User talk:ChrisGriswold/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Supergirl

Since you've had major input into the character, and I respect what I see of your contributions in general, I wanted to bring up an idea for the Supergirl page. It seems weird that a (relatively) minor character like Cir-El gets a separate page but the pre-Crisis Kara Zor-El, arguably the most famous, does not. It would also seem to conform to other pages such as Green Lantern, where each of the major characters to share the name get a summary and a link to their own page. How do you feel about spinning off the pre-Crisis Kara onto her own page? That would allow the oportunity to spotlight her a bit more. (In case you can't tell, I'm a fan of hers from way back.) CovenantD 23:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Let's do that. We should look at how the Green Lantern and Flash pages do it, because they not only have the main article, they break off into Hal Jordan and Kyle Rayner entries as well, because those characters have a ton of info just on them. I think we should do the same thing here, with Pre-Crisis Kara and the Matrix/Linda Danvers Supergirl having their own entries. --Chris Griswold 23:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Check out this page for a blank template. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars

I'd even say that Matrix and Linda Danvers should retain their own pages. I've looked at them and Matrix needs a lot of work, but Matrix had quite a career before she merged with the human Linda. Other than that, I guess the only other thing is to figure out what pre-Crisis Kara's page should be named. I still think of her as the 'real' Kara Zor-El, but I can see where that might cause conflict with the current holder of the name. Ideas? CovenantD 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason I think they should have the same page is that their adventures are so inexplicably linked. Linda still has all of Matrix's powers, and they shared the same existence for a long time. --Chris Griswold 00:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read somewhere that Linda's powers were different (no longer a full shapeshifter, for example). I'm gonna have to find that reference again. There's not a lot on the pre-Linda Matrix anywhere yet. How 'bout we try this - work on separating the pre-Crisis Kara from the main Supergirl page first. If I get to the Matrix page and get it expanded into something distinct from the merged-being-Linda Danvers version, then it can become it's own link. Otherwise, it can get merged into the Linda page. :) CovenantD 00:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Linda loses some of the strength and the shape-shifting, but she keeps some telekinesis. The thing is, I have always seen them grouped together as one Supergirl, from Matrix through Merged Supergirl to Linda.--Chris Griswold 03:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Legion reboots

I already respected your edits here. After your words about the heartbreak of the Legion reboots, I really feel a kinship. CovenantD 14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I haven't worked with you on the Supergirl edits, but I have been busy and so have been only doing small edits, pretty much because I have other things I should be doing. I would like to devote some real attention to the Supergirl stuff. --Chris Griswold 14:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I haven't done much myself. It looks like others beat us to it. CovenantD 14:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Jodi jusiak desktop2(export).jpg

After rereading the various policies, frankly, I'm not sure; admins like [User:Carnildo]] have far more experience than I regarding images. After rereading WP:CSD, however, I was not nearly convinced that they should be speedied. :) RadioKirk talk to me 17:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Completist

Do you see this as being expanded anymore than it is now. I have to say, I think this is a dic-def, have a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and see what you think. Steve block Talk 13:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be right. I just got going on comic book entries over the past few hours. Go ahead and delete it if you feel it's best. --Chris Griswold 13:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good god, I wouldn't just delete a page like that! It takes me at least a day to work up the courage. I was thinking of trying to find a place to merge it, maybe collecting? On a side issue, I just saw above that you intend to work on a policy page for Wikiproject comics. What exactly did you have in mind? Steve block Talk 13:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I think we need a page that collects the guiding principles of the project. I can write that, certainly. I haven't found such a page. I'll have to go through the talk pages and put it together. Once it's all up in one place, we can see what might need to be added, and I am sure some of it will be put to a vote again. (I was concerned about solicitation information, literary present, templates, and preferred images/image use - oh and spoiler use). But we do need a simple, straightforward policy page that can link to other resources when necessary. --Chris Griswold 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics is supposed to serve as the page you seem to feel is lacking. We did work up guidance on image use, there's a page on templates there too, and one covering copyright. I also added the useful pages. See what you think is missing and add it, by all means. Steve block Talk 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason Todd

