User talk:Tenebrae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives


Please note

Postings that end with unsigned comments will be deleted. Wikipedia policy is to sign all comments.



For the most recent postings, through April 30, 2008, please see Archive 8 (at right).

Contents

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:StrangeAdv207.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:StrangeAdv207.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom Eagle

FYI, some links were removed:

[edit] Iron Man

The edits on Iron Man (and to a lesser extent, articles like War Machine, S.H.I.E.L.D., and Iron Monger) have been coming fast and furious ever since the movie was released. To be honest, I stopped trying to keep up with the Iron Man article because I just don't have the time! Good luck. :) 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:AirboyVol2No2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AirboyVol2No2.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] S.H.I.E.L.D.

Well, I did not find any information on "a U.N." on the page, but I did find "a U.S." at the bottom, which is more than good enough for me. Thank you for pointing this out. Rau's Speak Page 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup on "a U.N." Much appreciated. MMMMMMMM (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MMMMMMMM (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Ted Key

Hey Tenebrae, I think the gent who is adding the info about the Shirley Booth bio really is trying to be helpful, rather than blowing his own horn. I edited his contrib so it doesn't stick out as much. Later... Konczewski (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am too trusting. Good job digging into this. Now if we can just get this dude to stop reverting your reverts. Konczewski (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
We both might have to eat our words, Tenebrae. I found the listing for the book at the BearManor website [1]. I thought that pubisher sounded familiar; they publish a lot of books on old film and TV stars. I have books published by them on Paul Frees and Daws Butler. The Shirley Booth book came out May 1st. I'm not sure why Amazon is not carrying it. I did read recently that Amazon is not going to carry print on demand books published by anyone other than their service, so that could be the reason. Konczewski (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I bow to your superior Wikiknowledge. For what it's worth, "TedKey2" is working himself up in a lather on his talkpage. It's obvious he's a n00b, and you might want to visit his talk page with the points you've made to me. Otherwise, he's just going to keep reverting your reverts. Thanks for your explanations. Konczewski (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ted Key2 is not giving up without a fight. He posted a rather arrogant response on my talk page. I responded on his, and probably not as diplomatically as I should have. I also reverted his nth reversion at Ted Key. What a sore loser! Konczewski (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. I was a disappointed with myself for loosing it with TedKey2, however much he may have deserved it. I'm just glad I found a compromise that, I hope, will stop this knucklehead from screwing up the article. Konczewski (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hulk Powers

that section was added during the big mess between david A and I. At the time, I was trying to figure out how to get hulk from GA to FA, and that was one item I'd decided to add, then David A hit the page, things went nuclear, etc., etc. That was part of what I'd added in terms of RWC, and consensus was that it was a good add. They only address a few dozen major heroes, and the real world content of it's worth adding. It's not like every hero COULD have such a section. No Magic heroes, or heroes based on 'Alternate universe physics', and so on. He's also one of the few for whom an alternate explanation was provided, making it a more in depth section than many,(for whom i'd simply have to say 'Gresh and Weisberg say no', lol.). ThuranX (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I went in and deleted that section, as I felt that it was unnecessary and quite silly. I agree with you that if you put something like that in the Hulk (a science fiction character) then that is essentially opening a can of worms for every science fiction article in Wikipedia for empirical "invalidation." --Kontar (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a can of worms; it's a valid investigation of the character, and further, it's a relatively unique approach to the RWC related to the character. Remember, this source doesn't just say 'no it can't happen', they say, 'No, here's the science for why not, but here's a potential way for it TO happen'. As such, they disassemble AND redeem the material. Finally, keep in mind this sort of holistic downside and upside is not common to scholarly works in the field of comics. ThuranX (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC) (Also, Tenebrae, no need to apologize. I don't mind defending the addition.)

[edit] Kirby's Marvel artwork

In progress, here. I've basically copied over what I originally put, read through it for possible bias (maybe it doesn't represent Marvel's side very well. Which was even at the time pretty vague and hard to fathom, but seemed to boil down to "we don't think we need to give it back, but we will, out of generosity... IF he promises never to talk about it, touch it, sell it or otherwise do anything with. If he'll give it back to us whenever we feel like it, promises never to sue us, support anyone ELSE suing us, and..." which is quite hard to rended into sane statements, let alone try to detail even-handedly!) and tried to tone down the potential (for the hard of reading) "Marvel is evil/DC were wonderful" semi-undertones. Also made a half-hearted start at beefing up the "this is why it was an issue, because previously no-one got their work back" angle. Thoughts/comments/clarifications/sources/alternates/etc. welcome. :o) ntnon (talk) 02:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sandman

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alice'sRestaurantCD1997.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Alice'sRestaurantCD1997.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AllySloper'sHalfHoliday.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllySloper.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:AllySloper.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Talk talk:Dave Sim

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Plrk (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Astonishing4 p2.gif}

Thank you for uploading Image:Astonishing4 p2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AstralMan bySamGrainger.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:AstralMan bySamGrainger.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blackmark paperback.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackmark paperback.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BlondePhantomDetail.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:BlondePhantomDetail.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Will Eisner

