Talk:Infinite Crisis/Archive 2

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 10 November 2005 to 10 January 2005.

Synopsis
It should be kept to one section; there is no need for a summary of each individual issue. I'm not the best at summarizing comic books, so anyone who could help condense needs to. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that each issue will likely get a summary, at least while the series is ongoing. Perhaps a later condensed summary will be called for when the series has concluded. I almost read the summary this morning before getting to my store to buy the second issue! Dyslexic agnostic 03:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

the royal flush gang is dead...i think thats the royal flush gang...this is just a nit picky question but do you think the whole lois touching power girl and her remembering all of the past is sort of like the house of m layla miller thing where she would reveal the real universe to the people in the house of m universe...just a comic geek question there since i figure you guys are comic geeks too.

I have trimmed the summary. My goal is that the summary will never be longer than the summary of Crisis on Infinite Earths, and is likely to, at many points, be shorter. This does involve a lot of guessing - there are things I just plain left out like the two Luthors, the Joker, etc. Basically, if I can't find a way to fit it into what appears to be the overall narrative so far, I left it out so it wouldn't seem like idle trivia. If someone wants to spin off the detailed summaries to Infinite Crisis Plot or something, I certainly won't be the one to AfD it. Phil Sandifer 19:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I take back my prior comments, and agree that we should avoid the issue by issue crap that emerged on House of M. The synopsis doesn't yet include issue two... we are all too afraid to tackle it... Dyslexic agnostic 07:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Out of order storytelling
Something I think should be addressed is how certain elements of the Infinite Crisis storyline are being told "out of order". For example, the issue of Supergirl in which she says goodbye to Superman because she's heading off into space with Donna Troy came out about a week or so before JLA #122 which features Supergirl before her first meeting with Donna Troy, which apparently is set to happen in #123 (if I follow the plot correctly). There have been a few cases of this, especially regarding the appearances of the OMACs. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is commonplace, and some of it is so out of order that is would be difficult to properly order it. For example, Teen Titans #30, published just this month, takes place barely after Sacrifice part 4. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 17:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Deaths question
Poison Ivy? I don't remember this. Phil Sandifer 16:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fel Andar, the former Villanious Hawkman, from Hawkman #49... can we consider him a Villain dead during a tie-in? DrTofu83 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Editorial planning and Infinite Crisis
The problem is much bigger than the above. There's a general lack of encyclopedic content in this section, in addition to a host of unsupported assertions that need citations and, if possible, links.

Question: What is the encyclopedic value of reporting that rumors were swelling? Rumors are always swelling about anything and everything, and unless rumors have an impact that change subsequent events, they have no encyclopedic weight.

Question: "reports suggest"? What reports, firstly, and what do the reports actually say? Why not quote and provide a link?

Note: Sniping between companies is typical and not of encyclopedic weight unless it actually has some effect on the companies or the industry. Otherwise, it's just true gossip.

Question: There's suggestion of a causal relationship between Infinite Crisis and writers departing for another company. If these events are connected, say so and provide citation. If not, what relevance is this information?

There's more, but you get the idea. This isn't meant to denigrate the time and work contributors have put into this; it's admirable. I put (far too) much effort in my contributions as well. This is only meant to stimulate a way of thinking that automatically seeks to confirm facts and to self-question the relevance of a particular addition.

P.S.: Nothing has been removed from the article -- just commented-out, along with my questions. --Tenebrae 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I will get these citations added on Thursday, when I'm back at my own computer instead of jumping on quickly, but I did revert the commenting out - very little of this is controversial, and commenting out had the effect of removing a lot of information that I think is essential - things like the editorial elevations of Morrison and Johns. I'm happy to source it up, but since nobody, to my knowlege, is actually saying that there's inaccuracy here, it should probably be left in. Or you can tag it with a cite sources tag. But removal is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 23:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe removal is inappropriate, and I hope we're not entering a revert war. I went to a lot of detail as to why much of this information is irrelvant in an encyclopedic setting. Of what use are rumors and gossip in this context? As for anyone not claiming it's inaccurate ... I've never heard of an encyclopedia working that way, where something is put up and you wait for people to say it's inaccurate. The presumption is that we're putting up material that is both accurate and relevant.


 * Here's Wiki's official policy on accuracy and citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.


 * But it's not just about accuracy. It's about relevancy. Do you see what I'm saying about rumors and gossip? -- Tenebrae 23:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seeing as it's not rumors and gossip, no. In fact, 90% of the section I have no idea why anyone would object to. Perhaps you can use Template:Fact after the specific things that you think need citations instead of wholesale removal? Phil Sandifer 00:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've given facts, I've asked for facts, I've said exactly how things are rumor and gossip. As well, phrases such as "can be seen as" are speculation. Things can be seen in a lot of ways. Please state VERIFIABLE facts.


 * Let's put this up for mediation. I'll ask an admin. t's important, especially given all the dubious press Wikipedia has gotten lately, that its entries be authoritative. -- Tenebrae 01:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake
Mediation? Over two reverts? That's the most premature mediation I think I've ever seen. I said I'd get the goddamned citations on Thursday. Would you please, instead of carping through unnecessary dispute resolution procedures, just put Template:Fact in front of the material you want sources on, uncomment everything out, and wait until Thursday like I, I thought rather poltiely, asked? I've been driving up the East Coast since 7am on Monday, I'm absolutely fucking exhausted, and I really just want to go to bed without responding to useless mediation requests and digging through websites. Since you seem hell bent on denying me this rather simple pleasure, I'll go find your goddamned citations, but point out that you can generally avoid putting tired volunteers in astonishingly shitty moods by being a bit less bullish about things and actually listening to them when they say things like "Let's leave these and I'll get them Thursday." Phil Sandifer 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your language is uncalled for.