Now that I'm more awake (never have blood drawn, it fucks you up), and I've re-read the comics proj pages as well as the rest of Cheesenw's posts, I feel for ya. I think you did a good job handling it, and while he's not generally been the easiest to get to talk about things, at least he conceeded you were right here. Nicely handled :) -- Ipstenu 13:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

About your most recent edit, the reason I used the words I did there is that there is some contention about what exactly happened in that grave, which is what promptred me to edit that section in the first place. See, some people think that Superboy-Prime resurrected Jason Todd, partially regenerating his flesh, but the comic explicitly states that he is altering reality, not resurrecting. He basically just flipped a 1/0 switch that now says Jason Todd survived the beating from the Joker, and that's why he's again suffering from the wounds as if he has just received them. He doesn't flash back to dying; he flashes back to a page of art that was to be used in the Death in the Family storyline had the votes gone the other way, in which Batman has to carry him because he is so badly beaten. It's a bit of a semantic thing, the difference between returning life to a dead body and replacing a dead Jason with a live one; however, to Jason Todd, he never died, doesn't remember dying, only knows that Batman thought he died, and therefore is angry that Batman didn't avenge him. The anomaly is localized on Jason; while everyone knows he died, this Jason Todd had instead survived. Like I said, it's a fine line, but it's actually a big difference, and that's why that was the most neutral way I could write it, while actually describing what's on the page more accurately. --Chris Griswold 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the narrative is also not clear on whether "how things should be" is a universal truth or an opion of Superboy's, as noted in my text. Did you see he just undid your work? --Chris Griswold 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bah. I've gone with calling Jason's death a retcon (which it is) and then saying 'returned to life' which is vague and neutral enough to allow both possibilities. IMO, I think Jason died and was brought back to life, but we don't have a concrete answer. While I can agree with your point of why he was f'ed up, I disagree with your conclusion of the 1/0 switch :) That said, keeping it open to both options until/unless we get a firm 'Body Switch' or not answer is probably a better option. I keep trying to keep in the bit about 'god knows WHO thought Jason wasn't supposed to die?' since I think it's important. I'd peg it on SB-P, but again, we don't know and we shouldn't spec. That's just not encyclopediotic. -- Ipstenu 16:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional heroines based on heroes

The debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 23#Category:Fictional heroines based on heroes to Category:Fictional heroines can quickly be concluded if you, as creator and sole contributor, agree and indicate there that it can be speedily deleted. If I understand your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Lots of new categories you are thinking of creating a list, which may well suit this information better. I also understand your creation of the category was as a misreading of the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 11#Category:Female heroines with names derived from pre-existing male characters to Category:Fictional heroines based on heroes. Note that admins close a deletion debate, determine consensus, and then implement that consensus determined. Wikipedia:Deletion policy should help clarify the procedure for you. Steve block Talk 19:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I put up a speedy deletion template as soon as this was first mentioned to me, and someone took it down. OK, I will leave a new comment. --Chris Griswold 16:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've closed the debate so it will get sorted once the bot gets to work on it, don't worry. Steve block Talk 18:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

comics terminology and comic book terminology

Um, to me you removed a lot of stuff that's relevant to the wider form than just comic books from the higher level cat. Thoughts? Steve block Talk 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that. I think I just saw that the majority of the items were comic book-specific, and while I tried to take a look at the individual entries, that lent creedance to the idea they had all been placed in error. --Chris Griswold 22:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. A few of those you saw were my errors, I'm slowly trying to clean out Category:Comics of too many needless articles, and I'm mostly mirroring the structure on Category:Music and Category:Film. It gets messy because the terminology is completely different between the US and Europe. Steve block Talk 09:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

'sup "boss"?

