Talk:John Buscema/Archive 3 (2007 - April-June)

Later career
Great edits and adds! It is so good and remarkable to see all the effort you've put into reading up on Wiki guidelines, and I don't mean to sound la-dee-da &mdash; this is a genuine compliment.

I moved the Sienk. quote to the preexisting Quotes section, and removed the phrase about following Kubert, since that's not really notable. Likewise the sentence or two about Buscema promoting his book and being cheered by fans &mdash; everyone promotes their books, and fans at fan conventions cheer their favorite artists, actors, etc. Aside from these two small deletions, all I have to say is ... Bravo! --Tenebrae 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words - I took a look at your edits, here are some comments-


 * The Kubert passage (used as a segue from the Punisher) is actually notable due to the fact that Buscema has mentioned him in particular as an artist he admires and respects on several occasions. The notability link that you refer seems to only deal with the notability criteria for general article topics as a whole, so I don't see your point in including this link.


 * I put that in because I couldn't substantiate the previous version that states that Buscema work showed a Kubert influence. So I replaced it with that more substantiated reference. I followed the following Wiki guidelines in doing so:


 * 'When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.' and also 'Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.'


 * The Sienkiewicz quote was meant to comment on a specific aspect of his work at the specific period that this section deals with. I think that's its better to include quotes in the quotes section that deal with more general aspects of Buscema and his career. (I have a few in mind). Plus your rewording creates an innacurate generalization about his pencil work.


 * I noticed that you moved reference no. 7 regarding Buscema's retirement. This creates an innacuracy as the reference deals more with his return than his retirement. I removed the word 'formally' as I haven't come across any references that indiciate he formally announced his retirement per se. I think you also removed a phrase about his 30-year regular output without indicating this or explaning why - it was a meant to be a much-needed transitional passage that adds perspective and readability for a general public audience.


 * Regarding the Buscema Sketchbook and the San Diego convention segue - The documentation that I have indicate that both points are relevant aspects of Buscema's career.


 * I notice that you seem to have deleted the quote on painters but did not mention this or give any reasons as to why. Again it is a segue and is related to the previous points touched upon a serves to give a more general appreciation of Buscema's artistic outlook, especially for the general public audience.

I hope this clarifies things, take care, --Skyelarke 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not delete the quote on painters. In fact, I moved it up further in the article to place it alongside the mentions of all his other influences. Regarding the other issues, you are a good and great fan of Buscema, but the edits of yours that I removed have a tone of fannish praise inappropriate for an encyclopedic tone. I'd be glad to put the isseu back up to other editors to decide which is the more appropriate version, but I thought this was decided already. You seem reluctant to accept when another editor says, "These edits are good, these edits aren't appropriate, here's a middle ground", and to accept consensus. --Tenebrae 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And please stop inserting style errors. WikiProject Comics style is "vol." lowercase for comics and comics magazines. And normal correct grammar and punctuation requires us to italicize magazine titles and use spaces between a comma and a name. I've reverted your grammar and punctuation errors repeatedly. --13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, "formally retired" was your phrase, with a cite. If you say it's inaccurate, I'll make sure it's removed. In fact, if he didn't announce a retirement, and he did work afterward, it's inaccurate to say he retired and we should remove the word entirely.--Tenebrae 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette reminder to Tenebrae - re: 'rv fannish trivia, overdetail, and unencyclopedic fawning' seems to denote a disparaging tone - the Wikipedia etiquette guidelines state: 'Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,...'

As a reply, kidly take this into consideration (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Use_short_sentences_and_lists) 'Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article. Articles should contain as much information as possible without the use of redundant statements. The use of subjective qualifiers should be avoided.' --Skyelarke 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Various edits for the early career section - Mainly references - corrected Buscema's first work reference - reworked the Frazetta mention as per prior discussion.

PS. a quote from Bloodpack (which I agree with):'Please note that its best to have every statements we make in wikipedia cited because: 1) people use wikipedia as a source of their research and reference, and we dont want to mislead them.' --Skyelarke 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PPS. Tenebrae: 'You seem reluctant to accept when another editor says, "These edits are good, these edits aren't appropriate, here's a middle ground", and to accept consensus.'