 * By the same token you ask me to wait till Thursday, you could have kept those paragraphs out till then. If there's a question about accuracy, relevancy, verifiability, common sense says better safe than sorry.


 * Please do not use language like that to me or others again. Wiki:Civility. --Tenebrae


 * Your spectacular failure to handle any step of this in an appropriate manner has, frankly, made me kind of angry. First of all, removal of information - especially the gratuitously oversized removal you undertook at first - without raising the issue on talk and letting some conversation happen is unseemly. Second of all, removal of uncontroversial unsourced material does not have wide acceptance for relatively obvious reasons - particularly when nobody disputes the accuracy. Third of all, when an editor asks you to specify what material you want sources on with a template that is designed to mark the information that is in an article and has sources so that any reader can see it and add sources, this is prboably not an unreasonable thing to do. Fourth of all, requesitng mediation after two reverts is absurd. Fifth of all, when reverting after an editor has made a token effort to fix the phrasing you're complaining about, simply removing 90% of the phrasing without comment does not give a sense that you are actually interested in compromise or working with other editors. Sixth of all, one generally leaves messages on talk pages, not userpages. Sevent of all, when you have done 1-6 and managed to piss off an editor, your requests for more civility might better avoid adding more straw to an already shattered camel spine if accompanied with, perhaps, some apology for the preceding. Despite that, your citation is in the article, the language is clarified, now please, try to be more helpful instead of needlessly escelating conflicts and not granting simple requests from your fellow editors, mmkay? Thanks. Phil Sandifer 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * On every page of editing, it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." I'm sorry you feel the need to rant as you do above when someone asks reasonably and in detail not just for verifiable sources, but who questions the relevancy of a particular passage. I'm very surprised, after all my positive experiences with such requests on Wiki, to find someone losing his temper over someone daring to ask him about the relevance of something. I ask for mediation after two reverts because I believe three is the rule, and it was clear you would do a third revert. I'm sorry you don't like someone questioning you.


 * And actually, I did bring up all this on the Talk page -- where someone else questions the source and the relevancy of a particular passage.


 * You're angry someone asks for "goddamned citations"? Between that and your abusive incivility, I'm asking for more than mediation. -- Tenebrae 05:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You haven't edited anything mercilessly - you've just raised very broad objections, and removed huge chunks of things with minimal explanation. And to be clear, I am not stressed about your asking about the relevance. I'm stressed about almost everything else you've done, but not about that. I'm stressed that you ignored simple requests like to use Template:fact, to wait til Thursday, and even to stop leaving messages on my userpage. I'm stressed that you escelated to relatively high level dispute resolution over nothing, meaning that I have to spend time I'd rather spend doing other things. I'm stressed to see large chunks of my work simply removed from the article over minor quibbles when there are tags appropriate for leaving it in the article so that people can edit it. I'm stressed that you've not lifted a finger to make any of the changes you want yourself. These all have little do with questioning, and much to do with incivility on your part. In any case, I apologize for the language - I have driven from Florida to Connecticut over the past three days, and I am rather testy, and strangely unable to sleep. Regardless, I do think you have made this about fifty times more stressful than a simple request for sources needs to be. Phil Sandifer 05:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to leave a message on your userpage. In your long paragraph, I missed seeing the request. Please do likewise with my userpage. Now in the interest of being constructive, how about the following edit of the long "Marvel/DC sniping" graf, which tries to clarity and give context and perspective?

The strong editorial investment in Infinite Crisis led to unusually high-profile sniping between DC and its primary rival, Marvel Comics, which rose to a level reported on by The New York Times [give citation/link here]. Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada went so far as to declare in an interview that DC's comics were "corporate" driven, whereas Marvel's were "creator" driven. 


 * --Tenebrae 05:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That has the odd effect of ignoring DC's sniping, which was considerably more high-profile than Marvel's. Phil Sandifer 05:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please try to be more cooperative here
I've switched your commenting out for using template:fact, as you should have done somewhere in the half dozen times I asked you politely to. I'll get citations on both of those tomorrow. As above, I have major problems with your proposed rewrite of the sniping section. The complaint about Brubaker and Loeb seems to me nonsensical - the point of the section is to discuss the degree to which Infinite Crisis marks a change in editorial focus and direction at DC. The departure of Loeb is very much relevent to that, even if it is not causal, because of it being a part of that changing of the guard. As for the "reports suggest" bit, I've now provided a citation. If you dislike the language, tighten it yourself instead of deleting entire paragraphs. However, I find myself increasingly baffled here - I've addressed your complaints in my edits, and you're just restating them and continuing to unhelpfully remove information in a way that really is quite inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 05:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll do my best to edit. I'm a professional editor, however, and -- not meaning to be overly critical, just speaking as a professional -- these paragraphs in question are so muddled and filled with innuendo and unsupported, irrelevant statements that were I given this from a journalist or a researcher, I would have done what I did here, which is to hand it back with notes and ask for a rewrite. As you might imagine, editing is not rewriting. I know few of us on Wiki are professional writers and editors, and I probably should said something about my background before acting in a normal professional way that clearly seemed ruthless to someone not used to it. For that, I apologize. I mean only to keep Wiki entries about a medium I love at the same level I would expect a professional encyclopedia. I know we all want that. -- Tenebrae 16:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we do - but much of how the Wiki works is by trumpeting our "work in progress" nature. Hence slapping articles full of "We need to fix this" templates and encouraging editors to go and fix things. Every article is a work in progress - useful, but not great. To criticize and gut an article for not being perfect misses the point - flag what you have problems with, fix what you can, but really, it's OK to put in some "citation needed" templates here and there, to slap a Template:Disuputed or Template:NPOV tag on articles, or to do any manner of other "Hey, you who's reading this - fix it!" approaches. Phil Sandifer 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * May I just add that you are both fucking crazy