Animated Batman history is quite long, a bit longer than animated Hawkgirl. Regardless of what you say. You can later merge it. But the Batman page will be summarized sooner or later just as the Superman page was, that's why I created the article separatedly. You are very welcome to contribute with the Batman (animated) bio article, by the way. Actually I don't think I can complete it soon. The article as it is right now is far from perfect. I'm not sure about the words and sentences I choosed, so edits are very welcome. The only thing I know is that it ain't gonna be short. It must not. Please cut the bossy attitude, we can come to agreements but I'm not doing anything just because you say so.--T-man, the wise 04:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what bossy attitude you're talking about. Based on precedents, the Batman (animated) article will be condensed and merged into the main Batman article. I was adviosing you not to write too much, because just like with the animated Hawkgirl information, I can see a lot of detail will be deleted. In the meantime, someone needs to make the Batman (animated) article presentable. --Chris Griswold 05:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Batman

Have you seen what T did to the Batman article? I'd be interested in getting your response to it. CovenantD 05:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm on my way. --Chris Griswold 05:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I wont revert. But you have to met me in the middle point. I won't accept just plane undoing of my work. T-man, the wise

You made sweeping changes without first discussing them. It's not just me who is against your changes. --Chris Griswold 10:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well right now you have an oversized article trying to fit 3 bios in one. Besides, there were 2 edits after mine backing it up. the reverts were done by DA (it doesn't count, he is just a plane vandal with no ideals that reverts every article I edit, even the ones i create just minutes after) and one by you. You I can respect fine, but you din't get my version enough time to be analized or accepted. Read better this talk page, the last time you did, you missed DA's contradictory proposal backing me up. I've also proposed to move the homophobia thing to a sub-article in the past, since is that info is not that important and is too polemic, that's on archive 02, since then, several people have proposed the same but nobody does anything. I don't know where you got the idea that editing is a slow burocratic process but it wasn't on wikipedia since its main editing policy is BE BOLD!!!!!!!!. If it were up to people like you we would get stucked with crappy articles. Remember be bold!!! I'm using WP policies to back my actions. Where the hell did you get your let's-have-humongous-boring-articles policies, anyway??? You're a periodist 4 x-sake!!!!--T-man, the wise 11:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude. 1: Calm down. 2: Call for a vote on your idea, and we can see what people think of this. 3: Being bold is one thing; upon first glance, it looked like vandalism, and that's a very frequently vandalized article. 4: I still have no idea what you are talking about in regard to me and that Superman article talk page. 5: Don't be a dick. --Chris Griswold 11:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I know there's been some concern so this is just a friendly reminder, no one person or group owns any article or page. To qoute Wikipedia itself: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Wikipedia is for facts not oppinions. Just make sure your source is offical! And keep up the good work!

Who are you? What are you talking about? What does this have to do with this thread? --Chris Griswold 02:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me, may i add, but it does seem like your laying claim to the article just because you wrote loads of it. Oh and there's that "don't be a dick" thing again. Where i'm from you'd get thumped in the face for that... haha (that's not a threat - to be clear..:))— ChocolateRoses ^talk

Oh, it was just T-man. He's a little paranoid. --Chris Griswold 06:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I've made some comments on T-Man's page, even though it may have been unwise and has further angered him (and which he will likely delete asap). I really don't want this feud to continue and will try to give T-Man some space, knowing that you will be watching him for his edits. Just thought you should know. And I am not some crazed guy out to mock and disrupt his life, regardless of what he says ot thinks. I'm just a normal guy, married, a lawyer, trying to be part of the wikipedia community in my limited free time. I acknowledge that sometimes I get carried away and hence the caustic descriptions for reverts and edits. Anything you can do to make him believe that I mean no ill will would be very helpful. Thanks. Dyslexic agnostic 06:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the things you have done have all necessarily been bad. If you hadn't performed some of the reverts or redirects, or if I had not been focused elsewhere, I very well might have done them myself. It's best to try to stay positive when these arguments arise. I finally snapped at him and am still arguing against him at times, and he still likes me because for the most part I have been friendly and encouraging to him. I think his current obsession with documenting you is a little upsetting, though. --Chris Griswold 06:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK

Nope. If only you could come up with a way of avoid mixing cannonical Batman with overall batman, I'm good. I mean the article can be overall, ok. But I feel the cannonic part should be more concreteT-man, the wise

I understand that. But right now, consensus is against such edits. What I would suggest to you in this instance is to propose exactly what it is you want to do with the page. This means cut out all emotion (this is partially what is not preventing some people from agreeing with you), reasoning out evenly and clearly what it is you want to do, and why. Separate the individual changes you want to make from each other. Designate them "Proposed Change 1", etc. That way, people won't dismiss all your edits outright, but will have to consider your ideas individually. Right now, you are righting thick blocks of text that take some extra work to read through. Just pace yourself and present your arguments separately and clearly. I do think you face a lot of opposition on the majority of your Batman edits, though, and it may be in your best interest to concede those edits that consensus deems unnecessary or disruptive. --Chris Griswold 05:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I went throu a similar situation with the List of Villains and the Enemies of Batman and somehow got it my way. But I'm going with your advice this time, the Batman article is to big and there is a big amount of people involved.

I'd also love if you could help me desing smarter changes, even if they are not that close to my original ideas. I'm opened to diferent visions. --T-man, the wise 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when it comes to more popular articles, large change is difficult. It's sometimes better to stake out something and lead that project. I just sent a large amount of time copy editing the Batman article, and I know I'm going to have some trouble, just because of how popular it is. I'd be happy to work with you on anything. I know you have good intentions. --Chris Griswold 01:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply regarding a Comics policy page

It's a good idea, that's how the copyright guidance got written up. Anything you need help with, ley me know, I've indexed the archives to a point, but people stopped bothering after the fifth one, I think. I know my way around the policies fairly well, so if you don't mind I'd like to try and keep an eye on what you do and try and nail it better in existing policies. Steve block Talk 19:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't want it any other way. What I am doing is bigger than a normal edit, so I will appreciate having a spotter along the way. Additionally, once they're together on one page, it will be easier to discuss them again and possibly even come to a new consensus on some of them. --Chris Griswold 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Omega-level mutants

do you think the "potential omega-level mutants" in Omega-level mutant is relevant? i'm thinking about deleting it, but it's a huge chunk of the article. 161.38.222.14 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That section's all speculation, and only a few of those characters have been shown to have omega-level powers. I'd maybe leave only Magneto, Professor X, Mad Jim Jaspers, X-Man, Cable, Scarlet Witch, and Jamie Braddock. And actually, Jaspers and Braddock are still questionable. They may be able to warp reality, but Scarlet Witch can selectively warp reality on a universal level; she can pick and choose what changes and how on an individual level while changing all of reality. These two can just make some changes, and often only temporary ones.

Some of the other ones I just don't get: Gambit? Chris Griswold

-- Gambit had his powers downsized by Mister Sinister, i belive. They were out of control before and possibly growing. Im not a huge fan, but if you look at his site (in think it must be his) there IS somewhere where it says there have been future versions of himself that can transverse time with ease, picking and choosing where he goes and what he does. This is a huge power level, so that probably adds to it. Probably also explains the "potential" bit... — ChocolateRoses ^talk

Additionally, I'm not sure why IGN is cited in the "Known" section as a reliable source. They didn't source their article, and it just reads like an opinion to me. Chris Griswold

Help me out, man!

Hey, I'm very concern nobody is editing Animated Series Batman. Specially if it's going to be merged, it needs to be shaped. --T-man, the wise 20:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Northstar (comics)

Revision 56247621 (Fixing links) shows you've removed wiki links to the "Repo Man" X-Men episode for no apparent reason. Please review your edit and fix what is necessary. Jonathan F 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