I'm willing to accept modifications if they are free from factual innacuracies. At the moment, though I'm focused on establishing proper reference notations, as per our previous agreement:

So I'll start going through my notes and and gather up the proper references. Skyelarke 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. Let's ref it up... --Tenebrae 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

--Skyelarke 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Skyelarke
I've been very patient, as have other editors, but now Skylarke has gone back and reinstated a version of the John Buscema article that BY RfC CONSENSUS was disallowed. I'm speaking about removing his place of birth (!) and replacing it with a rambling sentence about his being born within two months of Frank Frazetta, a trivial and unencyclopedic tangent that the consensus specifically excised.

I can't keep doing this. I'm asking for Admin intervention now. --Tenebrae 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On a positive note, I'd like to mention that I think that this article is coming along well, thanks to everyone's constructive contributions and I feel that this article has the potential to become an excellent Wikipedia Biography article.


 * The Frazetta thing may be a bit much at the beginning there, so I combined it with the other Frazetta reference in the Legacy section. The reason why I included these relevant links to the fields of popular literature, and fantasy illustration, is to situate the article in a wider context, hopefully making it more relateable to a general audience.


 * Also my references have the seven-page story "Crime: Kidnapping!- Victim: Abraham Lincoln!" in the Timely crime title Crime Fighters #4 (Nov. 1948)as Buscema's first recorded work and not the eight-page story "The Other Woman" in the Timely romance title Faithful #1 (Nov. 1949). As it's a fairly significant and well-documented reference, I thought it was important to make that change. The original contributor is of course welcome to offer his feedback.
 * --Skyelarke 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
To Tenebrae - You have made several good contributions to this article and I'd like to thank you for the helpful references that you've provided, unfortunately I'm concerned with what seems to be an overly gung ho involvement in this article on your part and a tendency to nitpick over the majority of other editor's contributions down to the smallest detail and to also a tendency to revert the majority of new addtions. This would seem to go against the following Wikipedia policies againts ownership behaviour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

'Minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording are disputed on a daily basis by one editor. The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article.'

'Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not.'

Moreover, I'm concerned that the way the recent RFC was conducted shows distinct signs of what is termed as a 'tag team'.i.e.

'The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors.'

Wikipedia aims to create an open, inclusive, environment that encourages friendly, civil, conscienscious editing while respecting the equality of all contributors. Kindly take these concerns into consideration as I hope they will help in contributing to a better quality article.

--Skyelarke 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your generous comments about my edits. You know, too, that I respect your scholarship and enthusiasm; I wish there were a Bill Everett fan so dedicated as to beef up that worthy creator's entry. So I hope you'll take this in the spirit in which I say this: Reverting material that was re-added after an RfC consensus decided against it is not, I believe, nitpicking. Punctuation and grammar, which is a lot of what I do, I also don't believe is nitpicking; that's usually considered minor. But where I must, respectfully, part company is the ownership assertion, and here's why: I've created well over a hundred detailed articles and I work to polish dozens on a regular basis, while, really, you dedicate yourself to one article only. So I'm not sure it would be me who feels he "owns" this article, which is just one more of the many. I've demonstrably been going with what a consensus of editors decided upon I'm sorry you feel slighted -- I swear I do, despite the frustration I sometimes feel trying to work with you. I feel that you see this article as a tribute, if not quite a fan page, and that's not really an encyclopedic tone.


 * By the way, I notice that an anonymous IP today has has started contributing to Wikipedia, though only to this article.


 * I'll start putting fuller explanations for each non-grammar/punctuation edit, as I do now just below here. I'm hopeful that better communication of why I make each edit that I do will help dispel any hard feelings or misconceptions. Thanks for listening. --Tenebrae 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Legacy
The reason I've toned down this section is: First of all, a simple declarative sentence about the Frazetta doc is factual; anything else is gilding the lily. Frazetta's name is linked if someone wants to know who Frazetta is. Second, we quote and cite the AE & CBA articles, so to say that AE & CBA have written articles about him is redundant. Besides which, AE & CBA have run big articles on dozens and dozens of people -- even secretary Flo Steinberg (who is historically important and in fact I started the Wiki article about her, but you see what I mean). And finally, the work of countless writers and artists remain in print; we don't specify that in every single instance because it's non-notable in and of itself. Just as it is non-notable that someone does promotion for a book he or she wrote. --Tenebrae 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the Frazetta entry because having made changes in response to two previous objections, this is the most feasible compromise I've been able to arrive at.

The AE and CBA issues in question are actually cover-feature special issues devoted mainly to him, so they should probably be included in the 'further reading' section.