 * Your snide comment, User talk:24.20.237.11, is not constructive, it demonstrates an adolescent mind -- "oh, wow, look at me, I'm a grown-up, I can say 'fucking', oooh" -- and it doesn't help anyone or anything. It's also not signed, which is cowardly. Please keep from doing this; Wiki frowns on incivility and cursing at one another, and can block repeat offenders. Thanks. Meanwhile, Phil Sandifer, I offer my virtual hand to shake. -- Tenebrae 05:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You guys need to get a life
I don;t have one, but that's besides the case. It seems incredibly uncool to retract changes that are additive without any sort of discussion beforehand. It's just extra info. This is a piece of art, and aslong as someone isn't misrespresenting the factual elements (plot, characters used etc) then who cares? I've created a section called speculation. Moe it to the bottom of you want, but don't remove it. That just shows you think this article somehow belongs to you and you won't tolerate opinions you don;t agree with. This article is peculative by nature, so calm down. - unsigned by User: 68.161.86.144


 * Please source your speculations. See WP:NOR. - CobaltBlueTony 17:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you would actually read the changes made,  68.161.86.144, you would see that your additions have been incorporated into both Crisis on Infinite Earths and Infinite Crisis, but copyedited.  You keep putting back your version which ius full of typos like "mutli-universal clutter"!!!! Dyslexic agnostic 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Where's the typo?


 * "Mutli" instead of "multi", and would you please start signing your posts? PurplePlatypus 20:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think you guys need to chill out a little. The best way to settle disagreements is via the talk page rather than constant reverts. At this point, it seems like the edit war is just spilling over to this talk page. Can I suggest we start this discussion over from the beginning here? A D Monroe III 21:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I see in the history, 68.161.*.* inserted the pargraph into the middle of the page. Then Dyslexic agonistic removed it. It was reinserted once again, and here's what I find interesting. Dyselexic then copyedits the paragraph, so it reads a little better and doesn't end with that hanging statement "It remains to be seen.".


 * Apparently 68.161.*.* did not see this, and blindly reinserts the paragraph again. . This begins the chain of reverts. Apparently 68.161.*.* also thought his contribution was significant enough to include mention in Crisis on Infinite Earths and inserts the paragrah in the article as well.


 * Somewhere along the line, 68.161 noticed the line "It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature" in the tag.  We have messages like this, , ,  and edit comments like this , (Not to mention this section title.) I don't think he's read WP:NPA, if he's really that new. During this I report him for a 3RR for reverting more than 6 times on Infinite Crisis.  I thought about requesting some protection for the page, but it seemed a bit much. (Especially since the war would be stopped with a 24 hour block.) I see he's now been blocked for it, so hoepfully it'll cool things down.--Toffile 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that 68.161.x.x has made some un-Wikipedian mistakes, but we should expect that from newbies. Couldn't we have directed more of this to the talk page before it got to blocking  (WP:BITE, and all)?  A D Monroe III 00:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah, the guy approached things maybe the wrong way,but maybe if you hadn't just deleted his lil' tidbit without talking to him first, maybe this could have been avoided. If he really called for arbitration (who knows, maybe he did) that would have been a way to go, since he seemed to really mean he would let it go if he was wrong.  But you had to keep pushing and pushing.  I don't think it's right.  What are you gonna, block me next?  What happened to this being a collaborative effort.  What would it have hurt you to just leave, what was it, 5 lines?  up there for a couple of days.

Did you guys really get this guy blocked? I hope you didn't, because if so, you kind of proved him right. I put a REVISED version of the change he wanted in the new DISPUTED area. If oyu can live what what's there already, there's no reason you can't live with what I've added. And if the other guy can't, THEN you;d be justified in rippin him a new one. Till then, can we stop the pissing contest? it's offfensive to those of us with more gentle natures.

I dont know aout being locked, ut I can live with that change i saw earlier if that 16 year old little prick will "allow it."

surprised
As surprised as I am that this rather acerbic young man apparantly has no life and is ale to sit around all day and revert changes, I'm even more surprised that his ONE (aliet lengthy) sentence has caused allof you such a heart attack. It's in a section clearly marked as DISPUTED with a statment that I feel is VASTLY more inappropriate for this article. And even HE's said he was willing to take a truncated version in a disputed section. ut, I'm sorry, like the 16 year olds some of you are, you insist and insist and insist. Leave it alone.
 * WP:NPA--Toffile 02:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I find the notion that we should allow a sentence of unsourced speculation that cannot possibly have a source in reality since this is one of the things that DC has been adamantly tight-lipped about puzzing in the extreme. The statement is wholly unverifiable. Phil Sandifer 03:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you source speculation? The source is the original crisis and the apparant direction of the new series. It's an interesting statement. OIt's one sentence and it's staying in.