X3

Please stop ignoring the TALK page just so that you can revert edits of grammar and punctuation. I have supplied many justifications for those edits, if you do not agree please use the TALK page. Bignole 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What grammar edits? I haven't ignored the talk page. I have kept your semicolon. I have also made the case for my placement of the word "reluctantly." Wolverine is reluctant to kill Jean Grey. We don't disagree on that. But I don't comprehend why you want to put the emphasis on his stabbing her, when it's the killing that upsets him more. To stab someone is one thing. To kill someone is another. He kills her reluctantly. It's incidental that he uses his claws. I would ask that you make this compromise, just as I accepted your choice of semicolon. --Chris Griswold 12:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no "acceptance of the semicolon", that is the proper punctuation for that sentence. What you are doing is diliberately undermining my edit because you don't like someone correcting you. The 'relunctantly" is placed with the stabbing because that is what is relunctant. She has to die, there is no other option, the only part that bothers him is that he has to do it. He can't use the cure, for one he doesn't even know if it ould work on her being as she is so powerful, and two he can't get to the cure. Killing her is the only option, thus, he "relunctantly stabs her with his claws" because he doesn't want to have to kill her himself. He loves her and it pains him to have to stab her. When he stabs he is going for the kill. He has 6 claws all of which are the size of butcher knives, I don't think there is a lot of dilly dally when it comes to being stabbed by all of them. Hence why he is relunctant to stab her. Just because you place the "relunctant to end her life" in the front doesn't change the meaning of relunctance in that section. Her death was inevitable, there was no relunctance to it, the only relunctance was in who would have to kill her, and that resided with Wolverine. Saying "relunctantly stabbing her with his claws, ending her life". Ending her life was going to happen either way. Bignole 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding to you, but, Tene has been responding right after you and when I see a new message, I look at my "whatchlist" and his name is there. So, I have responded on both his and yours this time.

When you emphasis one word over the other you change the meaning. Emphasizing "relunctantly ending her life" is not accurate to the scene, because she has to die. But, when you emphasize "relunctantly stabs her" you are emphasizing his relunctance to do it. That was what the scene in the movie was conveying. The only way for that meaning to be conveyed, and still have relunctance with "ending her life" would be if the sentence was worded as such

"Momentarily gaining control, Jean begs Wolverine to save her; Wolverine, reluctant to end Jean's life himself, tell her he loves her and stabs her with his claws. " Now, the reluctance is with "ending Jean's life", but, it still conveys the message the Wolverine is relunctant to kill her, not that there is some relunctance in her life ending. That was what was not being grasped. You are saying there is some reluctance in her life ending, but, I think you mean to say that there is reluctance in him killing her. Notice the word usage in your version and mine. You were not emphasizing that anyone was reluctant to kill her, you were emphasizing that she was reluctant to die. Bignole 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I used "reluctantly" never modified Jean Grey. And I'm not sure how you can say that Wolverine wasn't reluctant for Jean to die. The facts that he stabs her is less important than that he kills her. --Chris Griswold 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Her death is not reluctant. To be reluctant it has to be unwilling. How can her death be unwilling? The point is to emphasize the fact that Wolverine, himself, is reluctant to kill her. It isn't her death that is reluctant, it is the fact that he is doing it. You are seeing the fact that the word is with "stabbing her" and assuming that he is reluctant to stab her. He is reluctant to stab her, but it isn't the stabbing that he cares about, it's her death. She has to die, but he doesn't want to have to kill her. That is why he is reluctant to stab her. You wouldn't be reluctant to die, you would be reluctant to be killed. Better yet, you wouldn't be reluctant to extinguish life that needs to be extinguished, you would be reluctant to do it yourself. There was no question to the fact that she has to die, the question was in whether or not he wants to do it. You are either missing the point or completely ignoring it. You keep modifying her life, but, you should be modifying his action. What is in question is whether he wants to do it or not, not whether she deserves it. That is why I worded as such originally. Then, so that you can have your reluctant with Jean, I worded it so that it made sense that way... "Wolverine, reluctant to end Jean's life himself...." The reason this isn't a preference is because you are ignoring the actual scene in the film and creating your own meaning. In the film, they hinted at the fact that she would need to die almost from the start. Then, right before they left for Alcatraz Island, Storm talked with Logan about whether he is prepared to do what needs to be done. HELLO, that is her telling him that Jean needs to be killed. That is why, when you say reluctantly you would need to modify Logan's emotions, not Jean's death. If you don't specify that in the sentence then you can't assume that. Your original sentence structure creating the meaning that her death was reluctant, not that Wolverine was reluctant to kill her. (p.s. please respond to my talk page)Bignole 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of opening up a can of mutant worms, User:P-Chan seemed to do a nice edit that, far as I know, seems to reflect both your and Bignole's views: "Momentarily gaining control, Jean begs Wolverine to save her; reluctantly ending Jean's life, Wolverine tell her he loves her and kills her with his claws."