I nominated Image:The Plot by Will Eisner.jpg for deletion. I would have nominated the other one too except that is also used in another article. The omission of for instance this cover in the bibliography section is not even remotely "detrimental to...understanding of the topic". See also the criteria and the guideline. Garion96 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The other image will have to go too though. There is indeed some dispute about significance, but I don't think there's any doubt that in a bibliography of 20 or so works it will not be detrimental to the reader if it misses a cover. If if is moved to the part of the article discussing the book, or even better, discussing the artwork of the cover than it would be different. But it looks like article already has got plenty of covers. Garion96 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care on way or another about the specific cover. You know much better than I what covers should have to included in this article. But right now there are 5 fair use images in this article, which is too much. Three is already much but an improvement. If a "A Contract with God" is so significant, it should definitely stay, but then another cover could and should go. Garion96 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Chef

Easy or not, it's unnecessary to cite uncontroversial public information. The way Bravo re-runs that show, they've been spashing those names up on the television screen fifty times a week. Removing it and demanding sourcing is just silly and was certainly never the intent of WP:BLP. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And seriously, who is this mystery admin that you think is going to intervene in a content dispute? I'm an admin and I clearly don't agree with you. You probably can find some that will, but many others will not. You shouldn't be invoking mystery admin authority to shore up your weak argument. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you actually seen the show that you're edit warring on? As I said, the information in question (names) is presented on the show. Both stated by the individuals and also printed on screen in caption boxes. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? You're lecturing me about invoking admin status to influence a content dispute when you're the one who keeps saying "An admin would agree with me?" I'm only mentioning that I'm an admin to show what a silly argument that is. Oh and feel free to bring this up at ANI, if you feel it is merited. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Now I don't even know what you're talking about. It's verifiable by watching the show. A source doesn't need to be available on the internet in order to be valid. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
International availability to the masses is not now and has never been a requirement for sourcing. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, it's verifiable by watching the show. The availability of the show is not relevant as to it's value as a source. And no, I don't think such a disclaimer is a good idea. 1) Because it's not accurate. 2) Because it's a disclaimer. If you really insist on continuing to unnecessarily cite uncontroversial public information, I note that Bravo credits all of the chefs by the full name when it puts their recipes on their website.[[2]] -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, other peopl need to be able to check the information, but that doesn't mean that everybody has to have instant access to it. Yes, a television show is more difficult to check than a web article. But that doesn't affect it's validity as a source. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question. Let's say that, a year from now, Bravo removes the recipes from their website. Would that then mean that you would against start edit warring to remove the last names of these people because it was no longer instantly verifiable information? -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think this is personal. I think that your understanding of policy is incorrect and I was having a discussion with you about it. I'm sorry that upsets you. You didn't really respond to my question, so I'll assume that you aren't interested in having this discussion. I'm not campaigning for unsourced information. I advocate common sense. Something which I often find is sorely lacking here on Wikipedia. Policy exist for a purpose - improving the encyclopedia, not for its own sake. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know what it says. I was asking what you would do. I'm not even sure what bad faith assumption you think I've made. At no point did I think that you were editing in bad faith. Simply misguided good faith. I guess I apologize, but again, I don't know what you're talking about. Okay, maybe the common sense crack was a bit snarky and I certainly apologize for that, but your removal of the information to me certainly defies logic to me. I really do not comprehend why you think that a source cannot be used unless everybody the world over can access it. That doesn't comform to my understanding of our policies regarding sources. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong. I love arguing about policy, but as the issue is settled, there's no real reason to if you don't want to. As you say, no hard feelings. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] En dash vs hyphen at Celestial (comics)

I know that issue ranges use en dashes. That's the precise reason I changed the hyphens to en dashes – these are not the same beasts. Witness:

  • Hyphen -
  • En dash –
  • Em dash —

--Pie'n'gravy (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towel service

Thanks! I knew such a great detail must have come from a good source. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up

Image:WikiMedal for Janitorial Services.png WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
The WikiMedal for Janitorial Services goes to Tenebrae for ongoing efforts to clean things up around here. Doczilla STOMP! 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


You haven't added anything to your awards cabinet recently enough. Here. Doczilla STOMP! 06:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will second this, as we've had a rash of "fancruft" edits of late, and T has been one of those helping to corral these little efforts. Also, noted on dates.

Asgardian (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citing comic books

I agree with you 100%; factual details of character biographies should be source-able from the issues themselves. Except the more deletion-minded elements of the community do not agree with us, and the fact that comic book characters and elements are sourced only to the books themselves is being used as a generally acceptable excuse for deletion. Arguments I've been having at Wikipedia talk:Notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) and, perennially, at WP:AFD, have convinced me that for the time being the best hedge against deletionist pogroms is to source comics articles from whatever published sources possible. Stuff like Melter and Ego the Living Planet have survived when they went to AfD, but other stuff does not, and the fomenting consensus of a very loud, vocal, active minority, is that articles sourced only to comic issues, no matter how many issues or how long they've appeared in the books, are non-notable. Which is bullshit, as far as I'm concerned, but it is a thing that is happening on Wikipedia and I don't feel comfortable ignoring it.

I get that it may appear I'm spamming comics articles with sources from that guy's book, but all I'm doing, what I've decided is the simplest solution, is acquiring whatever published sources I can find, starting at page 1 and going through them page by page, line by line, and sourcing whatever I can. Ford MF (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clennon Washington King, Jr.

Thanks for the help! Шизомби (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)