User talk:J Greb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John M. (talk | contribs) at 12:22, 29 May 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

unblock

Hopefully I've got this correct.

It seems I've been blocked under an autoblock as follows:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Bobet for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Robot ambulance". The reason given for Robot ambulance's block is: "sockpuppet of indef blocked user". Your IP address is 24.66.94.140.

Evidently this occured sometime after the 25th of August, 2006, as this was the last date of an actual edit I made.

I have only accessed Wikipedia as an anonymous user (to read/search only) and under this account to edit.

Is it possible to get this account unblocked?

Thanks,

-J Greb-


Nuklon

J Greb,

Indeed Nuklon is not a member of the JSA...thank you for correcting that categorization. :) NetK 00:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham City

Both are valid. I'm fine with you finding another labelling system for differentiating the two media versions. I'll unlink the second link myself. ThuranX 04:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I blanket reverted because you did a metric assload in one single edit, thus forcing me to either cut and paste left right north and south, or just revert nd thus make you edit one section at a time, so that others CAN revert and work with you. doing one massive edit and then complaining is about as bad as doing four or five bad edits and then covering it with one or two good edits, which many editors are known to do. I liked the police force add a lot. I'm glad you even took the time to section by 'other media' and it was great. I'd like to see it added back. However, you've conflated 'other residents' with 'other heros of gotham'. perhap the section needs a better title, but ultimately that's what the section's wuite clearly about. The two are clearly different. Honestly, while I like a lot of what you're doing, your actions in 'being bold' are going to provoke reactions. Try using the talk page instead of revamping the entire article, especially since the article jsut went through a huge revision from in-universe to -out-of-universe. ThuranX 17:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, now you've got it. If you made 3 edits, and a subsequent editor liked edits 1 and 3 but not 2, he could've cut and pasted the 'offending' section back in, using edit 1 as a source, and after edit 3 as his target, thus leaving an article with 2/3rds of your improvements and one section to bring up on the talk pages. Major revisions aren't bad sometimes, and are occasionally needed. I've done some myself. but I think that checking the talk page and the recent edit history can help you figure out if a page needs or doesn't need, a major revision. I like your style, though, and your editorial behavior (I.E. talking not freaking) so I hope we'll get to work together more. ThuranX 20:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comic book team categories marked CfD

Well, I think so. I think we can add them all in there as the subject is DC Comics group members. Cheers —Lesfer (t/c/@) 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Spectre

Y'know I first got the impression of two separate individuals in All Star Comics, when Corrigan mentioned he was now alone as Spectre travelled to Earth-One or some such. And then the Adventure Comics run seems highly ambiguous. That said, I agree with your assessment of where the character is now. NetK 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowpact

Yo man the only reason why I did that was because all the others had links in that section. It looked nicer in my opinion. Brian Boru is awesome 01:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DC Comics

Hi! Thanks for writing to get my input; that's civilized editing!

Not sure I follow about the link box. The only change I made was to bring up a widow in the Action Comics #1 caption. No image sizing will be consistent with every screen resolution at every text size, of course. The one thing that we can consistently affect (other than making sure image subjects aren't looking off the screen!) is images' relative sizes. Making all images the same size in this or other articles isn't really communicating in the best way possible — an historically significant or groundbreaking issue-image loses "weight" and it connotes inadequately if it's the same size as every other image.

I actually didn't edit the other image-captions, but just that of Action #1. I wasn't able to find anything in Wiki MoS that indicates all images in an article need to be the same size, and I'm sure, given the above (which is standard publishing design/editorial "agenda-setting," they call it) that you'd agree about that comic's importance. What do you think? I guess we could ask for other editors' opinions on whether the image of Action #1 should be bigger than other comics' images on the page.

In any event, I'm kinda knocked out by all the effort you made testing out those resolutions, etc. You are the kind of serious, no-nonense Wiki editor I wish more people were. --Tenebrae 04:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh, the "link box" is the enlarge icon! Y'know, I hadn't even thought to wonder what that little symbol was, since whenever I wanted to link to the larger image's page I just clicked on the image itself. Thanks for pointing that out!
I'm using Firefox on a PC laptop at 1024x768. I've just now looked at the DC Comics article in IE, and the Action Comics #1 image and caption look the same, with a three-line caption. If it's OK with you, what do you think about leaving the other three images as you had them and leaving Action #1 (which really is the Ur-comic as far as superheroes go) at the size it is?
It's nice discussing this like two professionals! -- Tenebrae 22:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beetle

Good question, I don't recall anything specific. Most of those appearances outside of comics were made at the time when there were no other Marvel characters named the Beetle. It seems to be a safe bet that we are supposed to assume that it is Jenkins in the armour. Stephen Day 02:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

It seems this edit was inadvertently placed in the wrong section, based on the content of your comment. I think the section edit link works relative to its position from the top, so that when someone adds a new section before you've reloaded the page it causes the link to open the one prior to the section you were aiming for. Cheers, Postdlf 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bludhaven

Can I ask why you fixed the links to lots of things, but dropped Atlantic City and DC Universe? ThuranX 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I was just wondering why the choice was made. Thanks for the reply. ThuranX 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider and Spectre

Please stop removing the section on the Spectre as it relates to the Ghost Rider. This information is accurate and counts as a part of the character's information. And it is getting annoying seeing this information constantly removed, when it should not be.