For the Buscema trade paperbacks currently in print, I believe there are about a dozen or so. They could probably also be listed in the further reading section along with the Marvel Visionaries book on him that came out earlier this year. --Skyelarke 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Added references for the 50's section. Returned Four Colour list in bullet format as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists The list is following the article's structure of mentioning lenghty runs on a title (i.e. Silver Surfer 1-17)- the list was necessary due to the peculiar numbering system of the Four Colour title. Also added a quote by Buscema regarding his 50's work. --Skyelarke 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Embedded_list: "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." -- Tenebrae 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Skylarke has also made a mess of the footnotes, which I've fixed several times and I cannot understand why he keeps inserting "Vanguard Publications" over and over rather than using Ibid. (and please go look that up), unless he is involved with Vanguard. There is no other reason not to use "ref name=" and Ibid. --Tenebrae 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Lists - Thank you for the lists guidelines - please note the following: 'However, it can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short.' and 'In some cases, a list style may be preferable to a long sequence within a sentence,'

Re: footnotes - Using ibid is fine, but the disadvantage is that it can only be used directly under a same source - I like the way it's done on the Salvador Dali article, I find it makes for a clearer and cleaner presentation or else there's the Harvard guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing either way, I plan on going over the footnotes once they're done and make the necessary corrections.

Re: Frazetta reversion - kindly take the following into consideration: 'Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time... ' --Skyelarke 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraph style is clearer since this article only has to give pertinent examples; it's not a fan-site checklist of everything John Buscema has ever done.


 * The Harvard style has pros & cons given in its article; it's a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule. Seek consensus from your fellow editors before making a radical change to the footnotes.


 * The quote, from wherever it came from in the many Wiki guidelines pages, certainly doesn't apply to non-notable, off-topic, fancruft trivia.


 * I'm sorry you have nothing good to say about the factual corrections and additions to the Roy Rogers material.--Tenebrae 15:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

60's

 * Added references, quotes, and additonal data to the 60's.


 * Are you sure about the Chaite Agency correction? - the references I have spell it Chaite - you spell it Chait and the link you give has it Chiat, an agency founded 35 years after Buscema began at Chaite.

--Skyelarke 01:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My misspelling: Chiat is correct. I can find no evidence online that an agency called Chaite. Jay Chiat founded Chiat/Day in 1968, which is after Buscema would have been there. Can you find a confirming source for the name of the agency, other than a Buscema book or article that might have misspelled it itself? If the agency was indeed called Chaite, then there must be some reference to its existence somewhere. Until we get confirmation, the accurate thing is to say "did commercial art". --Tenebrae 04:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So that we're on the same page. I copy edited but did not remove any of your new information except trivia about Buscema commuting to work, and a few issue numbers. --Tenebrae 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chaite - Here's a reference from the internet- 'With Thunderball (1965) we arrive at the birth of the classic Bond 'house style', the creation of two artists, both former colleagues at New York's important Chaite Agency studio from 1953, Frank McCarthy and Robert McGinnis.' http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/eventsexh/past/2007_01_10_bond.html


 * Re: Commuting - The short passage on Buscema's commuting to work was carefully and thoughtfully chosen for the following reasons: a- It illustrates one for the reasons for an important career move, i.e. his return to comic books. b- It is a well-documented anecdote, appearing in several reliable publications c- In the interest of covering all aspects of the topic, I feel that occasional relevant references to his personal life adds depth and interest to the article.


 * Re:a few issue numbers - The rationale for my putting in those specific issue numbers are as follows: a- Although it's not feasible to include every comic book he drew, his output from the 60's is sufficiently focused that, with those issues beeing added, the entirety of his 60's output is covered in a succint, brief manner. b- All of the issues mentioned are significant enough as to have been mentioned in the Alter Ego and Comic Book Artist special John Buscema issues.


 * You might want to consider re-evaluating your understanding of the term non-notable - I believe notability refers to the inherent merit of an article topic per se for its inclusion in Wikipedia and does not pertain to specific points within an article. I cordially invite you to familiarize yourself with the passage below:

'-Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content -

Notability guidelines determine whether a topic is sufficiently notable to be included as a separate article in Wikipedia. These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other Wikipedia's guidelines, such as those on the reliability of sources and trivia. However, list articles like List of English writers are expected to include only notable writers.'


 * Your changes to the Defalco reference is innacurate - the passsage refers to the work as being often cited as the highpoint of his Marvel work just as Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is often cited as one of Mozart's most popular melodies or Da Vinci's La Gioconda is often referred to as the Mona Lisa- it's not one person's individual opinion in the case I've referrenced.


