation purposes"? Collaboration.
It's not any more complex than that.
The only issue here is that those who do identify personally with something, often will fight for whatever they may see is associated with it, even to the point of illogicity. So even if there is no actual reason to have a Wikipedian category to group Wikipedians who can twiddle their toes, the members of the cat will often fight to the death to keep the cat, when all that's really needed for personal expression is a notice of some sort on their userpage (such as a userbox).
I support "personal expression" in userspace (within reason - no attack pages, for example), but it's an inappropriate use of category space.
I hope this clarifies. If not, feel free to ask, etc. etc. - jc37 10:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability and deletion debates

"And when did a deletion debate become focussed on whether an article was notable enough to keep? I thought it was whether it was within our domain as an encyclopedia. Is this a suitable topic for an encyclopedia? Would this charcater be covered in any encyclopedia? A comics encyclopedia? If the answer is yes, then we should cover the topic. And the answer is yes. This character is likely to be covered in some form of encyclkopedia, and since Wikipedia is not paper that means we do not have to limit ourselves to regurgitating Britannica. I know Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, but the intention of that is that we do not cover topics which would not be covered encyclopedically, for example travel reports, plot summaries, dictionary definitions and so on and so forth. It does not apply to anything which contradicts our main purpose, which is being an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article improves that encyclopedia. Therefore we should keep it. Some people may not like it. Some people may not find it to their taste. Some people may point to guidelines which support their view. Others will point to policies which support theirs. There is a reason WP:N is a guideline and not a policy. It does not have the wide community support of a policy. It is not a fundamental principle in the way that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is. It is simply a guide as to what to write about, aimed at new editors. It is not a rulebook since Wikipedia has no rules."

Beautiful stuff, thanks for writing it.  :) Unfortunately, I have seen "non-notable" used as a reason to delete in many AFDs, particularly in numerous Dungeons & Dragons related AFDs I have participated in. That argument seems to carry a lot of weight with most deletion-minded editors, and it also convinces more than a few other editors to vote delete as well. Unfortunately, it seems hard enough to refute.

Another one that is a problem for comics and RPG articles alike, is the Reliable Sources requirement. Unfortunately, Verifiability is a policy not a guideline so it can't be simply dismissed. It can be very difficult to find what deletion-minded (and many impartial) editors will consider reliable secondary sources for such topics. I fear it's a losing battle sometimes.

But then I read stuff like that above and it gives me some hope. :) BOZ (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BOZ. I have no idea where that quote was taken from, but it's a nice refutation of WP:N. - jc37 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't anticipate a wider audience.  ;) Hiding himself said it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Negative. BOZ (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Hey folks,

I'd like to get some community feedback on the comparative merits of the current version of the Buscema article and this longer version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 - but to avoid any misunderstanding I asked - jc37 to request and moderate the RfC, which he's graciously agreed to do so on condition that User:Tenebrae and User:Hiding agree with this. Feedback on this would be appreciated.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk)

cc. User:Tenebrae, User:Jc37

I think it might be best if Skyelarke and I abide by the spirit of the Arbitration decision, and remain uninvolved in the John Buscema article for the duration of the ruling. I'm not sure why there's any rush, given the deadline. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is something that shouldn't be rushed, and the proposal has been on the table for over a month now. And I agree with the no deadline essay, although I think that waiting two more months to resolve a specific content question is a little too long; moreover, I think that the editing ban is good a safeguard to insure that no misundertandings that might lead to edit warring occur - Also, the arbitration decision does state that 'they are welcome to edit the talk page', (which is where the RfC would occur) as long as they don't engage in 'any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus.' Any thoughts?

--Skyelarke

cc. User talk:Tenebrae, User:Jc37

CC of reply at User talk:Skyelarke:
My gut feeling is it might be better if both of us took some time off from the article, and the Arbitration's proscription is as good as any. There's no reason either of us should be obsessive. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. And that said, I would have to agree. While I appreciate your (Skyelarke's) enthusiasm in wanting to help with the article as soon as possible, and the arbcomm ruling doesn't prohibit such a discussion (indeed, I believe it explains how such should be done), I think we may be overstepeping beyond the "spirit" of the ruling by starting such an overall discussion so soon after the closure. (Especially since no one else supported, or even commented regarding this suggestion when posted there.) Let's just give this some more time. - jc37 10:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That's cool - and I also agree that right now is not a good time - perhaps we can arrive at a compromise solution - between now and waiting several months perhaps we can have a middle ground, let's say in a months time?

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk)

cc. User:Jc37 , Tenebrae


Cool - I think it would be simpler to leave aside the idea of a moderator right now and simply make the RfC request myself (in about a month's time) - thanks for your help - Although I do think the concerns raised are valid - there are other factors (most that aren't really appropriate to bring to a Wikipedia talk page) that I feel would make a RfC beneficial to the situation -

If anyone has any questions or doubts concerning this, I would suggest that the following arbitration support ressources are availible for consultation -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification

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

Cheers,

Skyelarke

cc. User:Jc37 , Tenebrae —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyelarke (talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Need a move fixed...

My own damn fault here... I was trying to get a bet of clarity in place re this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Damage being done with CB (last bit) and moved the wrong article first.

Trinity (series) needs to go to Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman: Trinity (Talk page as well...).

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup... that'll work. Thanks. - J Greb (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No... you got the talk as well. And it is a mess since Duggy decided to be bold and create an article for the post-Final Crisis weekly. And didn't check for hidden articles. - J Greb (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL
The one I should have moved first — Wagner's mini published in 2002. Putting the already existing article under it's full title (This is the one Duggy missed). I also moved the 1993 story arc anf mini to a (story arc) page.
I wnet to move the Wagner one and realize too late I'd moved Duggy's contribution. - J Greb (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And in digging I find more and more mess...
Follow me on this one Olli:
  • Starting at 00:00, February 10, 2008 (as per the date stamps that comes up for me) we had
    • "Trinity (series)" (created 10:22, December 4, 2006 by Sbpat21) — the Wagner mini;
    • "Trinity (DC Comics)" (created 19:47, September 17, 2006 by Waza) — the 1993 GL mini;
    • "DC Universe: Trinity" (created 23:26, November 1, 2007 byQueen of Swords) — a redirect to the GL mini; and
    • "Trinity (comics)" (created 10:41, November 9, 2005 by Rtkat3) — the character.
  • At 00:50, February 10, 2008 — Letsgetgoing created "Trinity (comic book)" for the 2008 weekly (and does a good job of it)
  • At 03:20, February 10, 2008 — Duggy physically moved "Trinity (DC Comics)" to "DC Universe: Trinity", overlaying the redirect.
  • At 03:24, February 10, 2008 — Duggy blanked "Trinity (DC Comics)" and proceeded to create an article for the weekly with minor comment to the Wagner mini.
  • At 13:28, February 10, 2008 - I muddled things by:
    • Moving "DC Universe: Trinity" to "Trinity (story arc)", thinking it was the original article; and
    • Screwing up the atempted move of "Trinity (series)" to "Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman: Trinity"
You've fixed my botch with the Wagner mini, so that one's fine. So's Letsgetgoing's article for the weekly and the article on ther character.
Now...
I'm going to revert Duggy's edits to "Trinity (DC Comics)" and blank the (story arc) article so that the GL mini can have an admin move it to the (story arc) page. Then I intende to either rework th (DC Comics) page into a mini DAB or redirect it to Trinity (disambiguation)#Literature.
- J Greb (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
OK... "Trinity (DC Comics)" and "Trinity (story arc)" are ready... - J Greb (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 :) One last thing — the move of "Trinity (DC Comics)" to "Trinity (story arc)" to preserve the history and talk page. - J Greb (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't hurt, even though it's just the project header and the civility one. - J Greb (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks... looks good. - J Greb (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian question

Following up on something you mentioned in re-opening the checkuser...

Since Asgardian is editing with minimal comment - few useful edit summaries, if any, and no comments/reasons on talk pages - 1) is that a breach of the ArbCom restrictions and 2) if so, shouldn't he be called on it?

If the answer is yes, should the call be an comment on his talk page or a 1st degree block? (ie 24hrs since it is a different issue than 2+ reverts in 7 days.)

- J Greb (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm speaking with J Greb re: this now. I think it is easier if you just read what I had to say on his Talk Page rather than just repeat it here. I'll also speak to the other user and explain those edits in more detail. I can support them all as much of what I corrected reeked of POV.

Asgardian (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mitchell Royce

Sorry if I got that wrong. I've no recollection of the article at all. Deb (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Pamela Rambo

The article doesn't claim any of the reasons you restored it. A7 is no assertion. If you consider that "Pamela Rambo is a colorist who has worked in the comics industry" asserts notability, I don't see it. "XYZ is a <occupation> who has worked in the <notable industry>" would make any internet engineer notable, any lawyer, any bit part actor, etc. Rather than continue a wheel war: off to afd land, I guess. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No-Rationale page

Hi,

On your no-rationale page, at least half of the listed images are now either fixed or deleted. If you find more to take a look at, I'll be happy to lend a hand again. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, there's new ones to be added as well. A few of my own contributions were tagged the other day. It appears that Betacommand has worked his way back around to the "B" articles again. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just fixed one a few moments ago myself. I'm sure there are dozens and dozens more which will get tagged by that silly bot. :) (It's on D now, because I'm talking about Image:Defenders 34.jpg). 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You two must be doing a really good job, because of the 20000 tagged images, only 263 are comics related, or at least categorised so. Either that or I am compiling the list wrongly. AWB snagged on doing it through categories so I have listed every image which transcludes {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}. Are there other templates to look at? Hiding T 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes nagging gets things done.  ;) Really, I was just looking for something to do, and it helps if I can save some images along the way! I picked up a few that seem to have been just added, and I'll get to your list when I can. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Debating

The thing I want to clarify is this, which I think is the nub of the dispute. You assert that "it's an inappropriate use of category space". Is that your opinion, your opinion on where consensus lies or a statement of fact? I hope we both agree it is not the latter, I know we disagree on the middle one and I hope we agree on the former. Where we are disagreeing is that I think that there is a lot of leeway given to user space, and I tend to think that applies to categories categorising user pages. You are coming from the other end, and saying that this is what categories do for articles so they should do it for user pages. I'm not sure where consensus lies, but I hope you agree that it lies somewhere between our two positions.