Warwolf 19:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman

Yeah, I put a note on the person's talk page and he seems to have stopped. If he does it again, you can report him for too many revisions in too short a time. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already commented. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing changed my mind. Obviously a straight revert-war causes issues, so I'm attempting a compromise that doesn't 'undercut' as you pointed out, but also allows that sometimes she loses too. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: American television series by decade rename.

I supported the rename in the earlier section before it was relisted, so the closing admin will consider all the comments together (hopefully:) ). Tim! 08:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dates

I was using the ISO formatting. [[2006-12-24]] to become 2006-12-24. The page does need uniformity, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blue Devil

Well, thing is, the same could be said of a lot of things. That is, what an article details and what it may be implied to detail by links. Simply put, the article can't be expected to "live up to the hype".

My reason for removing it was simple: It was in the way. Two templates taking up about a third of the page? Yikes. The "[edit]" taps, for example, wouldn't be in the right place. That's never a good thing. Plus, it didn't really have any vital data. The series was cancelled after a year or so.

Anyway, I'd appreciate you doing more than supposedly "assuming good faith" next time. No offense, but think. You may have seen anything wrong with the excessive use of boxes in the article, but I did. At the worst, this is a content dispute. I can't expect you to know my track record, but have the self-control not to bring up the "v" word. I've been in your shoes and made similar mistakes when discussing changes I didn't agree with. Believe me, vandalism is the last thing a registered user should be accused of subjectively. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, if you check my contributions, I used edit summaries religiously at one point. When I lessened to an apparent stop, no one seemed to care. You're the first to bring it up, albeit with proding. Be more direct in the future. I could argue that you're perception of my edit lacks neutrally. Vandalism, as I learned the hard way on WP:AIV, is not the same as a content dispute. You might not like a change, but unless it's blatently inappropriate, try keeping your less than perfect faith to yourself. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I just try to ignore it. The little, almost semantically problems, I mean. Series, characters and teams never converge. Usually, one just precedent over the other. Usually, the team or character. Oddly, Ultimate Spider-Man was a major exception. Still, comic series articles are rarely created, especially if its sametitled. I can appreciate the good intentions, but it might be best to leave this be. Until there's a Blue Devil (comic), people are just...outta luck. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hawkgirl

I've removed because it's obvious, it's self-explanatory. If a word is wikilinked, it has an article about it. Simple as that. Regards —Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, cheers :) —Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment on my talk

Yes, all of the pages you listed there were problems. To avoid that, put the code for the section infobox at least one header below the code for the first (sometimes there are still issues unless you put it two down). It doesn't matter whether or not the boxes appear to touch on the finished page. I've fixed the examples you linked. BookishAcolyte 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EJBanks

Since you've nominated some of EJBanks' category work for deletion, you might be interested in his article Spider-Man characters in film. Doczilla 10:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superaliasbox

done! --Exvicious 06:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin/Dick Grayson (Earth-Two)

J Greb,

Please do not assume bad faith, I can honestly state that it was not to muddle nor to confuse. It was stated during the course of the various dialogues, on Wikiproject and/or Talk: Robin that a case could be made for a character with multiple codenames. I was unaware there was a specific place to make such a request before a page move, and have witnessed over the years several pages moves. I will not judge which ones were appropriate and which were not...however I will restore Robin (Earth-Two) although I feel in hindsight it should have been listed as Dick Grayson (Earth-Two) for two reasons: 1.) this character used multiple aliases during his career, 2.) the request to merge was to merge Robin (Earth-Two) into Dick Grayson which wouldn't necessarily correspond since the parent article, if you will, is on the individual rather than the alias. I'm unsure why there is such a vehement surge against one character with more appearences than another (Batman (Earth-Two)) when both have large characterization and plot point deviations from the Earth-One versions. NetK 23:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is and has been (since 22:16 on 2 January 2006) a paragraph in the article that directly addresses Robin using the Batman identity, which I thought you had read when you mentioned having reviewed the article. Here is the quotation with reference:
"Grayson left Gotham after this incident, returning years later when the Joker came out of retirement to attack several prominent Gothamites including Police Commissioner O'Hara. Assuming the garb and identity of Batman, his presence mesmerized the Joker long enough to be apprehended by the Huntress. He proceeded to track the criminal mastermind behind Gotham's organized crime. At this point, he developed unexpressed feelings towards the Huntress, though leaving Gotham once more before pursuing them further.[1]"
This leads me to wonder if those objecting to the article haven't read it indepth to evaluate its contents fairly. NetK 00:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J Greb, I sincerely apologize for doing anything that wasn't procedurely correct, i.e. making a change before posting to your talk page...if that was done. Please note that with various suggestions I've attempted to incorporate several. For instance, relating to other characters who should get equal treatment, I consider that. Adding content to attempt to round out a subject, done. Observing reactions to adding said content back into the main article, okay. I feel there is a slippery slope that, despite my attempts to accomodate, will be perpetually perceived in a different manner. Good day. NetK 04:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort

Yes it does. If you change it back you'll notice that the Defaultsort tag was showing as a red link at the top of the page.