 * Your compression of the paragraph with the Steranko quote is possibly more correct from a grammatical and concision point of view, but ask yourself this - is it more understandable to a general public? What if someone without much comic book knowledge were to read this article, a Norwegian high school girl who had to do a book report on How to Draw Comics the Marvel way for her art class or a Nigerian journalist who was writing an article on the portrayal of African Americans in popular culture in the 60's?

--Skyelarke 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice research finding that Chaite cite! As long as I'm here I'll stick it back in. I think there was a Triad studios mentioned, too?


 * Re DeFalco: First off, that statement doesn't appear on p. 31B; I'm sure that was just a typo on your part. However, the article "Memories of Brother John" has DeFalco quoted as saying only, "Silver Surfer #4 was certainly a beautiful job" -- and early, simply agreeing with Sal Buscema calling his brother's work classic! With all due respect, Sal Buscema is not a disinterested source. In fact, as any good brother would be, he's a biased source, and given the context of a recently dead brother of course DeFalco is going to say nod and agree. If this were a newspaper, let alone an encyclopedia, making a big, general claim based on that would never be allowed. However, editor Roy Thomas does say that "JB often cited this as the highpoint of his Marvel work," so Thomas' disinterested statement as a magazine editor and comics historian is valid. It also says something different than was claimed. I'll go ahead substitute it in. (BTW, I've ordered the Spurlock book and it should be here any day -- thanks for "Spurring" me to get off my rump and buy it!)


 * Re Steranko: I'm not sure how making a paragraph more grammatical and concise makes it less understandable. In any event, we ID Jack Kirby fully by name and as an artist in the paragraph immediately above.


 * If you really feel strongly about the commuting paragraph and the issue numbers in that one paragraph, we could ask for an RfC limited to those two items. I'll go with whatever the consensus of our fellow editors is. Just let me know or initiate the RfC and notify me. Either way's good.


 * Again, nice work hammering out these things. I wish you could see that I'm working with you hand-in-hand; just because I'm in 85% agreement with you and not 100% agreement doesn't mean anything negative. In fact, in your last batch of edits, I actually went in and added details, corrections and wikilinks to enhance what you did. We're all friends here. --Tenebrae 04:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Re : However, editor Roy Thomas does say that "JB often cited this as the highpoint of his Marvel work," so Thomas' disinterested statement as a magazine editor and comics historian is valid.'

Actually, that's the same quote I used, p. 34-B - Thomas also called it his magnum opus - which indicates that it's generally regarded as such, and I think would be more accurate. No matter, close enough.


 * 'If you really feel strongly about the commuting paragraph and the issue numbers in that one paragraph, we could ask for an RfC'

I don't feel that strongly about the commuting paragraph and the issue numbers in that one paragraph. Before opting for an RfC, I believe there are a certain amount of useful and practical preliminary steps one could take. The following articles offer helpful instructions in this regard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_angry_mastodons (including the links at the end) And there are the following considerations: 'Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.'

'Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.' --Skyelarke 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

70's

 * Added references, quotes, and additonal data to the 70's.

PS - anon IP User:70.55.202.38 - Yes that was me. --Skyelarke 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

80's

 * Added references, quotes, and additonal data to the 80's. In theory, the entirety of the article has been given valid referenced sources.

--Skyelarke 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Long Version

 * Basically Tenebrae did some editing in December of 2006 wherein he removed roughly 50% of the content (see January 1 first version). after which various Comic Book Project formatting was added. I'm in basic agreement the the changes except when adding the references to the article I reinstated certain passages that I feel did not need to be deleted (which amounts to about 10-20% of the original 50% deletion).This represents my compromise proposal in lieu of the version prior to December 2006.

See prior discussion where I've given explanations and rationale for all the additions. Please note that I've used the Salvador Dali Wikipedia article as a rough guide for Wikipedia content and formatting. I have no plans at the present for adding any further material.

Overall I feel that the article has been greatly improved since 6 months ago. I may have inadvertantly removed some minor valid edits by other editors. I apologize for the inconvenience.

With the large amount of edits this article has been through in the past 6 months, the article has become a bit choppy and disconnected - I think that it's in need of a grammatical revision - if anyone is interested giving it an overall smoothing over, feel free to contact me at my discussion page, as I could provide some background information on the composition and editing history of the article.