The other thing we're discussing is how consensus is determined. You seem to be placing greater weight on a consensus established in a deletion debate, which is how I read your statement about 'process-driven" discussions. I tend to try and consider all debate and actions and edits as equal, and I tend not to discount any opinion. You seem to indicate that people who believe something is useful are being illogical and are therefore dismissing their view. I do not hold that view. I think if deleting something drives contributors away, and that thing which is being deleted is not something which would form the encyclopedia, then deleting it harms Wikipedia. I also believe that people's feelings should be taken into account, per Wikipedia:Consensus. I do not see my goal on Wikipedia as telling people what categories they can and cannot have on their user page. There was a point in time when this issue was divisive and it was important to iterate the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia, being to build an encyclopedia. I think that time has since passed. I hope that clarifies what I think are the main points of dispute here. Hiding T 18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "Is that your opinion, your opinion on where consensus lies or a statement of fact?"
Yes, yes, and obviously no. There are few actual incontrovertable "facts" (rules) on Wikipedia, as I'm sure we both agree (as you note rather well below concerning notability).
I think you're taking my comments to an extreme that I didn't intend.
One thing in hindsight that I didn't explain was that the whole thing about namespaces also stems somewhat as a result of the userboxes discussions of the past as well. One thing was clear, template space should not be used for certain things, but userspace is given a bit more leeway, and so Template space was an "inapprorpiate" location for such userboxes.
If that is true, then the same can be said of categories. It's not userspace, and should follow the same (or at least similar) such "appropriateness" guidelines, as has been previously determined by consensus.
And in (nearly) every case, it has been. Both at CFD before UCFD was created, and of course at UCFD.
  • "There was a point in time when this issue was divisive and it was important to iterate the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia, being to build an encyclopedia. "
In no way has that "point in time" passed. I think you know this as well as, if not better than, many.
All of that said, let me see if I have your opinion correct:
You feel that category space should not have any limitations on inclusion. If a Wikipedian creates a category, then that category should not be deleted, regardless of the reason, simply because that Wikipedian wants it?
- jc37 21:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a couple of things really. There was a consensus that template space should be used for "templates" back when the user box row broke out. I'm not sure whether that consensus still exists, but if it does it exists because template space is somewhat different from category space. Template space is somewhere we stick templates, (although I am unsure how we define templates since a lot of them are notices rather tan templates) as opposed to a technical function. Transclusion is the technical function related to templates, and transclusion can be done from any space, so there was no need to have transcluded pages in template space. Category space is different. It is a marriage of pages and a technical functions. The results given by categorisation cannot be duplicated any other way. Let me put it to you like this. You could delete all the "category pages", but users could still categorise themselves with the category link being a red link. Now how do you delete the category? You can't. Nothing exists in category space to be deleted. You would have to go into user space and start deleting things, which is somewhat divisive. I hope you now see my point. This brings us on to the question you asked me:
  • You feel that category space should not have any limitations on inclusion. If a Wikipedian creates a category, then that category should not be deleted, regardless of the reason, simply because that Wikipedian wants it?
I'm obviously not being clear enough. My point is that a category should not be deleted where no consensus exists to delete it, and consensus on whether something is useful or not is not formed by ignoring the people who say it is. If only one person says it is and ten people say it isn't, you have a consensus to delete. If the debate is evenly split there is no consensus. As to whether category space should have limitations, can we first define what category space is? Hiding T 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit it feels odd to mention it to you (since I know you know and understand this, but here goes:
  • Consensus is not a vote.
And one should say more than just "I think it's useful". (WP:USEFUL) They should express why it should be considered useful. And after the discussion, someone closes the discussion, attempting to determine both the consensus of the discussion, and the broader community consensus. (And of course, if they're involved, other policy or foundation issues, of course. And I think at least lately, that now includes arbitration results as well.)
So yes, Consensus can change. But if as a result of a community discussion, a closure is determined to be "X". And then it is endorsed following a DRV discussion (another community discussion), then I'm not sure how we could say that consensus has not been determined? It's been determined, and endorsed.
Now to your question about what category space is:
A category is a location which has Category: as its namespace antecedant. It's both a page; and a grouping of pages through technical means.
This gets somewhat confusing for some, because a category can be populated by the adding of a single line to a template (Or any page which may be transcluded), thus every page to which that template is transcluded will suddenly be added to the category.
So adding a category to any page (including templates) is also considered an edit to Category: space.
This isn't in doubt, because several Wikipedians have been warned (and some eventually blocked) concerning misuse of Category-space by making "redlinked categories" disruptively (among other things).
Does this answer your question? - jc37 06:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate what category space is. You seem to be misunderstanding the point I am making. The reason that the no userboxes in template space came to be was because it was a compromise position between those who wanted userboxes and those that didn't. It worked because people could still do what they wanted to do in other spaces. That can't happen in category space. The comparable compromise is that we treat user categories with different latitude to article categories. I would suggest that position probably has consensus, were we to ask the community, because that's usually where consensus lies, that user stuff has more leeway than article stuff. I am also well aware that a cfd is not a vote. Again, you seem to misread me. At what point do you weigh the opinion of people who say this doesn't aid collaboration as being of more validity than those who say it doesn't, bearing in mind the impartiality a closer has to have. When the only thing you are deciding is the community consensus on the utility of a thing, how do you determine the consensus? Hiding T 14:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, that's like saying that the myriad people who add "SEX" or whatever to articles are a larger consensus than those who are removing it, so such additions should stay as a pronounced consensus.
The same goes for he myriad "editors" who develop Ownership over "their" articles, and scream like mad when you decide that such articles need editing, or should be deleted. I don't see how Wikipedian categories are any different (except we're finding it's rather widespread, including admins with the ownership issues).
What clinches it for me is that (until recently) all of these editors whom you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to only comment on "their" categories. I've seen discussions with over a hundred commenters on a page of 50 noms, the rest of which had less than 5 each. Not a strong indicator of consensus about Wikipedian categories in general, to me.
However, recently (as you know) several editors who are unhappy with the repeated closures contrary to their want, have started several WP:POINT noms, and have added similar comments to existing discussions. I wouldn't call this consensus either.
So where are you finding this consensus you speak of? Or are you including one of the groups I'm noting immediately above? - jc37 10:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

hey jude

You don't seem to have answered the question I was asking, which makes me wonder if you've missed the point I was making. I'm not really sure what you're replying to. In no way is anything I have suggested similar to "saying that the myriad people who add "SEX" or whatever to articles are a larger consensus than those who are removing it, so such additions should stay as a pronounced consensus." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, adding sex to articles does not help create that encyclopedia therefore they can be removed.

As to ownership issues, I'm surprised you italicised admins. I thought one of the things we agreed upon was that adminship was no big deal. It therefore stands to reason admins will act like normal editors, since admins are normal editors. And I don't quite see what point you are making about ownership. Is there not an ownership issue here regarding the category structure? Is it possible some people are screaming that you can't do that in "our" category structure?

I'm bemused that you have managed to determine that I am giving the benefit of the doubt to users in the manner you have stated at my talk page, simply from my comments in this debate.

However, here's another viewpoint for you. Imagine there are editors looking for categories which don't conform to their view of what the category structure is, and that they are then listing them for deletion and together they are all working towards a shared goal and commenting en masse on all category deletions. And they disregard the views of editors who have created those categories, because they haven't contributed to all the debates, and because they have ownership issues because they created these categories.

Who has the most to gain contributing to deletion debates? Whose input is going to have the most impact at deletion debates? Whose impact should have the most impact? Whose view wins the day? How do you determine consensus? I know how I do it.

As for your final question, I am unsure what you refer to. So where are you finding this consensus you speak of? Or are you including one of the groups I'm noting immediately above? Which consensus are you talking about? And why am I bound by your definitions, noting that impartiality is a part of deeming consensus. Hope that helps clarify my broad point and thrust better. Hiding T 13:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well wow. AFAICT, you totally misunderstood, or misread, (or whatever other mis- applies to the response), my comments. I think I may move this whole thread to a sub-page because I have a feeling when I return (having more time to respond), it'll get quite lengthy (in the hopes of preventing another miscommunication : )
The quickie answer is that, from your last response (and of course, other discussions), I honestly feel that you and I agree on what consensus is, mostly. I was/am attempting to stay within the bounds of this discussion/debate, and so sometimes the answers/responses are ones which you likely already know, but are the answers nonetheless.
Anyway, more to come, once I puzzle out how to try to better respond. - jc37 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your expertise required

Hey, can you have a look at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Image galleries? and Category:Wikipedia image galleries? It looks to me like there's some sort of confusion over what the category is for. To me I would think it is for user and Wikipedia space pages which don't violate WP:FUC, but it appears some article space pages are creeping into the category and it's sub-cats somehow. Aren't article space categories to be kept separate from categories which categorise other space stuff? Hiding T 14:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno about "expertise" (as most know, the ins and outs of images is a weak point of mine - User:J Greb is usually my "go-to-guy" for that - is he an admin yet? : ), but I've commented on my confusion, there. Hope it helps. - jc37 20:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Need a second set of eye...

To watch a dozen images, a sandbox, and a user talk:

The user talk message I left is here. I'm posting my last dif as Skyelarke likes to clear his talk.