 * The apparent direction of the new series, being as it is not even half over, can only be taken as original research. Phil Sandifer 06:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Phil, I don't buy that AT ALL. We have an entire series, Crisis on Infinite Earths, to draw parallels with, as DC obviously wants us, as readers to do, and thus we canmake some intelligent surmises. But if the guy can live with it, and it means an end to half hourly revisions, then its good. And as a reminder, the statement was intended to stand only until it was verified one way or the other, as an interesting bit of spculation in an article that by its very nature is speculative.


 * Please read Verifiability and No original research - the simple fact of the matter is that you are wrong about this matter as it applies to Wikipedia. Phil Sandifer 06:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Phil, again, as it has been stated elsewhere by others, that rule applies to issues of person, place and events in the real world. Comics and any art form is, y its nature, open for speculation if there is a basis for it. And there is. 151.196.39.142 06:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that rule does not apply to events in the real world - it applies to all topics. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your own personal interpretations of a text - whether it be comics, a novel, or anything else. This is a well-established policy. Phil Sandifer 06:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. IF the dude started speculatin that, oh I don't know, Supes and WW would be killed and replaced with funny animals, I'd stop and say, hey, there's nothin gained from that, ut I think pointing out that one previous Crisis series was seemingly designed to address a major flaw in the DC universe and that this one might follow suit is a legit speculation and does shed light on the suject. Especially when the guy is willing to comprimise a paragraph into one sentence in an area marked "disputed."


 * Dispute tags do not exist to create compromise situations - they exist to flag problems that need to be fixed. And you are welcome to disagree as much as you want on whether this is legitimate speculation that sheds light on the subject - the problem is that your disagreement is ultimately moot. Wikipedia policy is definitively against you on this point. You may disagree with the policy - this does not, however, change the policy. Phil Sandifer 06:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Wik policy on art topics is flexible. The ariticle on Van Gogh goes into more than just raw dates and titles.


 * Nothing in Vincent Van Gogh is unsourced interpretation of any of Van Gogh's paintings. Phil Sandifer 06:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This from the article on starry night: ""Its purpose seems to be to direct the eye towards the sky (the tree)". This is speculation, plain and simple, based on an examination of the art.   The art itself is the source.  Which is what he (I presume he) did.  151.196.39.142 06:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That claim can be sourced to any number of texts written in the past 116 years, as well as to basic and established principles of art interpretation. It is not a prediction of the future. Phil Sandifer 06:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How is that statement a prediction? It is pointing out what is possibly a valid connection artistically bwteen two related works. And why can't a speculative statement be included until the series proves or disproves it? And that sentence in the Starry Night article is totally based solely on the artwork. Why would someone ELSE have to notice it first before it can be included in the Wiki article? Why not include it if it's simply self-evident?

151.196.39.142 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Because of WP:NOR. Phil Sandifer 07:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how that contridicts anything I'm saying. I pointed out an article on an art peice that had an INDEPENDENT moment of speculation related only to the art. The guy saw the tree, and made a staement of specualtion about it. These are comics, not reality, peices of art. Sorry that you like the "jackbooted fascist" way of dealing with things. 151.196.39.142 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what to say here except that your position has been roundly rejected at every turn in which it has been presented. The Starry Night comment is different from what you are trying to insert - it is a consensus of what the painting is that has been widely stated as common knowledge for somewhere over a century. You are flatly wrong, and flatly in opposition to Wikipedia policy, and no amount of foot-stomping changes that fact. The fact is well past debate, and I can assure you that if you do not accept what Wikipedia policy is and edit in accordance with it, your participation on the site is not going to go well. Phil Sandifer 07:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I pointed out an EXACT quote, IN CONTEXT, in another article that completely refutes your point, and you accuse me of...well, I don't know, because you can go to the article yourself and see that the statement is quoted accurately, and in context and is, as I said, a totally independent specualtion made by the writer. So I don't know what it is you;re trying to say other than, apparantly, that your way is the only way, which seems completely opposed to the mandate of this site. 151.196.39.142 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am saying that everything you have said in this section is 100% wrong. Phil Sandifer 07:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, now who's stamping their little feet? Clue: tweren't me. 151.196.178.112 16:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

i can live with it
I can live with the current placement and edit of my contribution.

Thank you to whoever did that.