Iron Ghost 13:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin (Earth-Two)

i agree. i wasn't trying to change info, it just said it's back history first appearance or whatever was 1938. (which i think is because netk copied the batman earth two article and tweaked it), so i just switched the year to 1940.

personally, i think it should only mention his actual actual first appearance in 1967. that is, if i thought the article should exist at all. --Exvicious 03:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who images

The reason images from comics are fine, but those from Who's Who and OHOTMU are not is because those are reference works, something that Wikipedia can be said to be competition for. We aren't changing the context of the image's use if it was always intended to be an image for a work of reference. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin comic book series article

I see you're the one who added the comic book infobox. Do you think the Robin comic book series has enough to warrant an article on its own? (like Batman (comic book), Astonishing X-Men, 52 (comic book)or even a less notable example Sentinel (comic book)) There has been 4 miniseries and an ongoing. I think at the very least, I'm going to create a "Publication history" section on the main page. The article does kind of need reorganizing. --Exvicious 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rating

I suggest you also read those same guidelines...assigning all of them "low" i.e. "trivial" across the board with such long established characters that transcend comics, such as Uncle Sam (comics) and characters that are still active players, such as Obsidian (comics) and Hourman (Rick Tyler), is questionnable. Netkinetic | T / C / @ 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Beetle

Do you think that their should be a Garrett article? Personally, I don't know the significance of the character other than he was the first. I don't think Jaime Reyes has made that much of an impact (except for Infinite Crisis, of course), so I think Garrett is more important to comic history. You're probably more qualified than I am to do the split. --Semidelicious 05:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical/Retcon 1st app. (DC Characters)

What do you think of:

Historical:
Detective Comics #27
Divergence:
Justice League #70

As you said, they were the same character until that point. --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 06:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOGALLERY

Hello! Please do not remove the NOGALLERY tag from categories. Categories are not covered by our fair use criteria, point 9. There are exceptions when it is considered necessary in order to advance towards a "freer" encyclopedia, you can learn more at Wikipedia:Fair use exemptions. Currently, only pages that are inside Category:Wikipedia fair use exemptions can have the NOGALLERY tag removed, all others must keep it. Thanks for understanding. -- ReyBrujo 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

super alias box

I thought it looks better than when people try to force multiple characters into one super hero box. I didn't put in the Superboy one, but whoever did kept the original box for the silver age Superboy AND had a super alias box, which i think is a decent compromise. If you don't like that feel free to change it back.

I might edit the box to have every character and first appearance for every version and similiar powers... what do you think? --Exvicious // + @ 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I mostly created it for aesthetic reasons, so if you feel the info suffers just change it back. All that stuff is in the actual article anyway, and I don't think it's anything to worth arguing about. --Exvicious // + @ 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category sorting

I've been doing a lot of category editing recently, and, yes, there's quite a bit of debate about how categories for people should be ordered. There are basically two main camps: alphabetically (as Frank Miller's cats were ordered) and by relevance (the way I tried to order them). There are positives and negatives to both systems (for a sample of the debated issues, see Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Archive02), but the prevailing opinion seems to favor relevance, and that's what I've come to prefer, also. However, it's just an opinion, not a policy or part of the Manual of Style, so if you prefer alphabetic ordering for the Miller article, feel free to undo my ordering. --ShelfSkewed [Talk] 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual objectification

sexual objectification

I submitted a photo to sexual objectification of women in panties heels and nothing else vacuuming; it's of a fashion show by Imitation of Christ, a well-known label. Several editors want NO images on the page, but I think this one is pretty clear: at a fashion show, these topless models vacuuming in heels shows women objectified sexually. Could you interject with your opinion please? Talk:Sexual_objectification#Request_for_Comment--DavidShankBone 04:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

You're a new editor, and I don't think we've been introduced so I'm introducing myself to you here on your talk page. --Basique 01:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off*beat

I've been tidying up the ratings section in line with other projects, and rating those articles for which one was requested. With this article, I've nominally rating it as a B-Class, but I think it may well be A-Class. I'd appreciate your view of it at Talk:Off*beat/Comments. Steve block Talk 14:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review

You don't fancy adding the peer review page to your watch list, do you? You have a good eye for articles and your input would be welcomed there, if it establishes itself as a process. Steve block Talk 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers/Mighty Avengers

If you are looking for sources, they are all over the place. I get that it needs to be a paragraph on it, and it should be changed, just i don't have the time to do that stuff right now. But on the issue of sources there is a whole page on the might avengers, and it is stated later in the avengers article that it will be released so now my question is, why didn't you delete that part of it also. So now my real question is, since there are sources and since there is all this other info, why didn't you "wikify" it instead of just deleting it.(note: i see the irony that i typed all of this up and yet i can't type a simple paragraph, but in my defense i am switching between this and homework.)Phoenix741 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am cool with that. Thanks Phoenix741 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

If you show up as the second edit in a page i've just created and am still working on....it means you're crowding me and might need to back off before I become uncomfortable enough to do something like post on your talk page. I'm going to assume good faith here. --Basique 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain

I think Sargon might now be public domain like Ibis. If the pattern holds all the Charlton characters recently rehabilitated by DC might also be in the Public Domain now. --69.136.111.100 18:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bet on it. IIUC with DC you are looking at characters from 6 companies:
  • National Allied Publications
  • Detective Comics, Inc
  • All-American Publications
  • Fawcett Comics
  • Quality Comics
  • Charlton Comics
The first 3 had merged by the mid `40s into what would become DC Comics. There is a good chance that any character held by those three were routinely put up for copyright extensions. That would include Sargon, and All-American Pub property.
Fawcett sold its characters to Charlton in the `60s with DC licensing Capt Marvel starting in `72. DC had purchased all of the characters by 1993. IIRC there was a problem with the "Shazam's Squadron of Justice" that appeared in a JLA/JSA cross over: licensed the use of the Marvels but not the other characters. That implies strongly that Charlton had valid copyrights on all the characters. Those would have been transferred to DC. This would include Ibis.
Charlton's own character, IIUC, also had valid copyrights as they were created from 1960 and later. DC would have acquired those in 1983 for the characters Charlton had owned outright.
Quality's are the only set where there is a bulk that are held up as having gone PD. And this was after DC bought them in `56.
In any event, unless there is a source that can be cited listing or commenting on a particular character actually being in the PD, a notation in the article isn't a good idea. And if the only citation that can be made is actually going through copyright records, that would likely be considered original research.
— J Greb 19:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a tangled mess, thanks for the heads up. So that public domain cat in the Ibis article is incorrect? --69.136.111.100 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes... at the very least it would need support in the article with a citation. I wonder if tou can add {{fact}} to a call for a cat... — J Greb 20:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May have to ask someone on the project chat page, i've never tried it.--69.136.111.100 12:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Fate

I think you got all the tense issues, good work. The text is still a little clunky in places, but that might be my ear. :) Steve block Talk 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin (Earth-Two)

See we have an anonymous editor who is restoring netholic's version of the page. I would keep in mind the 3RR policy. It's on a few people's watch lists. Steve block Talk 08:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simone

Stop. If you continue to vandalize pages as you did to "Gail Simone" your IP address will be blocked from using Wikipedia. 69.92.184.84 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the anon above, I'll keep an eye on the other one. With this sort of vandalism you can ignore the 3RR rule, it's subtle vandalism like the netholic version restoring that can appear questionable to outside admins and is where you need to tread careful. Steve block Talk 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Marvel villain stub

S'alright. Stubs are handled separately mainly because so many of them deal with both templates and categories, so there's the risk of duplicate discussions going on at TFD and CFD. Also, stub types tend to have a different use to many other templates and categories, with different standards to go along with that - so having a separate process page for them is useful for that reason too. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Most infoboxes are redundant and worthless. They duplicate information already given in the body copy. And in many cases, as soon as posted, they immediately become intrusive, unattractive design elements, spoiling the look of an attractive opening screen. Pepso 21:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated categories and the deletion thereof

I noticed yesterday that someone has created Category:Characters created by Grant Morrison, and today I noticed that the ComicsProject deleted a category last year called "Fictional characters created by Grant Morrison" - see its deletion log.

Given that my last attempt to get a recreated category deleted didn't go too well, I was wondering if you could advise me on how to go about getting this deleted properly. Hope you don't mind me asking. H. Carver 01:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, I have followed it and the category is now up for discussion at CfD log 2007 February 18. H. Carver 11:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

title conventions

good job catching the title conventions. that sonic shadow guy randomly changes everything to "2nd series" and "3rd series" without explaining. the only place i've seen it labeled like that is [1] --EXV // + @ 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you guys know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles with numerous volumes says that volumes should be marked as "vol." --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oops. --EXV // + @ 00:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category

"Emptying the category" would imply that I'm removing all articles. Which I'm not. I'm applying a stringent definition because, evidently, nobody else will. ' 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather ridiculous way of thinking. It's under CfD, so everything in relation to it grinds to a halt? Aren't I actually making my argument weaker by removing entries that weaken the point of the category? ' 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on those merges, I found those and the others were too silly to pass on by. Went on a bit of a merge tag bender last night. Hey sorry about Shadowpact I looked it over and I now get the reason why you put in that box. --Basique 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

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

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics, and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freak categories

Sometimes I wonder if Creepy Crawler/EJBanks/LedgerJoker/Batman Fan has OCD or Asperger's with a specific obsession for creating Wikipedia categories and articles that must get deleted. Doczilla 08:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... there seems to be an awful lot of editors that have odd ways of getting enjoyment out of Wiki. Have to admit though, some of the categories are... inventive. — J Greb 10:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on comic references

Template:Comic book reference Hey, check this out man. ThuranX pointed out Wikipedia:Citation_templates to me, and i found comics. And if you the volume number is listed as v2 for volume 2 or vol. 2. but it's a template, so we'd only have to fix the template. --EXV // + @ 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can write our own template, actually. Just for:
Name vol. n, #n (mmyy)
It's probably why there's so many variants. --EXV // + @ 07:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
gotcha. no one seems to be using the current one though. i don't want to change the format. i'm just saying, if we used the current template more, i think there would be a lot less "first series" stuff. --EXV // + @ 08:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People by company

Ugh, what a mess. There have been a number of recent deletions of television personalities by network so I think you could go after those first. Once those are gone maybe assess some of the others and weed out some of the more egregious ones and use those for precedent to get rid of some of the others. Gah, whoever decided that "(Company name) people" was a good idea for a category name should be whipped. Ironically, "Disney people," the one that caught your attention, might be one of the more useful categories. Otto4711 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

I'm pretty sure that 75.176.40.248 is DCincarnate. --69.136.111.100 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion

Regarding this edit; would you look at the the other contributions by this editor and render your best judgement? I have no interest in acquiring another fan. CovenantD 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

75.176.41.178 and 75.176.40.202 act quite similar, looking like one energetic revert fiend. Once 3RR is violated so many times over, wouldn't some admin action be a formality? MURGH disc. 17:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can tell there is a "family" of 75.176. IPAs that the editor is using. IIUC that makes it almost impossible to block. I've suggested before, and will probably suggest again that the editor's "pet" articles be semi-protected to force him to actually log in with an account. — J Greb 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks for explaining. MURGH disc. 22:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing notable cards