On another issue, I've asked editors to weigh in on including the one mainstream film critic who's also a comics writer. Please see just above Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#The_Connection_between_the_comic_and_the_film, and, if you want, let anyone else know who's been involved in the page.

Back to you and Bignole, I hope my butting-in was more helpful than not. Tenebrae 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's hilarious; it's what I keep changing it to. I'm glad to see you think it'a good compromise. This whole thing is stupid. I realize I won't get Bignole to understand how the adverb works in that sentence. --Chris Griswold 06:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but not really. You still don't seem to relaize that the way it is now, reluctantly is modifying Jean's death, and not Wolverine killing her. There is nothing in the sentence right now that specifies that he is reluctant to kill her. It says "relunctantly ending Jean's life"....that creates the question "what was reluctant to end Jean's life?". Just because you already know the answer the question doesn't mean that what is written there actually provides that answer. It's clear that he doesn't want to kill Jean, but she must die so he reluctantly does so. Unfortunately, the sentence creates an ambiguity because it doesn't actually say that, it just says "reluctantly ending Jean's life, Wolverine tells Jean he loves her and stabs her." All three of us already know that Wolverine is reluctant to kill her, and not that she is reluctant to die. But, that isn't what the sentence says. You have to look beyond hindsight and actually read the sentence. The way it is written, it creates a new question of "reluctantly what?". Chris and I both want the same meaning, to show that he reluctantly kills her. First, it wouldn't sound right if it was about her relunctantly dying, that's like saying she was standing there thinking it over before she decided to just keel over; so that is how I know we must be looking for the same answer. The problem is that when you know what you want, you don't see what the problem is. You can't understand how 4+4=8 if you already know that 8 is the answer. You will just always say 8 is the answer without actually understanding why. That is the problem with the sentence. You know the answer but the question is wrong. That was why i rewrote it (see the above post for revamped sentence) so that it asked the right question, which was "was Wolverine killing her in cold blood or for some other reason?" Also, I just noticed it says "kills her with his claws"...that is a bit redundant if you are already saying that he ends her life. That was the reason we used "stabbed" before, because you already acknowledged the fact that he is ending her life. So, if you say he kills her, then there is no point to say "ending her life" because you are just overflowing the gas tank. Maybe, if Chris wants "killed" it should be more like "Wolverine, telling Jean he loves her, relunctantly kills her with his claws". Bignole 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Gaiman

Well, the relevent point there was just that it wasn't his agreement that led to the canning of Morpheous in JLU - as he says explicitly: [1]. The larger point is more complex - basically, there's a general understanding that they will not use the characters without his permission, and his continued happiness with them and willingness to do things like Endless Nights and Absolute Sandman is worth more to them than the quick buck. However, the characters are DCs, and they could break the agreement at any time if they wanted, with no consequence other than Gaiman being irritated. But as it applies to JLU, the relevent citation is above. Phil Sandifer 15:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Turner pics etc.

Yeah, sorry about the constant pic changes. I didn't realize I would be stepping on toes. See, I'm pretty new at this and just saw a couple of articles that I thought could use some new pictures. Again, I wasn't aware that I was crossing a line or anything. Seriously though, my Hulk image is WAY better than the current.