This also list his sandbox, where there was image issues, and the 12 images. BetacommandBot had tagged 9 of them as Orphaned on the 12th and Sky just killed the tags. I've reverted that and tagged the remaining 3, which he had "safe harbored" as 1) used in an article pending a move to article space (his version of the Buscema article, and as "{tl|free}}", which is debatable.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

Your bot request

Hi Hiding I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Comics-awb has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicky Wire article

Hi, I've just added some references to the Nicky Wire article, but there are some statements (particularly the quotes) that I can't find sources for. I noticed on the talkpage you mentioned that you have a lot of material on the Manics. Would you mind having a look at the article and adding some sources if you can? I've put in some {{Fact}} tags. Thanks, --BelovedFreak 12:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Building a bot

Hello, I saw that you have built a bot, Comics-awb, which runs on AWB. I'm planning on making a bot which also runs on AWB to deliver some newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles. Can you give me some advice as well as how to build one? (Since I never build one before) OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for at least understanding my point

I'm not sure you agree with the consequences of treating television episodes, DVD commentaries, and the like as self-published, but thanks for at least recognizing my point.Kww (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you don't think of DVD commentaries as self-published. Any DVD I have with commentary has a disclaimer that says (in effect) "The contents of the commentaries are the sole responsibility of the commentators". Since the commentators are usually the writers or actors, that certainly looks self-published to me.Kww (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think our key in determing whether something is self-published is the outside editorial control. People publish commentaries by directors because they know fans will buy the real DVD instead of bootlegs to get things like commentaries, not because they have any interest or exert editorial control over them.Kww (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

That was very kind of you and made my night. Wikipedia has been challenging of late as we all seem to be spending whole sessions just maintaining the status quo on some articles as opposed to making actual progress. I like your comment which Jc37 placed on his user page: "...no sooner do you get it all straight, have a few drinks to celebrate, put the chairs on the table and start mopping up than a whole new crowd walks in ready to get it all straight again..." It sums up the situation some days perfectly. At some point I'll walk away from Wikipedia, but hope that my legacy will at least be getting the history of many of the characters through the classic Marvel period straight. That should hopefully stand for as long as there is a Wikipedia. For now, I'm going to take a little detour onto the road less travelled and help BOZ with a few minor characters.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

10:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing redirects

I'm sorry about that – I think I was just being lazy yesterday, which of course is nobody's fault but mine. I'm going to try them again, using the following edit summary: "adding categories, per User talk:204.153.84.10#categorising redirects" Of course, I don't know whether or not User:Brian Boru is awesome will just revert the addition of categories again or not, as he has done this before. I'm not going to edit war over it, but I'll give it one last try the right way this time. But thanks for the guidance. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability question

After reading your essay on notability, I was wondering if you could help me understand something. While editing, I came across a user who claimed that "notability does not apply to disambiguation pages". I think this to be an absurd statement; if something isn't even notable, why even list it in a disambiguation page? I didn't find anything in either DAB or NOTE to support it. Am I missing something? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Your response certainly does help. Thank you for the assistance. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for your objective opinion

Speaking of notability... (it seems like everyone is speaking of notability around here these days, doesn't it?) Since you are more of a comic book guy than an RPG guy, I'd like to solicit your hopefully unbiased opinion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Origins Awards. There are certain individuals which have been working hard to prove a point about the non-notability of the many fictional elements on Wikipedia for several months now, and the RPG articles we have here have served as ripe hunting grounds for such battles because it is no small challenge to find WP:RS for them. I'd very much like your opinion there if you care to give it, whatever it may be, since we seem to be having a hard time finding someone who doesn't have a stake in the matter. BOZ (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Did someone rollback my rollback? --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... now it's back. *shrug* --GentlemanGhost (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RfB

They're discussing it at WT:RfA... Just a gentle nudge, in case you may have changed your mind : ) - jc37 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned...

  • here - jc37 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Co-nom

Just in case you (or anyone else watching this page) were interested (though noting you seem to be on a slight Wikibreak). Also left a note with User:Doczilla - jc37 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

username question

I'd like your advice: I used to edit Wikipedia a lot a year or so ago, and I'd like to do it again, but I'd like to change my name. I haven't edited with any regularity in a year. Should I just register a new name, or should I try to do a semi-official name change? I mean, there are thousands of edits on the old account. I think you would agree with my reason for wanting the name change. --64.247.122.178 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I perhaps just suck it up and go back to editing? Also, have you been watching Torchwood? I love it. --64.247.122.178 (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Crat

Thank you for the pointer but I have absolutely no intention of standing for bureaucrat at this point in time. Recent events are causing me to re-evaluate my stance towards Wikipedia, and until I work that through I can't really see my position on that changing. All the best, and take it easy. Hiding T 11:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just for future reference, however, you're still on my list of those whom I would have no problem supporting.
May ask which "recent events"?
And, I'm sure you know, I wish you all the best. - jc37 18:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent events

Far too many to recount or bother getting into. Hiding T 22:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. - jc37 09:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Query

Would {{R comics naming convention}} replace the current tags on some all caps redirects like BATMAN, BAT-MAN, THE BATMAN, THE BAT-MAN, THE FLASH, and SUPERMAN? Please reply on your talk page, as I've watchlisted it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If you would prefer them too. I don;t think there's any rules. You could have both of them on there as far as I know. This is Wikipedia, we make it up as we go along. Don't let anyone tell you any different. Hiding T 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
How's the category look? Still has a long way to go, doesn't it? BTW, Sgt. Rock (comics) is supposed to be at Sgt. Rock. Guess someone messed this one up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

While you were out...

Something that should have been on you radar... - J Greb (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Jc seems to be handling that. I'll let him plow his own field, he can touch base with me if he wants. Although it occurs to me Jc may be a she. Never have asked, to my knowledge. Hiding T 23:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No problem... more of a heads up since the CoC issue became relavent. - J Greb (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back.  :) While you were out, Comics deletions kind of went crazy - although you may have noticed some of these already. BOZ (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(smile) You appear and suddenly tasks come out of the woodwork : )
And no worries about "stepping on my toes". As I mentioned to Doczilla, I'm a big fan of "many eyes". So your comments/thoughts are welcome. - jc37 09:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Anarky FA nomination

Back in January you informed me that you wished to nominate Anarky for FA status. I've nearly completed the article to my preference. I should like to replace the anarchism navigational box with one more specific to anarchist fiction, but I realize several topics that should be contained within it are not currently in existence, and the current state of anarchist media articles is disorganized. The creation of such a navbox must wait for a future point. Until then, we may consider the Anarky article as complete as I am capable of making it. I invite you to nominate the article for Featured Article status, if you have no further reason to wait.--Cast (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. I've updated the article as best I can and have now nominated it. If you're not too busy, please do comment.--Cast (talk) 09:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema#Request_for_Comment_-_Integrate_two_versions

--Skyelarke (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A category you may find useful...

Category:Comics infobox without image - J Greb (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How are you feeling these days?

Hey man,

Sorry to have been one of the ones to have brought crap to your door if you were just popping in momentarily. :) Hope everything's OK with you. I sense some frustration on your part with the way certain things are going on around the Wiki, and can't say I don't share that. Anyway, if you see this, have a good one. BOZ (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling it out

Well, it's been a month of thinking about this, and trying to "puzzle out" how to respond. I hope this is clearer.
One thing that seems apparent to me is that we're sliding all over the various perspectives of the usage of the word "consensus". How it's determined, who determines it, and how it's applied both in it's determination and in its application.
There are some things which a typical XfD discussion can determine. There are some things which require broader discussion, or perhaps require arbitrational judgement. There are some things which it's doubtful will ever change on Wikipedia regardless of how many Wikipedians may not like it.
Having watched "Rollback granted by admins" being railroaded into place (and other, probably less well-known, examples), I sometimes despair of the community's ability to actually have real consensus determined in some cases.
But I suppose this doesn't answer your questions/thoughts directly.
I'd like to think my perspective is rather straightforward and logical:
After many discussions (at Cfd, Ucfd, WP:AN, WP:AN/I, the Village pump, misc talk pages, and elsewhere), it seems fairly clear that:
  1. categories may be populated of many members by a single editorial action of a single editor.
  2. reversion of that action often requres a full CFD nomination, rather than simply re-editing, contrary to what WP:BRD suggests.
After witnessing the many "discussions" noted above:
  1. Wikipedian categories may be about a person's personal preferences, and as is often human nature, a person gets "attached" to their preferences, and by extension, they often get "attached" to anything that has to do with those preferences. That's nothing new on Wikipedia. (WP:AADD.) If it was in article space, we might be discussing WP:OWN issues (or in some cases, vandalism, or WP:POINT issues). But it's in category space, grouping pages of users, which may be being done (as noted above) by a mere edit to a transcluded template.
  2. Honestly, one of the main opinions whenever these discussions come up in a broader forum is "who cares" and "get back to directly contributing to the encyclopedia". Though it's interesting that, once those disinterested become interested, and start doing the reading, and so on, they tend to see the issues. So, in my experience, it's a matter of the uninformed saying "who cares", and the informed saying "you should", and the "IWANTMINE" crowd saying "we do".
UCFD
  1. At UCFD, AFAIK, the guidelines for CFD are followed (with the fairly common exception to the closure guidelines, since so many admins seem hesitant to close, due to how much "drama" may ensue from the "vocal minority", among many other reasons).
  2. Any XfD discussion presumes that any interested editor will comment in the discussion based on placing a "tag" (a huge template notification) at the top of the page nomintaed for such discussion. I don't think anyone suggests that we must notify all page editors of a page when it's up for discussion. (though I have seen that done in some cases, for good or ill).
  3. The presumption at an XfD page is simply that if someone wanted to comment (presuming that they aren't on WikiBreak, or are in some other way prevented) then they will. It is their choice, as editors, to contribute or to not contribute however they see fit.
Based on many discussions at CFd and UCFD (and elsewhere):
  1. Categories shouldn't be used anywhere as "bottom-of-the-page" notices. If someone wishes to add such information, add it to the article (or the userpage) in some manner. A "category grouping" should not be created for such things.
  2. Wikipedian categories should be directly useful to collaborating on the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site, and probably more clearly Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Creating categories for all the infinite amounts of personal data on Wikipedians is simply not considered a "good thing". A "userpage notice" should be enough. So as is often said at UCFD: The userbox is probably fine, but the category is not. Imagine the category bloat if all such categories were deemed "acceptable". We'd have more categories for Wikipedians than for articles. And while I strongly support supplemental support of the Wikipedian community as an indirect way to indirectly contribute to the encyclopedia, creating a mass of indiscriminate categories is not the way to do so.
So does this all have previous consensus? Yes, I believe it does. The archives of CfD, UCFD, and DRV list repeated examples. And WP:UCFD/I shows how consistant the results tend to be.
Have I done any better at attempting to explain/clarify? - jc37 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling it out