68.161.133.116 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't live with it. Too hung up on Wikipedia policy, I guess. Until and unless there's some historical consensus about the meaning of a work of fiction (or failing that, some published analyses arguing different interpretations that we can cite), the only appropriate way to deal with "what it means" is to identify the topics it's dealing with and leave it that. So we can say that this series is "about heroism". That's a verifiable fact, because we can all point to balloons where the characters actually talk about it, and agree that they are in fact talking about it. DiDio's also stated that it's a theme, so that's pretty well confirmed. But who's right and who's wrong (Senileman? Batpsycho?  Anyone?) and what the possible message about heroism we're intended to walk away with (Grim-n-gritty is bad?  Nostalgia isn't what it used to be?), is open to speculation (and may never be settled). If we have to resort to the word "possibly", we're not citing facts; we're guessing. And guesses are not verifiable facts. So let's stick with the bare facts we can agree on, and leave out the speculation and opinions that we can't. Tverbeek 14:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Those themes ARE confirmed in articles about the story in Wizard, moron. It is about heroism, and nostalgia vs. grim and gritty. It's also plainly evident from the story itself! Aren;t you 16? Shut up then like you do in real life. 151.196.32.61 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

it is clear
it is clear that one of the little pricks hemming and hawing over 1 lousy sentence has decided that if they can;t have things their way, they're going to just vandalize the whole article and make vague and slight effeminate threats. I don't really care. That one sentence will keep being put back into the article until it's disproven. It is a fair speculation and the simple fact that one of you losers feels the need to scream and shout and vandalize just proves that I was right all long. This has always been solely about you having a little club, unlike your loner loser real lives, and not wanting to make room for others' opinions. You people are pathetic. Thankfully, I'm, even more pathetic than you guys and will gladly fight tooth and nail fo rthis change for the rest of my life, ans since i excercise and eat right and you are all probably overweight and scream at the sight of a barbell, it'll be longer than you. enjoy


 * Actually, since I just took the liberty of protecting the article so that anonymous users and new accounts can't edit it, I'm guessing the sentence will stop going in now. Fancy that. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

\ Hey thanks for proving my point, but don;t worry. I'll find someone with an older account. Don't worry. Well, you should be worrying about the guy who vandalized the article, but you aren;t are you? Hmmm.... 151.196.32.61 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, he can't add the vandalism either, so we all win. Phil Sandifer 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course he can, it was Tverbeek, you imbecile. Jeez.

151.196.32.61 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the hell would I vandalize the article with a paragraph implying that my own contribution was bad? Thta makes no sense! 151.196.32.61 17:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protection
Snowspinner, we (the normal Wikipedia community) thank you for the page protection against unregistered users. This frees many up to continue to improve Wikipedia, rather than spending hours simply defending against 151.196.178.112, 68.161.86.144, and others. Thanks again. Dyslexic agnostic 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Little did I expect that I'd see this new semi-protection feature in action so quickly. Not a day too soon, I guess. Tverbeek 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Compromise language
I would note, however, that I think many were happy with this paragraph at the top of the editorial planning section, which appears to have been removed from the protected version:
 * Similarly to how the original Crisis on Infinite Earths was an effort to clear the perceived confusion of multi-universes in DC Comics' continuity, Infinite Crisis is possibly the answer to some people's perception that the DC Universe has become too dark and "gritty".

Even though the page is not protected from established registered users, I thought I would confirm whether I should reinsert now, or whether we are better off leaving the subject for now. Perhaps the issue iks best covered once Infinite Crisis has run its course. Dyslexic agnostic 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would much rather wait to add in analysis until the event passes. While it's possible to analyse what may happen given the information we know now, we could always be wrong in the long run. I'd point to US Presidential Elections. We can predict the results with polling, but it's not always right. ("Dewey Defeats Truman", anyone?). Besides, we don't exactly know what's going to happen as a result of One Year Later.... In some respects it might be happier, but the writing is on the wall that something bad is going happen to Wally.--Toffile 17:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It was a valiant attempt to make peace with a loose cannon via compromise, but it's still unsourced, unverified speculation... a guess. We don't even know where they're going with the story (e.g. will Kal-L turn out to be the voice of sage wisdom or of nostalgic delusion?) and the outcome, let alone its significance. Tverbeek 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I will leave it out. See, you unregistered louts, that's how consensus works here! Dyslexic agnostic 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL


 * I must say, this is not a good example of how Wikipedia works here. Yes, some inexperienced beginners didn't follow all the rules, but that can be excused.  What can't be excused is experienced editors that should know better won't discuss things, and treat the beginners as vandals or worse.  If all beginners were treated this way, Wikipedia would soon run short of needed editors.  To start making amends, I'd think about including the disputed section, rather than gloating that disenting voices are now silenced.  --A D Monroe III 20:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to point out that the newbie did, in fact, vandalize the article. Several times. Phil Sandifer 20:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If he feels he's been mistreated, I invite him to go through dispute resolution for it. I'm on record expressing my willingness, even though it'll cost me time, and even if it somehow costs me privileges.  Wikipedia needs new editors, of course, but it needs editors that are willing and able to work within the Wikipedia system, not ones who'll fly into a rampage and crap all over the rules if they don't get their way.  If he can and will do that (the former, not the latter again), I'd be glad to have him. But I will not reward him or try to placate him by putting material into Wikipedia that I - in very good faith - believe to be in violation of Wikipedia standards.  I sympathize with the motive, but that's a very slippery slope to hop onto. Tverbeek 22:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate: I still think that bit should be included. There is evidence that Infinite Crisis is (so far) dark and gritty, just look at the unusually high death rates in it and the leadup to it. (Speaking of which, what's with the speculated deaths, shouldn't they be taken out too?) By the point when I attempted to make a compromise, I suspect that people were reverting simply because the text had been readded so many times, not because of its actual content, which doesn't really make it right, or better, then the anon who kept readding his deleted text. Maybe if you had just discussed this (or was there discussion that I missed?), the anon wouldn't have gone on and vandalized the page and people's userpages like he did. --Pentasyllabic 20:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, to be devil's advocate to the devil's advocate (?)... the fact is, either the reader of this page KNOWS the story (>99%), and therefore can form their own opinion on dark and gritty, or they don't know the story (<1%), in which case telling them you surmise the story is dark and gritty doesn't really do anything for them, and in fact the whole write-up does little for them. Let's face it, all these TV/comic book wikis are really just a toy for fans, whereas the true "collected knowledge" of the world is reflected in "real" wikis. Just one man's opinion... Dyslexic agnostic 21:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried - I really tried - to explain my reasons at the time for feeling the comments were inappropriate (even the revised version). The original author would not listen.  And I've restated my reasons already, so I won't repeat myself.  The speculated deaths are iffy (I don't like them, but I won't press the issue), but at least they have the benefit of being on the level of speculating about "what happened?" (what I rephrased in the "future comics" template as "tentative information") rather than "what does it mean?" (veering into original research and opinion-mongering).  Even the kid admitted it was his opinion; he kept accusing us of removing it because we disagreed (which was not the point). Tverbeek 22:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That's how consensus works? I'm aghast.