Would it not make sense that the Notable Cards section of each Magic: The Gathering set be inherently cited? Nobody will put a card that isn't actually notable in any section, because everyone who does play the game, and knows if a card is notable, will delete it. Scumbag 16:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

52, Montoya, & Question

Yeah, which irks me since we can see her in the hat etc in the last ish of 52, but yeah. Off until we have to put in 'He is succeeded as the Question by Renee' ... if she lives! They're killing 'em off left and right! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't I know it. However enough articles have said Charlie's dead-dead that unless we get The Questions, it's pretty clear where we're going. Unless they pull a Super-Chief on us. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copperhead (DC Comics)

Thanks for cleaning up after me. I guess I'm too tired to see the obvious tonight. CovenantD 05:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, some of it, like the cat and Project tag, wasn't really that obvious. — J Greb 06:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Merger

Thanks for looking into this, in order for an impartial decision to be reached I had to distance myself from the process. --Basique 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who actors

That format looks great to me. The only question I have is the purpose of the "ref" column — is that something to do with the table being sortable? (For some reason, large sortable tables rarely work for me, and I haven't investigated why that is.) Anyway, thanks for taking this on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thought: "episode" isn't the best term to use, because strictly speaking The Tenth Planet is a serial, not an episode. I'm not sure whether it would be better to keep the header as "episodes" and say, for Hartnell (as an example) "An Unearthly Child" through The Tenth Planet Episode 4" or to change the header to "Appearances" or "Stories". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as references go, I think that it would be sufficient to have a "References" section with citations to Howe's Television Companion, the episode guide on the BBC's site and IMDb. I don't think we need to make a reference for each entry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television program cancellations by year

Last month, you commented on this CfD - you are encouraged to join the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#TV_program_debut/cancellation_categories to gauge consensus on whether to rename the cats, and to what name. Dl2000 03:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet?

Do you think User:Asgardian and User:211.29.188.167 are the same? I've noticed that they appear in a lot of the same articles, such as Quicksilver and Blood Brothers (comics), and make the same edits. Any thoughts? --Tenebrae 03:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. I so don't have the stomach for Asgardian after getting into a protracted thing with him I think twice before. Maybe you could ask Steve Block or Chris Griswold what suggestions they might have? Because he really, really is more disruptive than helpful.
I'll back whatever you do. Sorry for my battle fatigue. --Tenebrae 03:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okey-doke. I'll put some sort of chart thing together, and see if User:Mrph, who's also noted the issue, can check my findings.
Teamwork! --Tenebrae 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Moth

Hi J -- Killer Moth did appear in the unaired introduction to Batgirl in the Adam West TV show, but this isn't what the anon was adding. "Batman vs. Killer Moth" is one of a couple farces produced by some teenagers and put up on YouTube. Shane Steele is one of the guys involved in making these. You can see the films and their credits here and here. Not that I'd ever want to discourage teenagers to play with making their own movies -- it's just not notable enough to include in a Wikipedia article. ~CS 03:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

List of Marvel Comics endearments has been nominated — unfortunately, I believe — for deletion. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article and adding a comment, pro or con, at its "Articles for Deletion" discussion, then the article, either way, will have been assured a fair and knowledgeable hearing by editors familiar with the context. Thanks --Tenebrae 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Grayson Image

I should find some wiki-graphic of beating a dead horse ... BTW, colossus has been a PITA for ages about various things, and at one point I was geared up to report him as a vandal for his editing of Dick's skills and abilities (he kept going against consensus). Netkinetic's generally not a bad person, but there's a degree of acting like a dork going on with all of us right now, so I'm giving us all a free pass :) You seem to be keeping your cool right now, though, and I laud you for it. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keeping cool is subjective ;) But I saw you get hot under the collar and then take a break from the chat, and come back with a reasonable reply. That is good :) Net only irks me in his strident application of POLICY vs. consensus. Sometimes it's okay to bend policy if the general wish of the editors is a different way. Policy is a guideline in some cases, not a hard and fast law. Change is good, and even policies change. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J Greb, on second thought, I would like to work together on further projects in a cooperative spirit. Honestly. If a pic or an entry is updated and I'm unaware that it is currently under discussion relating to consensus, I would very much appreciate you letting me know and would be happy to convey my thoughts to the process...allowing it to progress to fruition. I think our passion for similar subjects shows we have a common appreciation and can better those subjects with our objective viewpoints. Regards. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Net, I'll take the second thoughts you've posted here, but with a bit of trepidation.
I would very much like to work with editors here, since that is one of the premises Wikipedia is based on. I would also like to see other editors willing to work with each other.
At this point something more than words is needed for me to have faith you really want to work with others. Without actions, such as looking at previous edit summaries and talk pages for indications of discussions without being prompted, on your part, I'll still be leery your changes to articles, no matter how much improvement they bring.
- J Greb 07:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Minor clarification needed...

When you closed this: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 14#Fictional characters by power, you set up 4 sections. Was the "Listify" section for cats to be converted to lists then deleted or to have a companion list?

I'm wondering because Category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate darkness or shadow has been re-tagged as underpopulated...

- J Greb 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is: Listify and then delete the category.
Longer answer: I've noticed that User:Piemanmoo has been removing the templates from the associated categories. However, one of the problems associated with the nomination is that several of the categories involved were depopulated after the first nom (which was overturned by WP:DRV. I believe that Zythe has expressed an interest in repopulating them. Right now, the categories to be listified are listed at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working (Near the bottom of the page). I'm sure that help listifying the categories would be most welcome : ) - jc37 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters who can....