Thanks for the long response Jc. Sadly, I can't see any point in taking it any further. I simply disagree quite strongly with your whole premise. You believe you are right, and I have never in my life believed I am right about anything. Therefore, we have such strongly opposing philosophies that we cannot come to any satisfactory conclusion. Your close of the debate on whether to delete Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers pretty much shows we have vastly different ideas of consensus, an admin's role, Wikipedia's purpose, what ultimately matters and so much that I just couldn't get my head around it. I really don't want to be here anymore involved in this sort of stuff anymore because I simply do not recognise Wikipedia anymore and nor can I see any way of restoring the Wikipedia I passionately believed in on a scale that could work. All the best for the future, and don't worry about it. It really doesn't matter. I'm sorry this response is woefully inadequate, but it really isn't something I wish to fall out over, and our views are so diametrically opposed on this score. If I have misrepresented you in anyway I apologise, but in all honesty I'd rather just walk away. Maybe some other day we can chat the breeze about something or other. Until then, take it easy, Hiding T 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I have to say... While I would agree that we both, at times, differed in opinion about this or that (sometimes to the point of confusing the heck out of at least me), that doesn't mean that I don't respect you or your opinion. And in this case, I was noting your usage of the word "debate" in the header and was following that line. Though I must admit, this last response makes me feel that I did something wrong, or in some way, treated you in some way untoward. If I did, I apologise, as that was not my intention.
Someday, sometime, if you feel up to it, I'd honestly be interested in what your vision of what you felt Wikipedia is, and should be, is.
As for songs, at the moment, I have "Rainbow Connection" (from The Muppet Movie) going through my head. Though I suppose it's apropos.
If this is "goodbye", I do wish you well. - jc37 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Work groups

Awesome job sorting that out, although it does my watchlist explode ;)

One thing I noticed in the last run is that it is doing everything under British comics but this needn't mean they all count as being British comics. For example, British comics -> British comics writers -> Warren Ellis -> Comics by Warren Ellis -> Fell which is what I'd include under the US work group as it is an American title (and not one of the Big Two). Hence I changed it back [11]. Just an FYI and I'll double check - it might be in fact that we want the work of a British creator in the British work-group even if the publisher is American but it hasn't been how I've been assigning work-groups so far.

Not a biggie either way but something to keep an eye out for as various areas intersect. (Emperor (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Ah yes I remember having a chat with Steve Block about such things, as comic stories are often loosely described as comic strips when the actual definition used here is, well, a comic in strip form that usually appears in newspapers. I have been changing as much of that as I found (I think I went through the Eagle entry the other year) but there is still a lot of it about.
We never did come up with a solution for such comics anthologies. (and equivalents for other British comics) should probably "Category: 2000 AD titles" which would allow us to differentiate between comic titles (like 2000 AD), stories (like Judge Dredd) and comic strips. Of course things like Judge Dredd have appeared as comic stories, comic books, comic strips, graphic novels and trade paperbacks so I think having a proper structure would help (I ran into something similar with some of the earlier DC Comics' anthologes the other day - Creature Commandos appeared first as a story in the Weird War Stories title and then as its own comic book when revived).
If you spot anything like that let me know and I'll get stuck in and sort it out. I'll have a look at Billy's Boots, and related, entries, later. (Emperor (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

List of Avengers members

I know you haven't been involved in the discussion regarding membership above to date, but I think you are probably the most highly respected member of the Comics project. There is a recent addition to the talk page of the above article from Tom Brevoort, editing from an IP, added to the Talk:List of Avengers members#Questions about the membership wrangling. I can forward to you the e-mail I received from Mr. Brevoort separately as well, which I think contained the material verbatim. Also, the IP does indicate that there is an officially published source on the subject making those statements. I can't be sure, but I think that the source, in and of itself, is probably sufficient. I would however welcome your much better informed opinion on this matter. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Farewell

Wow. Well, can't say that I'm totally surprised, given a number of things I've seen lately, but I'm shocked and disappointed all the same. Wikipedia really needs more administrators like you, and this will be a big loss for the community. Godspeed, and if you ever return I'll be sure to welcome you. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment

I understand leaving wikipedia, I've more-or-less done it myself. That said, I want to say I think you were an outstanding member of the community. I think of you and Jerry as two the best... Hobit (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

I had a feeling this might happen. Thanks for all your efforts. They did not go unnoticed. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Council roll call

Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Council participants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 30, 2008.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Each response section header in an RfC identifies the type of response and the name of the user posting it. I didn't see any pressing need for yours (or ScienceApologist's) to be different. FCYTravis (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Honest to God, I got such a warm feeling seeing your post. It is truly good to hear from you. I've been spending time with my family back home -- my mother's pancreatic tumor hasn't progressed OR regressed, and fortunately hasn't metastasized (after which it would be basically over in a month or so). She's in-between chemo and radiation, and we're just hoping this in-between period doesn't leave a window for the tumor to do something. Still, however, she is strong and feisty, and if you were just speaking with her on the phone, you'd never know she was sick -- she sounds exactly like always.

I'm back in NY now, and want to try to work on some more creators' bios and comics history. I hope you're well and busy, and despite the working anonymity, I want you to know how much I appreciate your concern, and being able to relieve myself of the burden a bit by talking with you. You're a valued colleague to me, you already know, and I'm also glad to be able to speak with you as a person. I can't tell you how much it helps. I'd better stop now before I get any more emotional... :-)

And what better place than the Comics Project to say, "See you in the funny pages!" --Tenebrae (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The bit where I shuffle my feet and look at them embarrassed and all

You know, I have to say... While I would agree that we both, at times, differed in opinion about this or that (sometimes to the point of confusing the heck out of at least me), that doesn't mean that I don't respect you or your opinion. And in this case, I was noting your usage of the word "debate" in the header and was following that line. Though I must admit, this last response makes me feel that I did something wrong, or in some way, treated you in some way untoward. If I did, I apologise, as that was not my intention.
Someday, sometime, if you feel up to it, I'd honestly be interested in what your vision of what you felt Wikipedia is, and should be, is.
As for songs, at the moment, I have "Rainbow Connection" (from The Muppet Movie) going through my head. Though I suppose it's apropos.
If this is "goodbye", I do wish you well. - jc37 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You didn't do owt that was "wrong". And it wasn't "goodbye". It was more, I can't do this conversation anymore. I was getting frustrated and the best thing for all is to go away and recharge the batteries. The conversation, at my end, was getting more and more obtuse. I was having trouble following your thinking and your leaps, the way you were going from a to b and the connections you were making, and trying to work them out was driving me to distraction. I got the impression you weren't acknowledging or even understanding the points I was trying to make. The thing that was getting me though, was that the debate was starting to matter to me, and I needed to get to a point where it didn't matter, because like I said, I didn't want to fall out over it. Beyond that, there was a lot of other wiki-drama going on that was starting to sicken me. And it all keyed into what I kind of believe about Wikipedia. Which I can't really put into words. Sorry. I know what shouldn't happen. I believe admins shouldn't delete things in a csd category without looking at them and investigating them. I believe admins shouldn't be rude. I believe admins and editors shouldn't have ulterior motives. I believe everyone has the right to have a voice, and that everyone's opinion is equal. I do not believe any policy page can cover all angles, nor should it try. I believe policies should be short and simple. I believe in honesty. I believe too much happens behind the scenes, off-wiki. The key things for me are WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:CONSENSUS. Some of the stuff going on today seems to mean we should deprecate those sections of WP:NOT. I'm really opposed to vindictiveness, spitefulness and process creep. And I'm unclear on whether this is really worth it, whether it can really work, or not. I'm sorry it all blew up the way it did. I hope you'll respect the fact that from my end it's better if I retreat and let it blow over. I think the guidance you are putting together is a step in the right direction. Hiding T 10:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Not to be a "process wonk" (as I've been repeatedly accused : ) - but "withdrawing from the discussion" is a step in the dispute resolution process (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Stay cool - noting the section used to be titled "Second step: Disengage for a while"). And it sounds like it was probably a good idea. I know I did so myself as a result of a discussion in the past with Dmcdevit. (Another time I was accused of being a process-wonk - I dunno, personally, if we need to re-invent the wheel, fine, but if we don't, let's follow the processes that have worked so far, especially if they will aid in reducing disruption? - Note, I'm referring to that discussion, not any of ours).
In looking over your "I believe"s I don't find much that I disagree with. If I can refer to a Barnstar I just received, UCFD doesn't "drive me nuts" anywhere near as much as policy "discussions" can. People are so territorial. And WP:OWN runs rampant. ("But it's not in enecyclopedia space" - rolls eyes.) So I'm definitely empathetic.
(I didn't understand the reference to WP:NOT, but it's ok.)
And I'm sorry too, specifically as I didn't realise we were heading towards a "blow up". I guess sometimes when you respect someone, you forget that they're human too, and that emotions can get involved, whether we wish them to or not. And communication breakdowns can be incredibly frustrating, as I too, so know.
(looks above) well it looks like once again I've written the "long version" of what should probably have been "Ok", "I'm sorry too", "I don't disagree", and "Thank you".
Non-verbose, I am not, I suppose : )
Anyway, I do hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 15:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fyi

This is in no way anything but a notice (since it seemed the smart/fair thing to do).

I've been working on transclusion of Wikipedia:Userboxes (among other things). In the process, I noticed that your comments about User categories (at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Design and construct were pretty much orphaned from what they referred to. (And later, when I had an idea to split the page even further (though I've reverted that now), they were on a talk page of a deleted page.)