"the fact is, either the reader of this page KNOWS the story (>99%), and therefore can form their own opinion on dark and gritty, or they don't know the story (<1%), in which case telling them you surmise the story is dark and gritty doesn't really do anything for them" Then why included ANYTHING at all, why have an article at all? This is a non-argument. This has been a complete case of shutting out new voices. I too think that bit should be included, its a fair appraisal and it puts IC SO FAR in relation to Crisis. I like how there was no arbitration, just blocking. No wonder he went apeshit. One of the more experienced users should have stepped and said "Hey, why don;t we take ti down for now and let mediation settle it."

Atomiceo 15:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The statement was not "It is dark and gritty," but a predictive statement about what the DC universe would be like post-Crisis. And nobody was blocked for putting in a stupid edit - they were blocked for violating the 3RR, block evading, and, when it deteriorated to that, vandalism - all things which the blocking policy provides for without arbitration. Phil Sandifer 15:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a reasonable and informative and 1 sentence. In my opinion, you mishandled the situation and contributed to the problem afterwards because you were more interested in "stamping your foot", as you accused others of doing, than in building a consensus. I have also read the rules, and I do think that there is room in an article about a fictional peice of art for specualtive analysis if its sectioned off, there seems to be merit, and its short (the staement in question is all three.) Since no one seems to be that interested in actually making this site a place of consensus, I'll be moving the issue to arbitration, and I will be giving my humble opinion that the people given the most resposnbility and power used one but not the other.

Atomiceo 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you can read WP:NOR and think that unsourced speculative analysis is welcome in Wikipedia articles, on any topic. We can report what other analysts - published elsewhere - have said if we provide citations, but we cannot offer our own thoughts and ideas. If it's not a verifiable fact, and you can't attribute the statement to a credible external source (making it a verifiable fact that so-and-so wrote it), it shouldn't go in. Period. Now, at one point whatshisname sneered that something had been stated in Wizard (as if we would all know that). If true, and if he'd bothered to cite that as the source ("According to an article in Wizard magazine..."), that statement might have been OK. But the very clear consensus was that his statements, as he insisted on presenting them, were not acceptable. Tverbeek 17:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

tense about tenses
Yo,

What's up with talking about future publications as if they already happeneded. (Using "was" to discuss a comics event publishing in summer of 2006). I think if this is supposed to be an evolving encyclopedia of knowledge that is being used NOW, it might be better to go ahead and change tenses to the future (WLL be publsihed) and change them when summer of 2006 actually rolls in. I mean, there are enough people watching this page to that.

Thoughts?

Atomiceo 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I can find in the article that matches your description is the reference to Decimation, which it says "spawned events for the Summer of 2006". Decimation's started already hasn't it? Which means that it has presumably already done at least some of its spawning, with the results coming in 2006. It's an awkward reference, but it's grammatically correct. Tverbeek 17:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Atomiceo 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Request put in for arbitration (I think)
Did I do this right? I put in a request for arbitration on this matter to Fred Bauder.

I feel very strongly that while the newb certainly did some things that weren't right, I noticed that

a) his statement didn't get a fair shake right from the start.

b) the only real vandalism, a wholesale marring of the page, came from an anon who was AGAINST the statement, obviously someone who was frustrated that the original posters, as well as some others, didn;t have a problem with the truncated 1 sentence version and decided to have a little fun. Using this vandalism as an excuse to block the page is opportunism and chicanery, plain and simple.

c) the anon who posted the statement constantly offered to go to mediation. a more epxerienced user should have moved ahead with that.

d) and mostly, and I don't say this lightly, I think Phil totally did everything to make the situation worse and not a thing to make it better.

Being a sysop can't just be about deleting contributions and blocking pages. For this site's mandate to mean anything at all, it's got to be about consensus. I think Phil's tactics were about anything BUT consensus.

We'll see.

Atomiceo 15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

See Resolving disputes for information about how to request assistance with resolving disputes, including mediation or arbitration.