I understand that, but we had just had discussions (disputes, even) on the talk page on several articles recently. The debates usualy come down to whichever picture best depicts the most current look of the character. And while you may really like the Michael Turner picture, it doesn't accurately depict the Hulk as he currently is. Just be sure to go to the talk pages when you have a question or a dispute or you need help. Everyone here is willing to help, and we're all interested in cooperation; you unfortunately came off as an editor who did not want to cooperate, and it's pretty clear that it's because you are new. --Chris Griswold 02:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sinestro

Since I've seen your recent edit to Green Lantern, I thought you might want to take a look at Sinestro also. CovenantD 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This might help. [2] Personally, I don't even know where to begin. CovenantD 07:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tense in Spider-Man

Hi Chris,

Re: Spider-Man article being in present tense even in sentences that seem counter-intuitive to me.

I'm just curious as to whether I'm generally getting something wrong with article style, or whether there's a project style guideline in place or similar? There are many examples of events in Spider-Man's history that I would intuitively describe in a past tense, but you're editing for present tense. Can you shed some light on this?

No challenge here, by the way. I'm straight-up just wanting to understand. I was going to do more cleanup, but I'll wait until you've replied as I don't want to go against the flow on any style issues. Cheers. — Estarriol ^talk 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's Wikipedia policy and has been accepted as a guideline by the Comics Wikiproject. Present tense is used when writing about fictional characters and events to differentiate them from real historical events. As a comic book fan, it is hard not to write in present tense because the comics have been around so long, and comics publishers often encourage an in-world POV. But it is essential to refer to the events and characters in this way, and yes, sometimes we need to alter the sentence to make it work: "During Batman's history, four teenagers serve in succession as his youthful sidekick Robin."--Chris Griswold 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks Chris, I suspected there was something in the way of style guideline in it. That is quite a pill to swallow, but I'm glad I know now. — Estarriol ^talk 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:1SP says "discussion of history is usually written in the past tense and thus 'fictional history' may be presented in that way as well", and it certainly sounds more natural too. -- JHunterJ 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at. But it is referring to history, not past events shown in the book. Everything recently added to the Batman entry has been shown in the present tense in the comics, and therefore should be referred to as present tense. It was not shown as history in the source material and so should not be described in such a manner. --Chris Griswold 12:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bishop

Yeah, "Lucas" is Claremont's idea from XXM. As is Gateway being his great-grandfather and him being part-aborgine from Australia rather than straight African-American. - SoM 01:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

(LAME) --Chris Griswold 01:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Animated Series Batman

T-man actually reverted the merge. I reverted it back, but this has the possibility of turning messy. WesleyDodds 04:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tenses

See my reply in Talk:Spider-Man. And I only edited once you took off the inuse tag. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You only editied once I took off the inuse tag? Take another look. --Chris Griswold 08:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Mea culpa. But in any case, you reverted those edits I made, and I made the second set after you took off the inuse tag. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert them; I simply continued doing what I was doing.

I will concede to one or two of your edits; I think they come down to opinion. However, among the events that you believe to be real historical events are:

• • • "Captain America faced Nazis and Japanese troops during his 1940s heyday."
    • "Captain America appeared with Timely/Marvel's first superhero team, the All-Winners Squad, and in his own series turned his attention to criminals and Cold War Communists."
    • "After the 1960s, Captain America became a more serious and less jingoistic hero."
    • "Captain America once again appeared in an eponymous solo series (its fifth incarnation)."
    • "the serum was not a drug because Rogers' body would have metabolized it out of his system."
    • "Captain America has used several shields throughout his career"

When you discuss fiction, you discuss all of it in the present tense, not just the characters; the story and the writer's work as well. Either way, you might want to take a look at the list above and consider whether it fits your statements about what should not be present tense and why. --Chris Griswold 08:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You also need to know context within the fictional universe. Even within the context of narrative, not everything takes place at the same time. Consider "the serum is not a drug because Rogers's body would have metabolized it out of his system" - in this context it should be "the serum was" because it has been retconned into never having been a drug. The sentence implies that serum is only now not a drug, which is incorrect even in the fictional context. You cannot just say present tense all the way and just blanket apply it. You have to think about what the sentence means and is trying to say. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I understood what the sentence was trying to say: The serum is not a drug. Because of the retcon, it is not a drug. It wasn't then, and it's not now. If you say "it wasn't a drug", are you not saying that the serum is a drug now?