However, since Wikipedia talk:User categories was a redlink, I decided to restore your comments and move them there. I don't know if they still represent your thoughts about the current form of the guidelines (though I don't believe much has changed, except to reference and clarify more), so I feel/felt that you should know where I moved them. - jc37 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving my comment

It's all said and done as far as I'm concerned, so where it gets archived is really of no concern to me now. Hiding T 16:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.
And thank you very much for the barnstar. (Awww... What do you mean I can't bite it? And it looked so tasty, too : ) - jc37 20:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:United States comics workgroup members

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:United States comics workgroup members, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:United States comics workgroup members has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:United States comics workgroup members, 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. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Batman edits

Allow me to ask you a question: are you of the opinion that some of those recent edits you made were not pokes in the eye to me? If not, I'd like to point out that I definitely felt poked. If they were meant as such, do you imagine that such behavior engenders the sort of assumption of good faith and courtesy from me that you yourself would like to have? Maybe take a look at some of those edits and edit summaries; you took some cheap shots, and unwarranted ones at that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you posted to my page before reading my comments in Talk:Batman, right? My comment from above was the edit where you changed all fo the cn tags to refer to Daniels' book and added my name in CAPS. What was that all about? As well, your commentary in the edit summaries took the tone of 'well, I think its utter bullocks to include this, but here it is.' Not the best way to foster respect between editors, wouldn't you say? Calling a spade a spade states the obvious when you are right and marks you as a jerk if you are wrong. I am saying that keeping your cool and considering that if one person has the temerity to ask for something that a dozen passed by without having the courage to be berated for asking the same thing.
This isn't a mountain or a molehill of a situation. I was just calling attention to how one of your edits and several of your edit summaries were perceived. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think you were a jerk, Hiding. I said that calling spade a spade is a bad policy all around. When you are right, you are stating the obvious. When you are wrong, it marks the person naming (incorrectly) a spade as a jerk. And no, I am not trying to come across as, nor think of myself as, intimidating. However, when I take the time to explain my edits, I expect other editors to read and respond to them. Politely, if possible. You kinda assumed bad faith, and I noted it. It isn't fatal, and I am pretty sure we can regain faith with one another. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE regarding Tenebrae/Asgardian

I dunno a bloody thing about how these things are supposed to work, but I figure you, being our equivalent of Shazam (meaning possessed of boundless knowledge, forgot the possible "dead" implication too, didn't mean that) probably do, and I like passing the buck whenever possible. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I almost blocked him myself (for the reasons cited), but was waiting for more "discussion". (That and, as J Greb will probably vehemently agree, I tend to be slow about such things, unless time is a factor.)
Anyway, as I suppose I'm supposed to say:
"I support the resolution/closure of the discussion, good block". - jc37
And thank you for your quick response as well. John Carter (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm

Thanks for your input on the block, I'd actually been mulling it over and had come back to seek out your view. I'm pondering the discussion initiated at WP:COMICS, and how that impacts. I'm thinking that that needed to happen a lot earlier. Anyway, best wishes, Hiding T 19:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree. That was also part of why I didn't immediately block based on the evidence. I was hoping that they would start talking (and dial down the accusations). But to be honest, even since - and just prior to - then, there have been more concerns about his edits. Given that there is an ongoing discussion, and that hopefully something good "could" come from it, perhaps the block could be reduced to 48 hours (we've learned - per past experience and arbcom - that, with him, anything of a shorter duration is pointless), with the caveat that this is for discussion. If he edits without discussion in that interim, the week-long block would then be restarted. But this is just a thought. The week-long block is appropriate in that he has been repeatedly warned. What are your thoughts? - jc37 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I can see your reasoning. I'd be prepared to unblock Asgardian now if he promised not to edit an article for the next week, merely limited edits to discussion. Is that out of the question? What are your thoughts? Hiding T 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, though if so, it would need to be made clear (and I mean carved in stone, clear) that all edits for the next week (starting now) be restricted to the "odd" namespaces (the talk spaces). Even a single edit means a restart of the week-long (or longer) block. I only suggest this due to the wiki-lawyering I've seen him attempt in the past.
(Incidentally, for the most part, I've begun to learn to (roughly) wait in unifying our discussions, and had actually checked my watchlist and compared the time to see if you were active before removing from my talk page : ) - jc37 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thinking it over

I'm going to mull it over. I may not be around the next couple of days, but I'm wondering whether it isn't worth seeing how the situation plays out as is. If another editor wants to unblock, that's fair enough, but I had warned Asgardian about reverting without discussion. There was no discussion initiated by Asgardian. That's a position that needs to be amended, because it is counter to how Wikipedia ideally works. Hiding T 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. - jc37 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

hmm...

I just read this and your description of an Admin reminds me of a roadie. maybe we should start a wikiroadie group.... no? anyway, what I was going to say was, What are your standards? That page seemed more of a description of an Admin then your standards for electing them.--Pewwer42  Talk  23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't get the point you are trying to make. Hiding T 23:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Had forgotten to log in

Hiya, H. Yeah, that was me; I'd forgotten to log in. I didn't think much of it, since the edit summary read typically like one of mine, I thought. I hope I didn't give any impression otherwise; I certainly would never, nor did I in this case, suggest there was another editor involved.

As for the bigger point you made, you're probably right about my tone with Asgardian having seemed pointed. I just don't know what to do — when I word things more carefully and try to be polite, he accuses me of being "condescending" (his word). I guess I could try to find another way to word things, but it can feel like a damned-if-I-do-damned-if-I-don't situation with him.

In any event, I appreciate the nudge. Sometimes we're driving blind here, and we need each other to help us stay in our lane and not drift off into the shoulder.

Now I have to go hit the sack — ironically, given my own maternal situation, a friend's elderly mother just died and I volunteer to help sit shiva, of all things. What did John Lennon say? "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

Thanks again. I fleshed out Ogden Whitney a day or two ago, and hope to get back to the bios soon. With kind regards as always, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: About Storm (Marvel Comics)

Yes, I would like to know when she created a hurricane and/or if she is at least powerful enough to make a tropical storm (which can become a hurricane). If possible, can you provide answers back here? Or you may reply below if desired. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Placeholder image

[12] I like that idea. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeph Loeb

Has User: responded to your question yet? I ask, because Loeb's email, and can relay your question to him if you want, as I worked on his article, and had some dealings with him over the article's accompanying photo. Nightscream (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he and I corresponded a bit yesterday (I met him last August, and we exchanged emails), and because of his experiences with identity theft, he requested, on advice of his legal counsel, that his year of birth be removed too. Do you think that would be okay? Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Years in comics categories

I just removed your addition of the "underpopulated category" header to a year in comics category [13] and then noticed you'd done the lot. The thing is by their very nature they (and the decades in comics categories are going to be underpopulated because most things added there will get moved to more specific categories (as I've been doing with the Category: 2000s comics, and what I've been more generally with Category: Comics, Category: Comic book titles and Category: Graphic novels - if they are full to the brim then we have done our job wrong). If they start filling up with things like events in that year then the solution would be to create a category and move them into it. So the main work I'd be doing is depopulating those categories in favour of the more specific ones, which makes the underpopulated headers in those categories redundant (and counter-productive if the articles put in there should be in the comic debuts version). Before removing them I thought I'd drop you a note and see if I was missing something. (Emperor (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

OK cool.
Looking at it, an events category looks like a good idea - these days Marvel and DC seem to have at least one a year and there are categories like Category: Infinite Crisis (and the potential for others. I might raise this over on the comic project talk page. (Emperor (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Splitting space

It would be great to get your opinions on making space the disambiguation page for the subject. See here. Thanks Andeggs (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bill Finger

Terrific find and add! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Mediation?

Hello - I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding Gavin.collins and his behavior regarding notability templates. BOZ (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And another one

That statistics page is a list of all the backlogs we've got, so to my mind it is a noticeboard of all the tasks that need doing. Thoughts? Hiding T 10:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

K, here's mine, though I'll admit to at least some of it being merely my personal preference:
When I was saying "noticeboard", I was considering one in which editors can post to for notification of "something". Our main ones are the main talk page, the noticeboard (of course), the clean up page, and the proposed task list. (CotM was there as well.) Statistics doesn't seem to be any of that.
In addition, I tried to pare the first section down to what someone who would be a newbie to the Comics WikiProject should check out/read, yet to try to avoid overwhelming them. So that's the main page and "getting involved". Everything else is pretty much referential to the tasks of editing or organising pages covered by the project, or the project itself.
(And honestly, I also thought it looked better : )
Anyway, does that make sense? - jc37 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Tinsley

That makes sense, go ahead and remove the section. I was just a little concerned that in removing the improperly cited sections, I was completely removing a notable part, but if there is only one small article, then it's clearly non-notable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment at WP:AN

Please see [14]. My comment was in no way meant to be critical of you personally, and I apologise if it came off that way. Black Falcon (Talk) 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, then. :) By the way, I like this idea of yours. I think it successfully addresses some of the concerns that have been raised regarding insertion of libellous material by new accounts, and it seems unlikely to be opposed by a substantial number of either proponents or opponents of the proposal to reverse the AFD default for BLPs. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A sugestion

Regarding the work of user-Asgardian - you might want to consider taking a step back from direct arbitration enforcement action in the interest of objectivity and neutrality - maybe limit yourself to offering comments on the situation and allow other administrators less involved in the situation make the actual enforcement decisions if necessary.

IMO, if it's not a situation of sock-puppeting or revert-warring, then parties on both sides can arrive at a compromise solution through the standard wikipedia discussion options.

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted

I was in fact away for much of the time that the block was in place, and don't see it as a big issue. Yes, if I am literal with the Edit Summaries and Talk (although many aren't!) that will solve that bone of contention. I must admit receiving a Barnstar was a pleasant surprise. As I said before, my aim is to just use my comic-knowledge to get many of these articles up to scratch so that the information is there for all (eg. Thanos etc.) and no one else ever has to slog through creating lengthy biographies.