--Skyelarke 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above can be taken as WP:OWN. I have just reverted days of Skyelarke's fancruft edits about the likes of the subject's commute, footnote misformatting, over-illustration and other matters that are in direct contradiction to a long-settled RfC. He disregards the editorial consensus achieved by that RfC and continues his blatant attempts to turn this encyclopedia article into a fan site.


 * I have shown good faith. But it's no longer a matter of faith when an editor reinserts material that other editors in consensus have formally decided against.--Tenebrae 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rfc & Ownership
I'm sorry that you feel that the compromise that I'm proposing is not acceptable - however I feel that all of the edits contained therein are in comformity with wikipedia guidelines and policies, and in I've backed up most edits with valid reference sources, wikipedia policy & guideline citations, and reasoned explanations.

If you go back to the original Rfc - you will see that I've already expressed my objections about the lack of neutrality of said RfC.Allow me to briefly reiterate them:

1- I believe the use of canvassing crossed the line from - Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan to Excessive crossposting   Campaigning   Votestacking.

2- I'm sorry that you feel that there are too many images - I feel that the Rfc did not have sufficient discussion and did not follow proper consensus-minded protocol. My main objection concerning the image question is that I when I pointed out that there are no specific policies limiting the number of images in an article and that there are many reputable Wikipedia articles that use a comparable amount of images, these rather siginificant points were unfortunately ignored. I recently come across another article (one among many), this time a comic book article, that uses a comparable amount of images. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Man

3- I hope you can appreciate the fact that the version of the article that was presented and was unanimoulsy accepted contained an important editing glitch (the entire 60's section and most of the 50's section was missing) and no one picked up on this leaves me wondering about the neutrality of the exercize.

Concerning my concerns about ownership, I've already tried to point out the main problems. Saying that a sign of your ownership behavior is that you are frequently nitpicking over many points of detail, although I feel this be accurate, was probably not very diplomatic on my part. Allow me to reiterate some of what what I feel to be the most glaring examples of ownership behaviour.(Citations are from Ownership of articles

Overall, I feel that you consider yourself to be the official 'Coordinator', 'Supervisor',or 'Editor-in-Chief'. Mainly because of your regular behavior of peremptory, deletion-based edits, the fact that your edits are done mainly in reaction to other peoples positive, contributive- based edits, and the regular derogatory, judgmental, disparaging remarks addressed at other editors and their edits.

The canvassing and tag-teaming concerns on the Rfc and the general tendency to present general guidelines as unimpeachable restrictions, and ignoring other editors objections are further indication of an autocratic behavior.

Moreover the condescending and superior attitude ('I've been very patient, as have other editors, ...) and the frequent objection over the majority of the editing indicates that the editors feels that everyone should answer to him before editing. I should't have to be providing the extensive substantiation that I have been doing every time I make an edit.

Overall, my understanding is that if one editor is making edits to the majority of other people's edits, even they are well-intentioned, then it's a demonstration of Ownership. And that seems to be the case with Tenebrae.

1-'Minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording are disputed on a daily basis by one editor. The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article.' Yes - It's on a weekly basis only because, I've limited the frequency of my edits.

2-'Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)' Yes.

3- 'An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many form; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors,...'

Yes. The frequent reversions based on unsubstantiated derogatory non-wikipedia assertions - (I'm deleting these edits are fannish, over-detailed, unimportant, etc...)

P.S. I've reverted TMan 930's edit - as he's given a reasonable explanation as the non-commercial intent of his edit. --Skyelarke 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * TMan 930's site is an auction site.
 * You've reinserted edits that are unsupported by the John Buscema Sketchbook source.
 * You disagree with the RfC. Fine. But editors are not allowed to reinsert edits contrary to the RfC consensus.
 * You have forced me to seek Admin intervention. --Tenebrae 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Links
Regarding the Comic Art Community Gallery:

I think there seems to be a confusion between section 2 and section 4 of the 'External Links' policy page. In section 2,there are only two points that 'For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking ..., without exception.' i.e. cases of proven copyright violation and specific blacklisted sites. The #4 point (which I assume your are referring to) about products and services is not in section 2, it's in section 4. So it's not under a 'restricted from linking...without exception' dictate.

