User talk:J Greb

This is J Greb's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

Fair use disputed for Image:New avengers sketch.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:New avengers sketch.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 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Guardians by Igle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Guardians by Igle.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 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

Thank you for pointing out my mistake - I think I fixed it, but then I thought the previous proofreading was sufficient as well ;-) Tewfik^Talk 10:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea

I guess you were right to decide that neither a list or category was neccessary and should be salted. I've never seen the cfd for the telekinesis/fire/shadow, etc., cats and would like to know where they are located. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: re: WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #13

As it asks for substantial stability and substantial numbers of editors that seems like it'd need an assessment and consensus on the whole wiki. We'd be in a really big mess if we had to go through and justify ever link each time we wanted to use it. I could also see assessing single wiki pages as being more troublesome than a whole wiki. For example you might have a solid well written page with only an editor or two having worked on it while ones with more input could be worse. Of course, this might be an arguement for the impossibility judging wikis by the criteria presented but I think we can come to a solid decision on a wiki-wide basis. (Emperor 19:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's it really. I assume (hope?) the guidelines are like that so we can discuss and include wikis that we think are suitable. Reaching a consensus would give editors more authority in cases of disputes over this as without a consensus you are leaving it down to an individual's opinion and with no weighting one way or the other that can lead to edit disputes.

As you say with updates to WP:FICT I can see more material being transwikied (officially or unofficially) and it'd be in our interest to establish which are the reliable wikis that we can work with so that any gaps not covered by us can e addressed in a wiki that is more indepth. I found the MCDP very helpful the other day for resolving an issue that wasn't clear from the Wikipedia entry and while they will never be WP:RS they, like Wikipedia itself, can be useful springboards to tracking down the information you need. While the MCDP links were removed due to WP:COI I don't have a problem with proposing it for discussion as linkable in line with WP:EL along with DCAUW and some others. It might be worth getting a small list together and kicking them around, those that get the thumbs up for external linking can then be added to some section of the comics project. (Emperor 20:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've set the ball rolling [1] we'll see how that goes ;) (Emperor 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Superboy-Prime

Thank you.[2] Would you mind dropping a note on the talk page so it's not just me and Zeal ~~beating our heads against a wall~~ attempting to reason with him? Pairadox 05:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he was warned about the 3RR in the Sept 1 run, and was warned again after his 4th tonight... see here. - J Greb 06:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry... forgot your note on your talk...)

Oh... and you may want to take a perusal of WP:ANI... - J Greb 06:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks for being respectful!

...and he's blocked.[3] Pairadox 06:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... that was fast. - J Greb 06:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batgirl pic

I can understand reducing the file size, but why not use the original "million dollar debut?" since it was the cover for her first appearance? Bookkeeperoftheoccult 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks for explaining. I guess its also a moot point but I also disagreed with removing the Killing Joke image from Barbara's article, only because that book had the the most significant impact on her character history. But if it is turely inappropriate, I wont argue about it.

I also had a question, are you good at properly citing references? because I can't figure out how to do it correctly to save my life. I'd love to see the barbara gordon and batgirl articles get the star/A quality rating but both need about 1,000 references. I own the BOP issues 56-99 and im sure I could find external links to other important points, but id need help putting them in the right place. Thanks!Bookkeeperoftheoccult 22:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I found another web site that appears to have to original scan with all relevant info Million Dollar Debut Bookkeeperoftheoccult 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Comic book references" template

Hi, J. This looks like a really handy template, which I've just run across at your Whizzer edit here. I couldn't find it on the WPC templates list, and we need to make an adjustment: It's using the format "v1" etc. rather than WPC MOS "vol. 1" etc. Can you adjust, or let me know where it is and I can do it? Thanks, -- Tenebrae 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you. That "one-year" rule is just arbitrary. I find The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators to be a very solid and consistent source of keeping volume numbers straight. Oh, and thanks for all the info and the template fix!! It;s good working with you, man. --Tenebrae_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Horror Heroes

I like the idea, I just based Werewolf (comics) on the Frankenstein (comics) page that existed. Previously the Werewolf page only redirected to Werewolf by Night. Make the proposal on the 3 talk pages, I don't want to take credit for your idea. -- 69.183.15.244 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...

Are you floating my edits? --CmdrClow 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're referring to Dick Grayson and Robin (comics), not exactly. I've had those two on my watchlist for quite some time. And I stand by the actions I've taken with regard to those two and the Sook image.

There was a large harangue last time the Sook image was placed, not proposed, into the infobox. The result of that was the current 'box image. Given that history, treating it like the 'box image on Joker (comics) makes sense. In hindsight, the note should have gone up when the image change was finalized.
Placing it at the "One Year Later" section break is just decoration. It doesn't add to or reinforce anything in that section. It's just another "Nightwing in costume" image. The other 5 Nightwing image do directly relate to and support the text they're beside. The weakest of those is the Blockbuster one, and it's still, unfourtunatly, got stronger reasons than including the Sook image.
With the Robin article, since the focus there is that codename, it seems just plain wrong to use an image that minimizes Grayson's appearance in that role. Also, it doesn't make sense to include a second image for just one of the characters the article dabs to.

All things being equal, I do see a use for the Sook image, but the page is a royal mess. It would work on the Nightwing article for a dab section to the Grason article. But Nightwing needs to be put into a format similar to the Robin article at the same time.

Or was there something else that you were looking at? - J Greb 20:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]