Regards


07:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hiding, WP:OUTING is a guideline (section) concerning the topic discussed, and therefore is the most relevant link for expanded information. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Protection also addresses this issue, as a policy. I don't see a problem at all if something as important as outing is mentioned several times, in different ways, to make it even clearer. Crum375 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING is not "jargon" — it is an important part of an official WP guideline, and outing people is a blockable offense, per policy. To repeat it in different ways is fine, as it will contribute to clarity. Crum375 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I am "entrenched" in the view that outing is an important issue, that per policy it is a blockable offense and that this should be made very clear. If there are other ways of achieving this clarity, I am open to suggestions. Crum375 (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why you need to toss coins. "Outing" is the commonly used WP name for this offense, and should be in the title. Having the expanded version there is fine too. Crum375 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re: About Storm (Marvel Comics)

Think your bot archived my comment too soon. Anyway, do you have an answer? I'd like to see if I can incorporate this data by Asgardian as well. Please reply on your talk page, or at WT:COMICS. Cheers, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Ah, yes, sorry, I haven't been up in the loft yet. I'll try and do that this week. If I haven't by Wednesday nag again. Hiding T 13:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (read the comment). I'll make the update soon as I can. BTW, have you watchlisted Storm's page? There is a user who keeps adding unsourced content. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Batplane

Just saw your comment on my talk page about removing my material from the Batplane page. I was indeed the author of the material that I added, as I am the owner of the website from which it was taken. Sorry I didn't know how to identify it as such. I think Wikipedia is the worse off for it having been removed (the Batplane page is just pitiful now) but the information is still available on my site so I guess I won't worry about it. I only occasionally visit Wikipedia so I didn't see your comments on my talk page until well after the changes had been made (right now, as a matter of fact). Obviously, I'm not a suitable editor for Wikipedia since I don't monitor my edits regularly. Blackhawk66 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

knock knock!

... just a friendly note to inform you (if you don't already know) that someone (perhaps inadvertently) left a note regarding "David Vern Reed" on your user page as opposed to your talk page. Later, Ling.Nut (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Aha. Thank you. Hiding T 10:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Damon Grant

Hi. You declined my prod suggestion for this article. Do you believe converting this article to a redirect to List of Brookside characters would be ok? The article is too short and lacks any real-world information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No rush. Since you said that you can improve it, I believe you. I am just merging/prodding articles that remained untouched for months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Brookside

What should we do with the pending prods for the various people on list of Brookside characters? Obviously, anyone can remove the prod, or change to a redirect. I have no idea of the importance of the show, but it would seem a redirect would be the obvious sort of compromise, not that all people necessarily seem to be willing to compromise. I am prepared to do either. I ask because of your comment at User talk:Magioladitis. That same user also tried to speedy direct a redirect from another of them, Thomas Sweeny which I declined as having no basis at WP:CSD. IIt has now been nominated for WP:RfD, where I am about to defend it. Is there ar Brookside workgroup? DGG (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's a Brookie workgroup, no. I don't think there's a need to have an article for every character, but there's no need to delete redirects from useful search terms either. I think it's more a matter of educating people. 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fisk Black

WP:BITE does not pertain to the situation. The article was started in August of 2007 by an editor who was experienced. There were no newbies involved at the time, and clear cut discussions where consensus is obvious like this one do not need to be extended the full five days. I appreciate the fact that you are looking out for new editors. Feel free to contact me in the future if you have any questions! Malinaccier (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Now I see where you're going with this. I think that you're probably right on that point. The way you're seeing it never occured to me. I will go back and add a rationale for my closure. Thanks for looking out for the new editors. Malinaccier (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I would like to award this to Hiding for going out of his way to make new editors feel welcome. This kind of work truly makes Wikipedia a good place to be. Malinaccier (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance

Sorry about the delay...

Over all it looks good. However...

  1. Is this going to incorporate/refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines? There are some, at least currently, fundamental naming/reference conventions that are missing from the SG.
  2. Page layouts:
    • The Infoboxes, normally, wind up preceding the lead when writing the articles. Otherwise the slip below the TOC. This needs to be clarified.
    • There is a collected edition table template that should be finalized "shortly" (the discussion is on the project talk page). This may be worth adding to the "Media information" point for series. Also, both the arc and series infoboxes have a built-in link to [[#Collected editions]] that may need to be mentioned.
    • We need to clarify some things with the "lists" applicable for the MI section. Are we including issue lists for series and/or reading order lists for arcs? I'd rather not see the former, and the later only if it isn't to pad out the article.
    • Noting that navigation tools: navboxes, categories, and interwiki links should be added below the "External links" but without headers.
    • Characters... and this is a blinking landmine... how strongly are we going to try and avoid the current FCB styles? If I'm reading this correctly, it looks like we'll be trying to scrap them out of hand since we'll be working from a real world perspective. There's going to be an awful lot of heels digging in when it becomes apparent that retcon will be presented when the were published, not when the revised story line has the character "experiencing" them.
    • Other article types — Off the top of my head we've got 6 or 7 additional sets: story arcs; expanded dab articles (Robin (comics)); teams; organizations; species; locations; and equipment. Are we going to create separate exemplar sections for these or append them to the existing 2?

- J Greb (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins

You're not the only one to express that the mediation process will likely be ineffective and that arbitration is the way to go. You'll note how many people expressed their reservations on the D&D project talk page. Even I am not sure what to think of it, and I was the one insisting on it. :) It didn't take long to encounter turbulence since the case started, but I want to see where the process goes. If it does go to arbitration and you'd like to be involved, I'd like you to know that I value your judgment very highly. Jeske seems to have only reluctantly done the mediation at this point, but I'm glad he's supporting this as well, and would welcome him if it does go to arbitration, which he believes would be more successful. In the meantime, I'd rather not talk much about "what ifs" though. :) BOZ (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I've watched the mediation page. To be honest, I don't have a lot of faith in arbitration lately. Hiding T 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that's too bad.  :\ BOZ (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, now that I understand, then! Inferno did kind of completely destroy that character in just about every conceivable way. :) I've often wondered if Claremont planned something like that for her all along or if he just switched gears with her at some point. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Debbie McGrath

An article that you have been involved in editing, Debbie McGrath, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie McGrath. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, It seems we write together in Wikipedia. Sorry, I didn't know that you intent to improve this as well. Well, since the article is only 3 lines long with not significant history, wouldn't be better to recreate the article from the scratch as long as you have a better version to improve? If you insist please note that in the AfD. I think this is a WP:HEY case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I allowed to close it as speedy keep? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad you gave me a chance to write about it first.:) But since there's been another delete, I guess not. But at worst the redirect can be expanded back again. DGG (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wizard

Here's a challenge for you : )

A publication called "Wizard" is named on the Wizard dab page. It's not listed at either of the other locations above. While I realise that the company published quite a few papers, 56 years seems somewhat notable, at least for listing on the list. Can you find some confirmation of the paper's existance? (And while your at it, for Rover, since it's claimed to be related.)

Good luck : ) - jc37 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Wizard and Rover, alongside Adventure and Skipper were illustrated story papers rather than comic papers, at least according to Paul Gravett's Great British Comics. Hotspur looks to have started out that way too, but then become a comic at some point in its history. Gravett states first publication of both as being 1922. Gravett describes these DC Thompson papers as being set apart through "the writers' and editorial staff's refreshingly improbable and often outrageous storylines, which truly stood the test of time by being revived, sometimes repeatedly, in strip form for decades after in Thompson's weekly comics." Wilson, the Man in Black appears to be the most notable of the characters to have appeared in Wizard, also known as Wilson of the Wizard. According to Gravett, the character was the prototype of the "astonishing sporting prodigies" which became popular in British comics, (cf. Alf Tupper, Roy of the Rovers) and was an "unassuming totally dedicated loner, [wanting] no glory or publicity". Again, according to Gravett he inspired many British athletes, and his adventures were retold in strip form in Hornet from 1964 and then Hotspur. The aforementioned Alf Tupper likewise started in Rover before moving to Victor in strip form. Hiding T 10:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Brookside

You did a damn fine job with the Damon Grant article. In the beginning when I created it about 2 years ago, I slapped it together in the hope I could lay down the barebones and see if any other Brookside fans would contribute with information , which didn't really work out (nor did the other 100+ articles I created)

I was wondering if you were gonna tackle any more?

Conquistador2k6 11 May 2008 12:28 (UTC)

  • I doubt I'll do that many more, but I'll keep them in mind. I'm sorry they are slowly being purged, I think that quite a few of the characters achieved a certain level of notoriety or notableness within the British media, and that it is possible to source fairly decent material on them. Hopefully they'll get the articles they deserve at some point, and when they do, your contributions should be restored per GFDL. Hiding T 09:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sinestro Corps War

A consensus has been reached about the plot summary at the FAC, so if you want to take another stab at it, it would be much appreciated.

On an unrelated note, would you be able to track down any other NME/Melody Maker reviews for me? If so, I can compile a list of albums I need reviews for. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll have a look at the Sinestro Corps page. Also, compile the list, and next time I'm able I'll certainly have a look for you. Hiding T 10:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
A brief list of reviews I'm looking for, based on priority: Murmur, Disintegration (NME only; I have the Melody Maker review), Ten (might not even exist; the album was pretty much ignored by reviewers when it was released), The Downward Spiral, Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, Siamese Dream. If you can find any of them that would be much appreciated. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and take a stab at these next week. I almost certainly remember Ten being reviewed. Hiding T 12:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandman

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Levy

Hi, you just deleted the above article under A3. Do you really think it fits that definition? Hiding T 15:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, with no sources, I did an admittedly quick search on the article's title and found nothing substantative. The article's contents were recently vandalized and the previous content was not substantive or meaningful - to the point where it was hard to tell what was true and what was not..if any of it was... Is it a notable character? If you want to restore it, I'd have no objections. Dreadstar † 15:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and restored it, took out what looked like vandalism. Not much there, but I'll leave it up to you..!  :) Dreadstar † 15:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Redirect works for me. Hiding T 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Surreyflag.gif

Hi Hiding, I was just wondering about your recent edit to List of English flags. You added this flag to the article, saying it is the flag of Surrey. I can see where the design comes from but I was a tiny bit curious as to where you saw this flag as I live and have strong connections with Surrey and I have never seen this flag before in my life. Thank you. --DWRtalk 15:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very speedy response. Happy editing! --DWRtalk 15:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Writing with bias

One might be inclined to think that writing about anything must inherently be done with a bias. After all, history books are written by the victors - if not, wouldn't an American history book, a British history book, a Communist USSR history book, and a history book from Nazi German all tell the same exact story if covering the events of World War II? This is not only true of fiction, but with fiction the bias is simply more blatant. Food for thought - I don't want to get involved in the policy debates, but I do look at it from time to time out of curiosity. :) BOZ (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