Regarding the John Buscema checklist, I've moved it to the references section, as per guidelines:

'It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.' --Skyelarke 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is exactly one footnote line for the checklist, and it is highlighted in blue and obvious to see. There are also hardly "lots" in comparison to, for example, Stan Lee. In any event, the policy above refers to listing all the footnoted sources alphabetically. The fact you singled out one would lead an objective observer to believe it is your own site or one to which you have a connection.--Tenebrae 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Side observation re: the link to a commercial site: It's helpful if you read all of the policy points in context, and link to the relevant policy if you are going to insist on starting a new section, even if it results in multiple links to the policy/guideline from a given talk page.
 * As such... the guide line, External links does indeed have 2 relevant sections: Restrictions on linking delineating those types of sites that can never be used for "policy or technical reasons." And links normally to be avoided deliniating those types of sites that, if not outright barred by the previous section, should not be used. This section does layout the exception for that prohibition: "... link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject...".
 * In the case of the site causing the problem here, at the moment it does not fall under ironclad ban of the first section. It has not been shown that the images used at that site are there in violation of the rights of the actual holders of the copyrights and tradmarks of the images, nor is the site currently blacklisted. It does, however, fall under enumerated point 4 of the later section:
 * "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services."
 * The CAC is an auction house, a third party auction house at that. It is not the subject of this article, nor is it an official page of the subject of this article. As such it does not fit under the exemption of the prohibition of the later section.
 * - J Greb 15:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
Regarding the request for mediation, allow me to propose a more expeditive compromise.

The 'Long version' represents my attempt to reduce my original article to the strict mimimum, i.e. the simplest, most conservative, bare bones version that integrates the various objections that I'm prepared accept. It accepts the majority of your original 50% content deletions, only reinserting a few short passages that are restricted to data, and referenced passages. The images I've added have taken into accoutn various indications given in the rfc.


 * If you agree to
 * a)accept the 15 image, 44 footnote version (with allowances made for various updates and corrections on the footnotes).
 * b) agree to refrain from deleting other editors contribution unless specifically authorized by Wikipedia policy (and providing the specific policy reference when requested.
 * c) agree to refrain from making disparaging and derogatory remarks towards other editors and edits.


 * I will agree to
 * a) refrain from adding any new information, images, footnotes, links or any other data
 * b)refrain from pursuing any Ownership of articles concerns on your part
 * c) to apoligize for anything I might have written that has offended you.

What say you?

--Skyelarke 13:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to work on the article with you with the help of a mediator who might provide clarity/perspective. I find that after seeing citations to things in the John Buscema Sketchbook that did not in fact exist, and which served as a cover for personal opinion, that I would be more comfortable working with a mediator or, if need be, to ask for Arbitration.


 * To address your immediate points:


 * I'm not sure what "444 footnote version" refers to. [Note: Anonymous IP 70.55.86.28 changed the number "444" in above Skyelarke post to "44" at 18:28, 12 June 2007]


 * Fifteen images, including two of Conan alone, I believe is too many and violates fair-use policy. Each image must be justified for its inclusion in the article. For example: A first cover, a first cover of his signature series, a signature character, an example of early work, an example of mature work, an historically notable cover. They cannot be decorative, and they cannot be too many; for example, having one representative image from each genre he worked in (romance, Western, war, crime, horror, sci-fi, mystery, medieval adventure, espionage, etc.) would result in an unworkable number. Other editors discuss this at length above.


 * I have not only cited policy on my edits, often with a link in the edit summaries, but I have discussed them at length on this page.


 * If you believe I have been uncivil, you have the right to report it and to ask for Admin intervention. --Tenebrae 15:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that is a typo, since the last version he placed had 44 footnotes (well 43 actually, a pair were identical, right down to the page number).
 * And to reiterate a comment I made during the RfC: I can see having a limited number of images, the current 8 (1 per decade and 1 each for the signature characters of Tarzan and Conan) makes sense. They mostly fit the flow of the article and they serve the purpose for images in an article: secondary information without being just decoration. The proposed 15 are overkill with pieces added in repetition of points and seemingly, in some cases, just for decoration.
 * That being said, I would rather see some of the 15 swapped into the 8:
 * The frontispiece from Savage Sword of Conan #17 for the cover of Savage Tales #1. IMO it's a better example of his work on Conan.
 * The Silver Surfer or Dorothy pencils replacing the Silver Surfer cover. The pencils show the foundation of his work as well as being representative of what he did during the 1970s.
 * - J Greb 16:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. "44". My question to Skyelarke would be what he has against the standard term Ibid. or why he objects to the standard "1. a b c" format that " " provides. Giving the name of Spurlock's book over and over again seems more promotional in nature than anything else.