I did try to communicate with the anonymous editor regarding dispute-resolution, asking if he was really interested (it sounded more like an idle threat), and if he had responded affirmatively, I would have done the "paperwork" for it. He did not, instead proceding to evade the 3RR block (which exists for this very situation: to give an overzealous editor a "time out"), promising to find a way around the article protection, and generally acting with contempt for Wikipedia rules. If you can convince him to engage constructively through Wikipedia channels (he also says he draws for Marvel, so maybe he knows you?) that'd be great. Tverbeek 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Tver, I don't know the guy and I didn;t see where he claimed to draw for marvel, what title? Regardless, I think that the change as truncated was a fair comprimise, and I feel that you and some others are doing a little back peddling to cover up for some innaporopriate behaviour on all sides. No one in this situation is blameless. But again, in my opinion, the sysop is most responsible because he had the power and authority to mediate an equitable compromise. I was very excited when I discovered this site and its mandate, but the way people have proceeded (and again, today, a deletion of a contribution of MINE with no warning, not moving to another section, nothing, just deletion) is distressing and needs to be looked at. Mediation is in progress.

Atomiceo 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You didn't put a response in for arbitration. To do so, you need to go to WP:RfAr and provide evidence of this problem. However I would advise against doing that. The Arbom does not rule on content disputes (which is what this dispute is), and that no other attempts at resolution have been tried. Just to let you know. If you think we have a problem I'd suggest a Request for Comments or mediation--Toffile 17:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He said he was a Marvel artist here. If he'd said which title, we'd presumably know his name. :)  Sysops are not mediators; that's not their responsibility any more than it's yours or mine.  And I think User:Snowspinner acted appropriately in semi-protecting the article, given the fact that communication wasn't working, and a temporary block hadn't worked.  And that did work; the article is now being edited constructively.  As for having some information you added deleted... What did you think "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly..." meant?  Sure, it'd be nice if we could have a discussion about every edit, but that's simply impractical.  Consensus can be built through endless talking or it can be built by continual editing, which is how it usually works here.  One of Wikipedia's mottos is "be bold!" and stopping to ask permission before making any minor change... isn't bold. Tverbeek 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people are too comfortable with deleting changes
Please consider reinstaitng COMPLETE art credits in some place on the article. And please stop cosndiering yoursefl such an expert that you can just delte changes without discussion.
 * I disagree with inserting complete art credits for every issue. If you want to mention the primary artists for the series, go ahead. That extended information should be written into the summary of any cover or frame that is used. Just as an FYI, I'm not 100% certain, but I'll go check comics Project.--Toffile 17:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with listing the complete credits at the end of the article in a seperate section for credits. If other comic articles aren;t doign thatm, then I encrouage them to do so. If this is meant to be an informative artcile, surely the complete credits are valuable. As a comics artist, the idea that the writer and penciller are the only authors worth mentioning in whats supposed to be an encyclpedic article is pretty vile (no personal aspersion meant). It may be true that comic fans tend to forget the inker and colorist, and it certainly works to the penciller's advantage, it is, nonetheless, factually incorrect.

Atomiceo 17:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all if you haven't already, I'd suggest joining WP:COMIC. They would be the best ones to bring the crediting issue up with. However, the problem I have with something like crediting each individual issue is that, it's simply infeasible to do. We can't credit every issue of Action Comics, or even a more recent series like Young Avengers. It's not something that you would find in an encyclopedia. (For example, GameFAQs message boards used to have a list of the user levels on the site. Useful information, however it took up a lot of space in the article. It was spun off, and in the middle of the night was speedied for being unencylopedic. The same thing would happen to a list of credits.) Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every issue credits. --Toffile 18:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

So because it's unfeasible to credit every issue of action comics wer can;t credit every issue of a 12 issue series, meaning 12 extra lines? Atomiceo 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrter and artist, that's it! Dyslexic agnostic 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It still does not change the fact that it's unencyclopedic. (which I suppose I should have said is my second reason for being against those sorts of lists.) An encyclopedia is not meant to be an in-depth look at every possible subject, but more of a general one. There are in-depth guides out there for every subject if an inquiring mind wants to know more. I'm an electrical engineering major, and I use datasheets for when I have to build circuits. I don't expect wikipedia to have those sheets. I know a place like has them, and that wikipedia is not meant as a place for them. Same thing here. There are sites out there like  who's goal is to provide a goal of listing credits and covers of comic books. What we should do is include a reference to those sites with that information for those people who want to know more.--Toffile 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would the letterer of a mini-series be more noteworthy than the letterer(s) of an ongoing series? I also agree that a structured database is far better suited to this kind of information than Wikipedia. Tverbeek 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You know what, one of the first things the resolution dispute article says is to not simply delete items when there's a disagreement.

I still see no reason why these pages cannot err on the side of more info. It;s a web page. There is no limit reasonable limit to the amount of info that can be put on.

Twice has my addition of full credits been deleted without a single reasonable reason. "Writer and artist, that's it!" Indeed! It's clear that a small clique can totally monopolize an article and that you guys have a pre-set idea what this article is supposed to be and there is room for a dissenting viewpoint. I'm out, you can have the site, it's all yours.