League Lawsuit

Thanks for you help cleaning up the article... unsourced must go!PersecutionComplex (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you, although I'm perhaps not as absolutist as you. I certainly agree the article needs work. Hiding T 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Article needs assessment

Would you mind assessing Comics Arts Conference? I originally created the article, so I don't think I should assess it. Thanks. Doczilla STOMP! 07:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It needs third party sources to get up to A-Class, but I guess I can make it a good article, it has been a while since I looked at that process. I'll trawl through my Journal issues for any coverage, probably using that index by that guy. Now I'm pondering who you are... Hiding T 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Not anyone who's named in the article. Doczilla STOMP! 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • hmmm. I'm going to apply IAR. Hiding T 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
Thanks to your help and review, Sinestro Corps War has reached FA! Keep up the good work! Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Horologium's request

Enjoy : ) - jc37 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics and animation

If we did create such a project, how would we organise and integrate it? Hiding T 12:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There are probably a myriad ways to do it. For one thing, the Anime/manga Wikiproject seems to bo going along fairly well. At most, they should become a workgroup. And if Comics subsumed Animation, then that would also deal with last arguments for Superman being a separate wikiproject, as well.
Personally, it seems to me that most of our workgroups seem to be mostly a way to organise the info under the main WikiProject (there's a lot)), and for periodic ad hoc "CotM" teams. (Which is also part of the ebb-and-flow of the project, and the interests of the project members at any given time.)
So I think that we'd do better if we thought ahead and structured the overall project by article type as well. Comics articles cover a lot of information, and each section often draws a different type of editor. We should structure the project to take better advantage of that.
In addition, there are so many potential workgroups that it might be a good idea to "group" similar ones. This could be done either by creating an "over-workgroup" or a group noticeboard. I've seen both work to varying degrees. I think the best plan is to start with the noticeboard, and if we discover that editors are creating overview MoS pages, etc, then the noticeboard can be subsumed into the "new" over-workgroup.
So if I were to put forth my preferred way, it would be to:
Create the "Comics by region noticeboard". (At this moment, I think the World and US workgroups are probably our weakest links, and if the fact that they finish the "by region" scheme isn't clarified somehow, they should probably be remerged into the WikiProject.) - This set of workgroups would draw those editors who are interested in comics from a national or international perspective.
  • Create the "Character workgroup" (can you think of a better name?) - I think that if we advertised its existence, this would likely be a fairly popular workgroup. (Characters, and groups of characters, like teams, organisations, etc.) And it's something that really needs to be dealt with in terms of naming conventions, plot summary, and so on. It would be nice to have a separate workgroup with its own MoS, etc.
  • Create the "Episode workgroup" (again, better name? I'm trying to convey "form of presentation") - This is another popular focus for editors (all we have to do is notice the semi-recent arbcomm cases...) This could either stay focused on an "serial" presentation of comics or animation (comic book series, animated series, etc.) Or be broader to include "stand-alones" like one-shot graphic novels, films, etc.
  • Rename the comics creators workgroup to be the comics and animation creators workgroup.
  • Create the "Inter-media noticeboard". (better name, please : ) - This set of work groups would draw those who are interested in a certain medium of comics. And would also group those things which may not quite be "comics-related media".
  • Leave comics strips alone. It's a broad enough workgroup as it is. And is a nice way to deal directly with that media.
  • Create the animation workgroup (well, this would be where the old wikiproject would be moved to).
  • Create the "live-action" workgroup". - This would be for all the television and film adaptations.
One thing that we'd need to deal with is the question of "what is a superhero?" Or even the mosre general: "What is comics-related media?" - There are obviously many examples of "comics-related media" which have no version actually in comics. But that doesn't necessarily mean that something like The Incredibles, Mystery Men, or even City of Heroes shouldn't be part of the WikiProject.
Even if we don't subsume the animation project, I think some of the above would be worth while. The "by region" noticeboard, and the character workgroup in particular.
Implementation:
Start a discussion at the WikiProject about the creation of the "by region" noticeboard, noting that it could be developed into a "parent" workgroup, should the be interest to do so.
Start a discussion with whomever is left at the animation project and find out of they're interested in becoming a workgroup.
Presuming so, move that to a workgroup.
Start a discussion about renaming the comics creators workgroup.
Start a discussion about the creation of the characters work group.
Start a discussion about the creation of the episodes/serial/publication/presentation work group (whatever it ends up being named). Perhaps even being more than one workgroup.
Start a discussion concerning the "by media/presentation" noticeboard, and the creation of the "live-action" work group. This discussion should also delve into the questions of inclusion ("What is a superhero?/What is comics-related?")
Start a discussion as to what the Overall WikiProject should be named. Some of the above could be part of WikiProject Comics-related media, which could be its own Wikiproject, or all could be merged to WikiProject Comics. (or, or, or...)
Once all this is done/resolved, then go to other Wikiprojects, such as Superman, and Anime/manga, and discuss merging.
What do you think? - jc37 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure about separate mos guidance... hmm...there's a lot to digest. I'm not a huge fan of noticeboards as you can tell by my absence at the comics one, for me that's what WT:COMICS is for. But yeah, I agree with a lot of the broader points. Hiding T 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but I doubt the anime/manga project would actually merge. There's so many articles that are not only comics and cartoons from Japan, but have specific issues related to that, among other things, that a full and separate WikiProject just makes more sense from an organizational standpoint. Alternatively, just think of the two projects as sister projects, or the comics and animation project as a parent project, like they do in relation to WP:TV. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The organisational difference between a WikiProject, an "organisation", a "CotM", an "AID", a noticeboard, a task force, and a work group, is largely nominative (name-based). We can call the pages "The comics corporation" if we want. Honestly, Hiding's note above how he prefers the main talk page is one of the strengths of the comics' project. We currently have several ways in which editors can "get together". And in the restructure, that should always be our goal. How can we help provide the structure and conventions for our editors to "get collaborative", and "get editing"? : )
That said, personally, I think to be called a "WikiProject" should require having more "support pages" than just a couple templates, the main page, and main talk page. If that's all it is, then it's barely a work group, and likely would be fine as a collaborative noticeboard. Anime and manga obviously are fairly developed. But Superman? Not so much. And Animation obviously has a fair amount of overlap with the comics' project.
I suggested a noticeboard for the regional also because that seems to be the preferred way for regional topics. (See also: Category:Wikipedians by regional Wikipedian notice board) But as I said above, we could just as well call it the regional hero sandwich : ) - jc37 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(Butting in to a conversation I eavesdropped on by accident, really, it was an accident) For what it's worth, the Animation project is a comparatively recent creation, primarily created to deal with the non-American and non-Anime animation, which are covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation and the Anime and manga project. It might well be reasonable to absorb both all three, but particularly Animation and American Animation, given the remarkable degree of overlap with comics, although it would be useful to come up with a project name which makes it clear that the project covers both. As one member of both projects, I would support such a merger if a workable title could be found. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the name is one of the things I proposed above which would need to be discussed.
As I might consider you to be currently one of the one of the "pillars" of the WikiProject council, how would you suggest that we start these discussions? - jc37 21:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The animation discussion (comics creators)

I wanted to pick up on where you said we should probably rename the comics creators work group. I was wondering why you felt that way? Hiding T 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if we're unifying the project to absorb animation, I'm not certain that a writer/artist of a comic is that different than a writer/artist of animation, in terms of presentation/collaboration.
As an aside, I thought it would be smarter also since it's pretty much the only workgroup that directly deals with WP:BLP. (Everything else seems to be fiction-related or publication/presentation-related.) So it seemed smarter to group them together for that reason as well. - jc37 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, of course. Hiding T 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk page response

I can never work out where to reply to you, because if I start a discussion here yo move it to my talk page and yet of you start a discussion on my talk page and I move it here, you move it back to mine again. It confuses the hell out of me. Hiding T 09:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(Noting that I split this comment from the animation comments above. I thought I should comment in a separate section in order to try to keep the threads less confusing.)
I had thought you and I had discussed this previously, but I guess not, or at least not enough to your understanding, at least. So to clarify:
I've seen others post "talk page guidelines" at the top of their talk page, but to me that seems typically more confusing. I don't know.
To clarify, my general practice is:
a.) discussions to be unified. I personally think that the segmented discussions between 2 or more talk pages would seem to be more confusing, and honestly more "work" to try to keep track of, than a discussion unified on a single page.
b.) defer to the other person. I've found that (unlike me) most people don't watch their watchlists or contrib history to keep track of discussions. They prefer the orange bar letting them know that it's time to respond to "something". (Which is why some prefer the segmented discussions.) And even for those who do keep track of where they're discussing, it's easier for them to respond however they see fit. They can then comment on their own talk page, continuing there, or leave a note on mine, knowing that I'll (per "a") restore it and my response to unify the discussion.
c.) If more than one person joins the discussion at my talk page, then I leave it there for "a" reasons (unification), since the point is to not have segmented discussions. In those cases, I just "hope" that those commenting will notice the "new changes", though it's been my experience that after a few comments, such discussions die without resolution. Wikipedia is a large place and it's easy for anyone to become distracted.
d.) The only exception to the above that I can think of would be certain notifications (like "RfA thanks") which don't require a response. Though to even some of those I'll respond in order to let the poster know that I've seen it.
My apologies if the above seems confusing. It just seemed to me the more polite and courteous thing to do, while attempting to keep discussions unified.
If you're still confused by this, please feel free to ask for further clarification. - jc37 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I know now. I'll just reply here from now on. You have to forgive us old people our memories. Hiding T 20:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Now you have me wondering if something of the above came off "insulting" to you somehow. If so, I apologise, as that wasn't my intent whatsoever. - jc37 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you weren't insulting. I just meant I couldn't remember discussing it before, so if we did that's my memory. Hiding T 00:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic stereotypes in comics

This is interesting. I'm going to have to mull its issues over a bit. I think some of my summer students might want to sift through it too. Doczilla STOMP! 20:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The people I know who are the best experts on this topic aren't likely to edit the article because they'd either (1) anonymously be giving away work they normally get paid to publish or which at least gets them lines on their CVs or (2) get jumped on for conflict of interest since contributing to the article would inherently publicize their own publications. I know a non-professional (well, not that kind of professional anyway) who owns a number of books on the subject, but what timing! As of a few days ago, he has embarked upon a potentially permanent wikibreak. I can probably borrow some materials, but it will be a few weeks. One of the best sources I've read on the subject is a chapter I proofread for someone else's book, but that won't come out until later this year, so I don't feel comfortable citing it right now. Doczilla STOMP! 09:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Lambiek

Yes I often link to it so when I saw it was a redlink I thought I'd made a typo, so reversed the speedy deletion - it needs improving and more sources but isn't a speedy deletion candidate.