 * I'm perfectly happy to swap images. I would include one Buscema Silver Surfer somewhere only since it's one of his signature characters. Maybe swapping Tarzan for Dorothy, since we already have a loincloth-type, bare-chested character in Conan. --Tenebrae 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For the the footnote question, see my May 11 commnent. I was planning on doing the final footnote formatting revisions some time this week.

I'm willing to participate in a RfM - Although I got some other things going on for the next few weeks - If you refile the Request after July 10th - then I would accept.

For the wording of the request - I think to have a good chance of getting it accepted, they're looking for objective, neutral, non contentious, specific, article/topic orientated questions. Although the wording is now a lot better than the previous draft, it still comes across as rather vague and contentious.

There are a rather large amount of passages to discuss, however the advantage is that most passsage are referenced (with reference numbers) (and a few scattered passages, mainly comic book references and the legacy phrase). So the way I see it in a nutshell is that we have to hash out about 20 referenced phrases, 7 images, and 2 links. So why not formulate the request something like this: 1- Are the following referenced phrases appropriate (list the 20 ref. #s) 2- Are the following 7 images appropriate - (list images names) 3- Are the following two links appropriate (name the 2 links)

Also, maybe create a special page that lists all of the passages you disagree with (we could even cut and paste our arguments from the discussion page under each one.)

--Skyelarke 23:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why wait until July 10th? If you have time to edit the article (which it seems that you do), you have time to participate in mediation. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Particularly since the article is now fully protected. Since you (User:Skyelarke) refuse to accept the RfC, and you have not yet signed on for Mediation, then Arbitration is the only step I can then take.


 * I'm curious what footnote revisions you're speaking of. Footnotes to the same site are given 1. a.b.c., and footnotes to subsequent mentions of a cite are given with name and Ibid.


 * Finally, we've already gotten an RfC that blended the two versions that were under discussion. To revisit something that's already been through an RfC with a consensus reached makes no sense. If you don't want to accept the consensus of other editors, then you're welcome to make your points in a Mediation. The link to the Mediation is at the top of this page.--Tenebrae 02:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm just too busy at the moment to give the proper attention a meaningful RfM deserves. But I would like to see this matter achieve some sort of resolution. I need to better acquaint myself with the Rfm procedures. I'm still looking at your issue statements... I just want to be sure all the bases are covered to insure a productive discussion.

Here's a concern: 'Requests which seek to have a mediator help "prove" that one party is correct will be denied; if one or both of the parties come to mediation with the view that they are right and the other party is wrong, then mediation is not appropriate. All parties must come to mediation with the understanding that both sides will have to compromise to reach an agreement, and that neither side will "win."' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Common_Reasons_for_Rejection

I'm not saying that your issue statements are incorrect, but I'm still getting the impression that they're foregone conclusions.

I'm open to the idea of an RfM after July 10th - In any case, I'll try to get prepared for that eventuality.

I would still need to discuss a few things beforehand to get a better handle on what your issues are.

--Skyelarke 05:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've stated the issues, as simply and in as few words as possible, at the Mediation-request page.
 * Any details have already been covered over and over on this Talk page.
 * Agreeing to Mediation at this point only allows the process to move forward to the next step, which is for a mediator to accept the case or not. Agreeing to Mediation now leaves plenty of time till July 10, particularly if you make a note of that on the request page. --Tenebrae 18:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to specify that my lack of availability has nothing to do with this article - It involves travelling among other things and I don't know what my internet access will be yet. Unfortunately I can't in good conscience commit to an important resolution process without fully reviewing the various questions and all the dispute resolution options.

Unfortunately, there have been some recent circumstances that have complicated the situation to a certain extant, at the very least I would need another week to allow things to cool down and gain a more objective perspective and to process recent developments.

On the positive side, as I've mentioned, I've basically finished the process of adding the data, references, and images begun last December 15.


 * So I'll start going through my notes and and gather up the proper references.

Skyelarke 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. Let's ref it up... --Tenebrae 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So I finally have a relatively complete, stable version that I feel happy discussing - so theorhetically future discussion will be able to proceed a little smoother...

--Skyelarke 17:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your saying that you have a "complete stable version" of the article smacks of WP:OWN. Many, many fellow editors have rejected your edits. Rejected your edits. Yet your persist in trying to re-add them as well as a plethora of over-images in a hijacking attempt to turn this page into your personal fan site.