I've created all the articles wanted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. How would you like me to proceed? I can go and retrieve the list of articles and paste it into the newly-created article and let you edit the list with your format, or I can wait until you've finished your edits to empty the categories. If you'll respond here, that would be best. Thanks.—DomBot / ChiDom talk 23:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I've been doing the following:
I've got a template that was the source for the list formats, current example would be the "...who can heal" list. I've got a copy in my pasteup page (sandbox).
I've been moving the articles into that, populating the columns as I go. I've also been adding format points like the names in Japanese characters for anime and manga characters.
Once I finish that, I've been stripping the articles out of the cats, noting the change, and moving the cat on the working from "Needs to be done" to "Done".
I've also bee adding the project tags based on the character in a particular list.
I've gotten into a discussion with one of the editors specializing in the anime/manga material on the "creates illusions" talk page. Mostly about fine tuning the table lay out.
At this point, just to facilitate the deletion, a Wikified cut and past for the remaining cats couldn't hurt. It would at least get the lists functional. We can work on consistency across the lists from there.
- J Greb 23:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can populate the list articles with wikified links to the articles really quickly and then go back and start removing the categories from the articles themselves. I'll do them in the order they're listed, so you can follow behind me and make your formatting changes as time allows. Sound good?—DomBot / ChiDom talk 23:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. - J Greb 23:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Lantern

Hi, J. Just wondering why the reversion re: the character on Lost reading the comic book. It's not Hurley, it's Walt. Also, you reverted non-controversial punctuation edits. Please take a look at the red edits and get back to me. Thanks!--Tenebrae 17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke. I've put my fixes back in -- and I'll help watch for the editor who's disregarding editorial style. Always good working with you and seeing your edits! --Tenebrae 18:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww...

D'oh! But it's really not a speculation, is it? All I'd said was that they appeared on the cover, and were identified by one of the editors at Marvel.com, and that's not untrue. I figured that as the actual issues came out, more useful info could be added to each article. A few other such articles had such a notation added already, so I figured I'd make the deal complete, but oh well.  :\ 204.153.84.10 19:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Man, that's absolutely fine... I was *hoping* that it was OK to merely state that they were on the cover, since this could be proven, waiting until later when their actual role in the series could be clarified.  :) Glad I could catch you before you went through all 100+ edits.  ;)

Of course, maybe an editor consensus would be a better idea. Tarantula (Marvel Comics)‎, and She-Hulk, Squirrel Girl, and Araña have been reverted by two other editors, so maybe a consensus on the idea would be a good idea. I wouldn't feel the least bit bad if the agreement was to remove them all, and I suspect you wouldn't either. 204.153.84.10 19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever everyone's most comfortable. I only suggested at the Noticeboard that it take place at User talk:204.153.84.10 since the discussion involves no one specific article and started there. But we can movie it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board if that's more appropriate. And may I just note how nice it is to have an anon-IP user like 204.153.84.10 seem as amenable and collaborative as a registered user! --Tenebrae 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Captain Obvious

Your recent edit to Captain Obvious (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 07:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comic book Library

J Greb, I was hoping to that you could look at a small section of a article about comic books, it would not take much time and I think you might be able to give me some help this is the section, I think you will find it is Interesting. this is the section:

Thanks for you help, Max ╦╩ 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a periodic thanks...

...for being a great and highly hardworking member of the Comics Project. It's tedious to fix links, and I just wanted to let you know that your peers appreciate all the work and effort! Good Wiki'ing, man! --Tenebrae 13:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Whizzer

I don't know why Asgardian likes to jettison "Publication history", but even if we have to call in an admin again, as we often do with this editor, there will be a PH in accordance to Comics Project consensus -- I'll make sure of it. I do think Speed Demon should be its own article, with the paragraph about Sanders at [Whizzer]] -- though the "Earth-616" etc. jargon doesn't belong in the subheads. These things are all supposed to be written so that a general-audience reader can understand.

I'll keep an eye on things, and I'll remind Asgardian now that PH's need to be in. --Tenebrae 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Were you referring to The Whizzer re: WP:OWN? I see Asgardian's trying to work more cooperatively. Some things still need work, but this seems hopeful. --Tenebrae 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be really awful if a great and responsible editor like you were driven off by someone who is, well, not so much. I'll try to talk to him tomorrow (it's 2:15 a.m. now where I am), and see if I can't edit something that's more of a middle ground. How's Nighthawk starting to seem to you now? --Tenebrae 06:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, and thanks for the specifics. Since the editing will be "surgical" rather than block revert, I'll work on it in a little while. My Wiki-addiction is getting bad again; I need to take break for work. Thanks for hanging in there — don't want to lose you from the Project!--Tenebrae 15:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. User:Ipstenu got to it first, and did a better job than I could have! --Tenebrae 01:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, indeed. I've seen your comments on Tenebrae's page, and frankly, you need to lighten up and be grateful for the help you have received. Your tone since Day 1 has been sharp, which is disappointing given the help you have received on the articles. Think about who has done the vast majority of the research and writing across the Sinister/Supreme articles, and then had to rewrite the submitted PH's that were full of spelling errors, POV etc.