The same user added similar tags to a number of other comic stores (Special:Contributions/OccamzRazor) - I checked through them and the others seem weak but you might want to double check (and it might be worth seeing if some won that Eisner, as that'd help. (Emperor (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

Bottom class

And I never even knew we had a bottom class (which amuses me, but that me because I'm British and we are not only very class concious but we find bottoms awfully funny too) but I was wondering if you really meant to change the importance of a number of entries to "bottom" (still funny) as it seems a rather 'strong' rating on the importance scale and seems like the kind of thing that should only be deployed in certain circumstances - assigning Secret Invasion to 'bottom' [15] struck me as very odd as 'mid' might be too low given its huge sales, spin-off ongoing series and importance in 2008's comic scene. You may have your reasons but it seems to be a blanket change for all titles listed as future titles even when they have already been rated. Checking the other changes on my watchlist I don't think any should be classed as bottom - perhaps it might be better to give a default rating of 'low' if one doesn't exist?

Also some of them still count as "future", at least according to the {{future comic}} header, which also classes ongoing limited series in this group, and I always imagined the two went together (although I was never sure when to remove them - perhaps we need an "ongoing comic" header, or just reword "future comic"? We really only need the warning if it still hasn't been published as things can be up in the air until then). (Emperor (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

And some of them are still future comics: Marvel Apes isn't out until October, for example, and Trinity (comic book) is still a week or two away. (Emperor (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC))
  • I took the decision to deprecate the future class since it isn't part of the WP:1.0 project's assessment. They're looking for articles to print, so they care only for the quality. The importance is a measure of how important the article is to print in an encyclopedia, so I've rated them as bottom as they're not of vital importance to a print encyclopedia. Given the series has yet to finish, it is impossible to fully evaluate it. It's possible it is of utmost importance to comic book fans. To readers of a general encyclopedia? I sincerely doubt it. As you have noted, we still have the {{future comic}}, which also covers ongoing series judging by its wording, and we have the future=yes tag on {{comicsproj}}. These achieve the same thing whilst not interefering with the WP 1.0 goal. Hiding T 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, bottom class came about through discussions at the comics assessment talk page, we wanted an assessment scale below low to differentiate, and it appears the cricket project use bottom, so that's what I went for. Prior to that it was likely to be minimal, but bottom fits with top, and puts mid in the middle. Hiding T 00:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem that I see is that we don't rate things as how important they'd be to a paper encyclopaedia (although that would depend on amount of coverage a paper encyclopaedia gives to the subject) or nearly everything would be "bottom class" - the description is: "This article has no real significance to the project, but it covers additional topics of general or specific interest, some of which could be described as trivia, though all are notable in their own right." It is the importance to the project, as in within the world of comics. I would suggest the 'mid' rating for Secret Invasion is provisional - if it has large long term impact on the Marvel universe it could easily sneak higher. As I say "bottom" is a 'strong' rating and suggests the article is of virtually no importance at all and that seems harsh as a provisional rating. (Emperor (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC))
If you want to amend it, amend, it. For me, I think until the series has finished and can be evaluated, it is likely covering details of specific interest. If you aren't conversant with the series, how general is its scope? At the minute you seem to indicate it is based on speculation. But I'm no edit warrior. If you think I'm wrong, change it. At the minute I fail to see how it can have any significance beyond some impact on Marvel's fictional universe. For me the project is about comics, not Marvel Comics, so the significance should be broader. Hiding T 09:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That said, the importance assessing, the very point of assessing, is in deciding what gets published in a print encyclopedia. That's one of the whole points of assessment. "The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content." Now, do we need to prioritise work on this article, or are there a number of other articles which should be given a higher priority? And what rating would you expect it to get keeping in mind static releases? Once teh series is finished and its impact can be reliably sourced, I'd quite happily review where it should sit, but whilst it is in progress? Hiding T 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Some one else reassessed it already (along with a number of others you set to bottom). I would contend that, although it is still ongoing, there is enough information for a provisional rating - I've added sales figures in already (along with the trade sales, as they also managed the feat of getting the prequel trade in the #1 sales slot for trades too) and both ongoing series that are tie-ins and using Secret Invasion as a launchpad sold out immediately and are on a second printing (although there sales won't be released until next month). As I say we may need to bump up a provisional rating but we have enough to know it is pretty important. Doczilla also dropped a note in about the rating so I've directed people here (rather than spread the discussion across half a dozen articles). (Emperor (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC))
I don't really think there needs to be a discussion. Phil has the right idea, to be honest. All I did was ask the question. Consensus will dictate, and consensus is best achieved through editing and discussion. I think the new bottom assessment may cause some issues, but mostly I'm thinking it's for really minor characters, tangential articles and years in comics and the like. I just lumped future comics in there based on my reasons above. As ever I will bow to any consensus however achieved. You don't need to convince me, I'll happily respect what the majority think even if I think different. Hiding T 13:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

At first I thought someone was goofing around with the assessment scale. Then I saw that it was you, so I knew it wasn't horseplay. When someone gets a chance, can we update Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment to show the new category? That ought to help to prevent confusion. I'm actually glad to have an additional grade. Four seemed a bit limiting; I tended to give most articles a "Low" rating. But I see a difference between, say, Advanced Idea Mechanics and Akasha (comics). --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I've updated what I can. The one place it won't show is in that assessment table, because the bot doesn't pick it up. Maybe I'll have a word with the bot owner and see if we can't do something there. Hiding T 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't considered that. Thanks for taking a look into it. I've been trying to chip away at the huge backlog of unassessed articles, but it seems like a never-ending mission. Interestingly, I hadn't realized that pertinence to WP 1.0 was one of the considerations to make when assessing the article. I had only been going by the importance to the WikiProject. Hence, I tend to give comics creators a higher rating for WikiProject Comics than I do WikiProject Biography. I'll have to take a look at the assessment discussion. If anyone disagrees with my previous assessments, I will defer to their judgement as it is, of course, subjective. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, where was the assessment discussion? I ask not because I have any disagreement, but rather because I want to make sure that I understand the context of the new category. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Carry on assessing as you are, it'll be fine. I made what appears t be a bad call yesterday, although I stand by my reasoning at the time, it has sorted itself out. Don;t overly worry about what to factor into assessing stuff, just go with your gut and consensus will eventually sort it out. The discussion occurs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Assessment scale issues, although it is almost a year ago now. I think me and Fram and Murgh discussed it somewhere else around then, but I forget where now. But it was basically just to give us more room to play with. Like, um, some characters of the LSH are more important than others, but that doesn't mean some are mid to the whole project, you know? Hiding T 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, will do. Thanks! (And I see it now. I just didn't look back far enough.) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Gil Kane

Wowwwww! Great find on that image! Big, big step toward fleshing this page out the way it should be, given his significance. Bravo! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. Doczilla STOMP! 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Superman

Hi, I notice that you have removed my contributions to the Superman page on the grounds that "The Batman Superman friendship... is original research as it is analytical of primary source". Not entirely: Byrne's version of their first meeting does conclude with Batman thinking that they would have been friends in "another reality" (i.e. the Pre-Crisis world). Which edition of the Penguin Book of Comics do you have? Because I have an edition from the 1960s and it does include the scene that I describe. If you like I could scan and put it online for you to verify.--Marktreut (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It helps to explain why it is getting so pointless in contributing to wikipedia. People like you are getting far too demanding. It is not just Byrne: I have read other Batman/Superman adventures in which they are far from bosom buddies — and I am not going to name them all just in order to make my point. There comes a time you know when you have to trust the judgement of others just a little bit. I have seen analysis that I did not agree with and without references, but I did not purge them there and then, I let them stay. What will convince you to let my contribution is based in a fair assessment: a signed declaration by the head of DC Comics in front of a Supreme Court judge?--Marktreut (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The point is that an encyclopedia is supposed to inform people of facts and, I believe, make conclusions based on those facts. For me, what makes a subject interesting is not just how it happened, but the motives and reasons behind it all. A friend and I once saw a film which included a lot of action and drama, but afterwards our main conversation was not what the characters did but why they did it and how it affected their relationship with one another. To say that this happened and that happened is not enough in my book; it should also be about why it happened and how it affected events. On the subject of Superman, it would be a little more to the point if, instead of taking my contribution out completely, you had re-written them in such a way as accepting it as a feasible observation even if it is not cast in stone.--Marktreut (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Your note

WP:ATT is not an essay. Crum375 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Extra set of eyes...

Can I get an extra set of eyes on this? Especially in light of User:ComicsPlace.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dez Skinn response

I think uncited comments like "Despite lasting only 15 months, Skinn's tenure at Marvel was hugely productive" are okay to leave for a very short period of time with the citation tag, but there are several sentences under Controversy that really must go until/unless citation can be found, particularly in the first paragraph. The article is a bit of a mess, isn't it? Are sources for all those marked places likely to be found? If not, then perhaps it needs a major cut-down. --Faith (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User: SE6666

Greetings. This one seems to be fairly cut and dried. SE6666 insists on repeatedly deleting the image in the SHB for the Abomination article without discussion, and does not replace it. I can't see the rationale, and they have been warned by another user and myself.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted that change a number of times myself, and from their talk page it looks like this person has been up to other recent trouble as well. 67.162.108.96 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)