 * Since you are declining to even set a date for mediation, I will proceed to the next step, a request for arbitration. --Tenebrae 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

'Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability --Skyelarke 13:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes & images
FYI - I fixed up the footnotes section (it can be found on my user page) - I had some pretty glaring mistakes (wrong book titles & magazine numbers) so it's much more accurate now.


 * I followed the APA formatting style - as recommended in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style


 * I went over TB's June 11 deletions, I disagree with most of them - The only relevant edits I could find that I made the necessary corrections to are the following:
 * a- the Renaisssance artist reference
 * b- the Gene Colan reference
 * c- the Jack Beal reference


 * To answer the question 'what do i have against ibid' - Wikipedia advises against it.


 * 'Though some printed texts use ibid, ditto, or similar shorthand for multiple references, Wiki is not paper. Please do not use "ibid" or other footnote shorthands. The available tools for multiple references are more powerful.'


 * 'Avoid using Ibid or similar abbreviations in footnotes. Other editors who add new references to the article may not take the time to correct Ibid references broken by their addition. Furthermore, not all readers are familiar with the meaning of the term. If a reference is reused in more than one footnote, it is preferable to use the format "Smith, Short Title, 182" rather than "Ibid, 182", so as to avoid these problems, or use named references if appropriate. '

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes


 * They've really increased the amount of policy and guideline explanations and controls on image usage since I first uploaded them, so I've gotten bombarded with non-free image usage messages lately - I feel I respected the fair use guidelines, I just neglected to put in sufficient detailed specific fair use rationale. I will be re-uploading the images with proper fair use rationale once I've read the updated image policies as times permits. Here's the first revised rationale I've done

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blackbusc.jpg - done according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright --Skyelarke 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought you were too busy to deal with Mediation until July 10. You willful avoidance of cooperative negotiation with a third party is disappointing.


 * Against my better judgment, I had held off asking for Arbitration to give you till July 10 as you asked. As you have proven yourself untrustworthy in the past, I reiterate that the only way to resolve issues regarding your obsessively fannish edits is to seek Mediation.


 * You want to wait until July 10? I will accede to your wish. If you continue to post here, then I'd have to presume you have time now. --Tenebrae 14:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * RE Ibid. issue: I was the the one who instituted the " " footnoting for multiple cites from same source, whereas you wrote out the full name each time. As for not using Ibid., the substitute that WP:FOOT suggests is "Smith, Short Title, 182" &mdash; so instead of "Spurlock, Ibid., p. 27," we'll say "Spurlock, Buscema, p. 27", a one-word change that's the same far cry from your wanting to give the full name and publishing house/date of his book each time, which I have always found suspiciously promotional. --Tenebrae 14:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI - you can see my user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke for footnote corrections I've made. --Skyelarke 01:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Request for Mediation - Due to my previously expressed concerns about problems with the RFC i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANVASS, especially in consideration of the following passage:
 * 'Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article.'


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RfC
 * Request comment on articles
 * 'Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved.'

and since the above policy was not respected when the RFC was initiated, I'll agree to a Mediation process on condition that the February 26 RFC be disregarded; in effect, I'm proposing that we wipe the slate clean and begin a discussion based on the intrinsic merits of the content of the latest versions we are respectively advocating.

--Skyelarke 00:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how anyone in good faith can tell all the other RfC editors who disagreed with your edits that their consensus is wrong and you're right, specifically given your many guideline vios.
 * If you'd like call for formal mediation &mdash; as I did, but which refused to join &mdash; then please do, and contact me.--Tenebrae 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily averse to the mediation process, it's just that I would like a wider community feedback now that the article is fully referenced - why not just let this article follow a normal Wikipedia development process, as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article

If you allow me, as the original initiator of this article in it's current form, to take it through a peer review, open to the biography portal, the arts & entertainment work group, and the comics project - and then from there submit it to the Biography Project A-Class review department -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/A-class_review allowing a couple of months time - and after that, if you still have the same concerns about the article, then we could take it to mediation, what say you? --Skyelarke 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "As the original initiator of this article in it's [sic] current form..."? Wikipedia editors do not have ownership of articles.


 * I waited in good faith for your schedule to clear up after July 10, as you requested, before pursuing mediation. You did not honor your word after July 10. You have put in at least one spurious, footnote to prop up your personal opinion, falsely. You have attempted multiple times to go against the consensus arrived at by every other editor involved.


 * After all these continued bad-faith efforts to turn this into your personal fan page, I will again request Mediation. --Tenebrae 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)