And no...they aren't my articles, but you definitely need help in terms of writing and how to craft an article. Check out the Edit history and see what a mess the articles were before I decided to help out. Mistakes Inc...

Asgardian 08:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"they aren't my articles" Everything you just posted, as well as the vast bulk of your "edits", flys in the face of that. You are acting as though you, and you alone, have the right to add or modify the articles. Changes are made to an article to explain, move, or remove fandom jargon to make it less "geek-centric", you revert it. Changes are made to the grammar to make an article more encyclopedic and less of a fan-page, you revert it. Changes are made that are in line with the guidelines that derive from Comics Project or Wiki-wide consensus, you revert it. When multiple editors push the change, you delete it with a comment that you will write the section.
You say you don't own the articles, but you sure as hell act like you do.
The sad thing in all of this is that, boiled down to the basic information on the in-universe aspects of the characters, team, and setting, you probably are the "go-to-guy". Fact checking that aspect of the articles is very well done. And you have taken the articles from a horrid state and put them in a form that any fan-site should be proud to have. That is where the content fails though, Wikipedia is not a fan-site, it is a general use encyclopedia. The layout, wording, and writing conventions used for the articles should reflect that. The articles, in the state that you are so proud of, fail reach those benchmarks. Since multiple editors are pointing this out, maybe you should be the one to "lighten up", pause, and listen.
- J Greb 16:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Go back and look at some of your comments, and then think about how others would percieve the tone. "crap edits' is one term that comes to mind, then there's that word "deliberately" that has been thrown around. I have no objection to rewriting information to help out, but then using barbs when someone does this is a bit rich...
Asgardian 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it was pointed out to you prior to that comment that article information does not belong in a reference, the content of that portion of your edit was crap. If you want a less caustic term, fine, it was garbage. Your insistence of reverting to keep that in was a deliberate act, it was one of three types of deliberate acts actually: ownership; vandalism, which as I understand it is a form of vandalism; or stupidity. I deliberately chose the term that covered two of the three cases, the third being a judgement on you personally.
To refresh your memory, the prior instance was the back and forth on the Squadron Supreme article form April 6 through 8. - J Greb 15:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to come out swinging, don't you? Making it personal is silly as Wikipedia does have a policy re: this. "garbage" is also a foolish term for you to use given the amount of rewrites I've done on your contributions, many of which have been full of POV, spelling mistakes etc. Is this the thing that stings? If so, let it go. Making these articles the best they can be is what matters. After all, thing changes and Wikipedia could be gone tomorrow. It's not worth getting bent out of shape over.

Asgardian 11:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And at least two other editors agree with you, J Greb, that we welcome Asgardian's efforts and enthusiasm and only want to help develop his writing skills. That said, I reworked the alternate-version (Earth 712) section of the Whizzer article in what God knows I hope serves at least a little bit as a model for giving the same information in layman English. --Tenebrae 16:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My writing skills are fine, as evidenced by the constant rewrites of others work...less condescension...
Asgardian 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported Asgardian to the Administrator's noticeboard. --GentlemanGhost 01:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nighthawk

I've started a PH section, and have made a start on conforming the various versions of Nighthawk to the format of the rest of the Comics Project.

Watch my back... :-)   -- Tenebrae 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments again on all the time, effort and consensus-gathering on the new alternate-earth infobox! That was great of you to take the bull by the horns and create something needed! -- Tenebrae 22:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

To follow up on previous discussions, I've posted a few potential solutions there. - jc37 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked you for abusive sockpuppeting, per checkuser evidence - David Gerard 22:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you, and a zillion other people in your city, because I am evidently channelling my inner butt-crack or something. My deep and sincere apologies. I will go beat my head against a nice soft brick wall now - David Gerard 22:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

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

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics and to the Whizzer article, and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please swing by...

... the Whizzer talk page again. Specifically this edit.

I know what I want to say, and what the reply should be. But I know damn well doing so would be contrary to the warning you placed.

- J Greb 06:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. No one said self-control is always easy. I know I've had days on Wikipedia where my patience has been tested, as well. As far as the diff, I removed the comment per WP:TALK, as I noted in my edit summary. I'm holding off (for now) with placing an additional warning, since we have somewhat positive discussion started. I also commented at the top of the examples by section. - jc37 08:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate universe sidebar

I noticed you added this to a number of the Squardon Supreme articles recently - really, really neat idea. It has a lot of other options for use beyond the Squadron, too, particularly the Ultimates, Age of Apocalypse, Heroes Reborn, etc. However, I have not the time to institute this wide-scale, so maybe we could ask around for people that do...? BOZ 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to ask...

...but could you swing by Absorbing Man. Specifically my edits of the past 3 days and Asgardian's blanked reverts. As well as Talk:Absorbing Man#References, which I posted after my last edit.

Thanks,

- J Greb 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and don't "hate to ask", feel free. Per the several WP:AN/I discussions, I think a neutral mediator seems to be the best course atm. - jc37 10:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

52 Fallout

Great job J Greb! Now let's hope the natives have settled down until the next inkling of "news" coming from the DCU. (delayed response due to long weekend) Mister Fax 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PNGs to JPGs

I'm not going to get into a big fight about it, but couldn't you just make the PNG-images smaller, as opposed to replacing them with JPGs?