You changed every usage of the word "appears" to past tense, but that, too, is present. "Captain America appears in issue #1." He does appear there, doens't he? As you are reading the comic, you notice that Captain America is apparent in the story. Presently. --Chris Griswold 09:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The appears/appeared is a matter of opinion: you read it as being part of the fictional context, I read it as a discrete historical event. I can let that go, that's a small thing. But returning to the example above, if you feel the meaning is ambiguous that way, then it's easily rectified as "The serum was never a drug..." --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I think it's overkill, but whatever. --Chris Griswold 09:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Stub

How familiar are you with the term WP:stub? You know I can leave the task of expanding the episode articles of JLU to whoever wants to do it. Stubs are useful to point there is info needed. This is a comunity, if I fill those entirely their quality would be compromised to my skill, which as a foreing speaker, aren't that great at all. Take Animated Series Batman, maybe I should have left other people fill the sections, now everyone thinks I like the article as I left it so far. This is a comunity, a single editor shouldn't fill ALL the episode articles, it is actually up to all of us, as a comunity. Meanwhile stubs are very ok with WP.--T-man, the wise 10:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. You're right; one person can't do all of that on his own. But few others want to do it, and many more don't want it to be done. It can't be left the way that you leave it, and with your frequent absences, we can't trust that you will do what you say you will because your bans keep increasing in time. --Chris Griswold 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Gooood point.--T-man, the wise 02:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem

I know youre a good man. Thanks for the advise, actually that thought just crossed my mind. Regular DCU fans don't care much for the DCAU.

It's kind of a symilar interes conflict puzzle with the bios. Those bios are there, meaning some people are interested in having those, but I looked for the wrong people to back it up, the regular comic guys. Right know I gave up Animated series Batman and invited everyone to work it as a sandbox. But even to that I'm gona give a rest for a while.

I asked to be blocked again (I have poor self control, so sometimes I ask to be blocked voluntarely), before it starts I'll be working on the episode articles. I used your Veronica Mard example to research for guidelines. Also, since I'm starting to realize most editors in list of JL episodes don't seem care much for stubs, I'll only be working in few articles, but increasing their quality. I plan to fill the info using [jl.toonzone.net The Justice League Watchtower] and the [www.worldsfinestonline.com/main.php the world's finest]. Greetings.--T-man, the wise 02:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's better to do one episode of a time. List of King of the Hill episodes is like that. I think editors think that stubs mean, "Here, I started it; you do the rest of the work." Additionally, I think that the TV editors will be more likely to be receptive than the comics editors because comics editors have a lot more articles to deal with about minor characters and ideas, and they'd immediately remove plot summary articles about individual issues. Oh, and on last thing: You really need to work on this project in your user space. Don't even let the majority of editors know you're working on it until it's close to being done. I'm going to archive the talk page on JLU soon, and then we can ask the TV WikiProject to counsel us on how to make it work. --Chris Griswold 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Headlines changed?

I saw you changed the headlines/sections on the Batman page from things like ==Publication history== to =Publication history=. While this didn't seem to change the flow of the page ... why? I'm just curious at this point. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I realized that we were not using the first level of headline, and it seemed odd to me that we would not use something available to us in the editing of the entry. I simply moved everything up a level. --Chris Griswold 14:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How weird... I never realized there was a = and a == to the levels... must go re-read. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been reverted, apparently per the Manual of Style. --Chris Griswold 17:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

I have no idea really, but it's definitely someone who's vandalized before or knows their way around Wikipedia.--Shanel ^§ 01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I monitore you too?? Do I get to play too? we can bother each other all over the wikipedia! :D

I'll go to talk pages and vote against whatever you say! It'll be fun!!!

... ¬_¬

--T-man, the wise 08:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)(btw, I'm just teasing)

Obsesing over a person will be so much fun!!--T-man, the wise 08:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman

Full name? What do you mean? In hebrew someplace? SF2K1