Atomiceo 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As I explained in my first edit summary, the change was to bring this article in line with other comics articles. Phil Sandifer 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Erring on the side of too much information is still erring. Does an artist draw fully-rendered photorealistic backgrounds in every panel?  Of course not, because sometimes it just clutters up a composition.  Same with writing.  With a lot of writers, you tend to get a lot of data dumped into articles - erring on the side of "more" is the natural tendency - so one of the important things that editors do is to edit, taking out info that doesn't need to be there.  And not just to you.  If you think there's some unified cabal that runs this page, you haven't looked at the past content on this Talk page; these guys don't exactly agree out of habit, and they certainly don't share a common POV on all topics.  You're new here, so I understand your skepticism, but Wikipedia has demonstrated over and over that no single POV can control its content, because every POV is a minority POV. Tverbeek 03:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Lex Luthor
Under Returned, it says that one of the returned is "Earth-Three Alexander Luthor, Jr. (Infinite Crisis #1, but appears to have been posing as Lex Luthor of Earth-One even earlier)". Unless I missed an issue, I didn't get that implication; there are definitely two Luthors running around, but Alex is hanging at the North Pole with Lois, Kal-L and Superboy. This is backed up by the fact that Alex Luthor is behind the crystal wall in issue one, right? The idea I got from Villains United was that two Lexes  survived the original Crisis. Anyone have better info? Did I miss something? Simnel 16:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have the issue in front of me, but here is my take. Armor Luthor (for lack of a better term) had green eyes, posed as Mockingbird, and went to the north pole to seek out and attack the other Luthor. The other Luthor, who we will call Suit Luthor, apparently contacted Calculator and organized the Society. When Armor Luthor attacks in Infinite Crisis #3, Suit Luthor is able to withstand a direct hit from Armor Luthor. He then mentally attacks Armor Luthor, saying something about their minds being incompatable (I remember something about anti-matter being mentioned, maybe?). Suit Luthor is revealed to be Alexander Luthor, Jr., who then appears to give orders to the Society. Pariah and Black Adam's presence on the tower apparatus seem to reinforce this, as Suit Luthor was the one who attacked or betrayed those characters, but Alexander Luthor Jr. is the one working on constructing the thing. I'll have a better read on it when I get my hands on this issue this evening. ZZ 16:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much right. There have been 2 Luthors on Earth for a while, and in IC#3 it was revealed that one of the two was Alexander Luthor Jr. in disguise.--Toffile 16:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm planning on starting an article on Alexander Luthor, Jr. of Earth-Three, since unlike Earth-Two Lois Lane or Earth-Prime Superboy, who really never did anything interesting until Infinite Crisis (and therefore are perfectly fit for sections instead of articles), he has had a really interesting role and his character has been developed a lot in both the original Crisis and the current one. Also, unlike Superboy and Lois, and in common with Kal-L, he has a name that belongs only to him and which takes off the burden of having to make an article with a title as akward-sounding as "Earth-Three Alex Luthor", although the page will have to be titled "Alexander Luthor, Jr." rather than simply "Alexander Luthor", since Alexander Luthor is also the full name of the Earth-One/Post-Crisis Lex Luthor (or "Armor Luthor", as you prefer to call him, although I'm pretty sure he preferred using suits during his tenure as President of the United States). Another reason I think he deserves his own article is that unlike Lois, Superboy and Kal-L, he is not the alternate version of any established character, as he is the son of the Earth-Three Lex Luthor, not Earth-Three Lex Luthor himself, so there is no reason why Alexander should be discussed under the "Alternate universe versions" section of the Lex Luthor article. I'm posting this here since the article will likely be a stub once finished, due to my limited knowledge of the first Crisis, so I could use some help. --Ace ETP 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I used Armor Luthor merely to distinguish the two during that particular fight, and to note that the first reference to the Infinite Crisis (end of Superman/Batman #6) is actually made by that Luthor, the actual Luthor of Earth-One, not the more prominent "Suit" Luthor who formed the Society. You're absolutely right, though - Alexander does deserve his own article, and I'd be happy to pitch in on it. ZZ 21:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thank you for offering your help. I've already started the article over at Alexander Luthor, Jr.. Please feel free to add anything. So far I've only added details of his life up untill the end of the Crisis on Infinite Earths, so it's pretty short. --Ace ETP 21:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Immortals
Uncle Sam, Pariah, Royal Flush Gang killed... all immortal, yet all presumably dead. Anyone else see a pattern here? Dyslexic agnostic 08:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I'm convinced Sam will return in some form (a new Freedom Fighters series has been confirmed for next year); Pariah's invulnerability was tied to his curse, which forces him to forever witness cosmic disasters (which would likely have led him to discover Alex's scheme, so he had to be killed off- thought they failed to explain well how); I'm not too familiar with King of the Royal Flush Gang so I can't tell if he should be immortal anymore, thought. Honestly, this smacks more of poor writing research (I've seen plenty of that in comics in recent times) than an intentional plot device, but we'll see. Wilfredo Martinez 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that there are two senses of "immortal": 1) one who doesn't age, and 2) one who can't be killed. Characters presumed to be in category 2 sometimes turn out to be in category 1. Tverbeek 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pariah was proven to be indestructible, surviving even anti-matter waves. A simple gunshot to the gut shouldn't have injured him, let alone kill him. As for King, I believe he had the ageless immortality thing going for him. Uncle Sam, he'll be back, most likely. Then again, some folks probably feel that using Uncle Sam is rather jingoistic, or something. DoctorWorm7 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not so sure that Uncle Sam will be returning; if you look carefully at the last few pages of the most recent JSA, the Liberty Bell (The bell, not the heroine) gets a new crack in it, representing... er...  the fall of freedom, or something.  As for Pariah, perhaps being used in that crazy Monitor tower thing will consume him or something. (sorry for the lack of username) --24.9.44.219 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)