JPGs are ok for photos, but for illustrations their quality is really detoriated.--DrBat 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I do is I just get the url of the image and lower the px (ie, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/Tpbvision.png/200px-Tpbvision.png). --DrBat 17:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
are you proposing that a re-sized image be saved off and then uploaded to replace the over sized base?
Yes, I've done that before with larger images.
Also, sometimes I'll save the JPG image as a PNG if I'm cropping it for a certain panel (like the image of Flash punching Superboy-Prime), because if I save it as a JPG when I was done getting the specific panel I wanted to upload, it detoriates from the original quality. Whereas the quality stays the same if it's saved as a PNG. --DrBat 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward on Whizzer and Absorbing Man

Just wondering how long to hold off on these two articles. - J Greb 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're up to it, my intention was/is to close the sections of the discussion, and have you implement the initial results. (I think I noted this somewhere at one point.) But you were having such a fruitful discussion I didn't want to interrupt it by closing. But since you now ask, I'll go through everything later tonight. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Whizzer has pretty much wound down, so it should be to the point for the sections to be closed with recommendations.
I maybe jumping the gun on Absorbing Man though... - J Greb 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on Absorbing Man

(I'm assuming you track threads you move to and reply on other's talk pages so I'll just deal with a new item...)

But just to follow up since Asgardian seems uninterested in comment on the talk page. Am I missing anything from the WP:CITE reference that you were pointing to? - J Greb 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<Nod> I do : )
Going through the talk page discussions now. - jc37 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to look at User:J Greb/Pasteup... I've started working through as best I could before the closing of the sections. - J Greb 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks : ) - jc37 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is unrelated to the character the Blur of the alternate-universe Marvel MAX imprint is also named Stanley Stewart and possesses super speed.
Seems like it's missing some words here, like "[although he] is also…" or "[who] is also…" --GentlemanGhost 10:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems odd that the Stanley Stewart section puts the reference into the body of the text when the other biographies use footnotes. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 10:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually stopped at the Stewart section to wait and give Jc37 a chance to go through the Whizzer talk page and work out what consensus had been reached before trying to work through the mess that section is. Mainly the section should be moved into the FCB and formatted accordingly... I think. - J Greb 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swing by Whizzer...

Please.

I'm at my limit with this -- -- -- antics.

Looking at what was added here there is a fundamental disconnect between words and deeds.

Specifically:

  • Agreeing to a point that was subsequently closed and brought in line with consensus, then editing in conflict with that statement. (Lead, PH re magazine cite formatting, and the 1971 section)
  • Editing sections that were specifically not closed.

- J Greb 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC) (revised - J Greb 06:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC) )[reply]

Thanks for the notice : )
Your revert seems to be holding (for the moment). He even somewhat apologised ("my bad...").
I'll leave comment there as well. - jc37 07:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD vote relocation

Thank you. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War III

To be blunt: If the argument is "It isn't WW3 in all comics", then you should have been putting up that article when what's there was moved to (DC Comics), not making (comics) a redirect.

Hi J, I didn't want to reply to your comment to the World War III (comics) talk page, because I thought it might interrupt the flow. However, I wanted to point out that I believe that a redirect is automatically created when you use the move tab to move a page (as opposed to an ugly cut-and-paste move). That doesn't dilute your main point about the need for creating the broader scope World War III (comics) page. But, in order for that happen, the move has to happen, and so the redirect is a necessary first step. Also, I'm not certain that this user is the first person to have moved the page to World War III (DC Comics). A different editor brought it up on the Project's talk page first. --GentlemanGhost 08:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with being blunt I guess :)
What I was getting at was that the "end state" of the given reason should be 2 articles, not an article and a redirect. The end result of what the editor did read as "I don't like the titling, and I don't want to put up the needed broader article."
There is also a problem with the way (comics) is being bandied about. If the article is about the event then it's the right term, even if the article should be nix as fundamentally "in universe". If it is about the "4 stand alone issues as 1 series", which is what it looks like it is, then (comic book) is more appropriate. (see 52) - J Greb 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:4-villain.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:4-villain.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:3-war.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:3-war.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Graphic Novels Page

The work you spoke of is Warhammer Monthly which was discontinued. Furthermore, there is a listing of comics and books already out. The page was intended to be a bridge between the books and the game, showing where they crossed into the rules for the miniatures, the rpg games, and the like. User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels_Current (about 1/4 of the way done) is what it was supposed to look like. Now, the naming convention of the warhammer pages are Title followed by (Warhammer 40,000). This is done based on an aesthetics choice. To make the page anything but Graphic Novels (capitalized, because it is based of the BL publications under it, not random graphic novels dealing with warhammer) followed by the Warhammer 40,000 would be to ignore precendence. I have since left the page (I created the page and am the only one there who currently had any of the actual works on the page or knew anything about the miniatures), but the people who felt that they knew more about the project will probably do whatever they want. To make a page listing comics or the like needs to be deleted under redundancy, as there are lists for that already. I decided to move my work over to my sandbox and then over to the Warhammer Wikipedia (Lexicanum). Any questions, explanations, etc, about the above, please feel welcome to post on my talk page. SanchiTachi 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:2760 400x600.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:2760 400x600.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Image:Atom.jpg listed for deletion

Hi, thanks for the note. Unfortunately, I don't really what I'm doing as regards to pictures. It took me all my time to just upload that, because I'm useless at computer stuff. ;) I'd be very indebted to you if you could upload a picture of the Atom's second costume that doesn't contravene any of Wikipedias policies though. The article really suffers without one. Thanks, John M. 29 May 2007, 13:21

  1. ^ Wonder Woman #282-285
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J_Greb&oldid=134302101"