Talk:John Buscema/Archive 4 (2007 - July - Dec.)

Editprotected
editprotected

In the interest of improving article's overall research credibility and accuracy, exceptional situation edit requested due to significant corrections to the footnote references. Since the page was protected, I've taken the time to go over all the referenced passages and realized that in previous versions, there were mistakes in major reference works cited. The correct info for 3 major reference works cited are as follows:
 * Spurlock, D., & Buscema, J.(2001) John Buscema Sketchbook. New Jersey:Vanguard Productions
 * Comic Book Artist, 21 (Aug. 2002)
 * Alter Ego, v.3,15 (June 2002)

In addition, the previous versions have various formatting problems, including non-sequential use of 'ibid', which Wiki guidelines advise against.

Request to replace current version with corrected version found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke. (Please note that if any policy and guideline problems with the corrected article are noticed, I'd be more than happy to be made aware of them.) --Skyelarke 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a good idea if the two parties haven't had their Mediation yet. --69.22.254.111 08:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

'Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

In detail, the purpose of citation is:


 * To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
 * To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
 * To show that your edit is not original research.
 * To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
 * To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
 * To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
 * To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Biographies of living persons.


 * Why Sources should be cited in

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

--Skyelarke 14:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Skyelarke: given your direct involvement in the ongoing RFM, an extensive set of edits of this type from you seems premature, and contradictory to the reason for imposing a block on editing this page. Therefore, I am removing the editprotected request from this page. —David Eppstein 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

'Skyelarke: given your direct involvement in the ongoing RFM, an extensive set of edits of this type from you seems premature, and contradictory to the reason for imposing a block on editing this page'.

Thanks for taking a look at my request - I can see how it appears to seem premature and contradictory to the block rationale - allow me to clarify a bit, if I may -

The footnote corrections that I did were in fact the final step in a process begun by myself (and I thought with the other editor's agreement) i.e. '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)

also: 'I plan on going over the footnotes once they're done and make the necessary corrections. -Skyelarke 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason that I was unable to finish before the block was due to the other editor's rather peremptory and impulsive implementing of adminstrative procedures i.e.

- Feb. 26 - RfC - April 27 -' Several editors, and heaven knows you can see them at Talk:John Buscema, have tried to work with a fanatic fan, User:Skyelarke, who is a single-purpose account... He has continually added POV and irrelevant, fan-page trivia,...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive84

- June 11 - RfM -June 12 - Page Protection Request - 'Severe, longstanding edit war...protection is requested to stop edit war...' In all cases, theses were implemented without prior discussion of particular obstacles or notification and without any indication of relunctance on my part to continue with rational, civil discussion.

The description of the page protection request as 'severe, long-standing edit war...' being misleading as the lenghty, discursive nature of the dispute being due to my conscious efforts to implement verifiability, discussion, and slowing down as prelimary dispute resolution steps.

Finally, my failure to finalize footnote revisions was in part due to the other editor's unexplained withdrawal from editing and abrupt return on June 7th and his subsequent arguments with two new unexpected contributing editors on June 11.

All this to say that I'd appreciate it if you could at least upload the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke version onto the article and revert back to the current version - as I feel having an accurate, clearly referenced version on record, with the dating and comparison functions, will help with the mediation process. In any case, it's the version I'd like to work with in mediation rather than the 12:48, 12 June 2007 version; it would also free up space on my user page.

--Skyelarke 00:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC) The above, CC from David Epptsein talk page. --Skyelarke 14:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Skyelarke, I'm not sure why you're taking bits and pieces of things from their original context and trying to argue your case unilaterally here. I'd appreciate it if we could please stick to the Mediation page. Thank you. --Tenebrae 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This thing is still protected? Really? Doczilla 09:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The mediator got busy with school. Skyelarke left a message on Mediation Chair Daniel's talk page today about how to proceed Thanks for asking.
 * FYI, the version Skyelarke wants to use is here: User:Skyelarke/Buscema draft. --Tenebrae 17:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected
I've unprotected the page; it's unconscionable that it was kept protected this long. The parties to the arbitration would be wise to stay away from editing the article until the case has closed; any disruptive editing will be dealt with harshly. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI
The current version of this article has many mistakes in the references section - this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=181851662 does not - If anyone is interested, please feel free to make the necessary corrections.

i.e.

The correct info for 3 major reference works cited are as follows:

Spurlock, D., & Buscema, J.(2001) John Buscema Sketchbook. New Jersey:Vanguard Productions

Comic Book Artist, 21 (Aug. 2002) Alter Ego, v.3, 15 (June 2002)

--Skyelarke (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above post is so inaccurate it's preposterous. The current article's book citation, for example, reads:
 * Spurlock, David J., and John Buscema, The Art of John Buscema (New Jersey: Vanguard Productions, 2001) pp.60-61. Hardcover ISBN 1-887591-18-4, signed-numbered hardcover ISBN 1-887591-17-6, trade paperback ISBN 1-887591-19-2
 * As for the version of the article to which Skyelarke links, it is a hagiographic, fan-magazine travesty. Please go to it and see for oneself. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)-


 * Let's keep it civil please. We have policies which relate to bias, mainly WP:NPOV, but also WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. Let's focus the discussion using those terms of reference rather than our own more colourful but possibly more divisive ones. Hiding T 02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In principle I agree; purposefully misleading statements, however, I believe need to be addressed in forceful terms. What is the old saying? "A lie can travel halfway 'round the world before the truth gets out the front door." I did take care to limit my comments to the post and not the person. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with Wikipedia policy: Silent and faceless words on talk pages and edit summaries do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, leading to small, facetious comments being misinterpreted. One uncivil remark can easily escalate into a heated discussion which may not focus objectively on the problem at hand. It is during these exchanges that community members may become uninterested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy". It is better to simply state the fact; you do not believe the version of the page referred to meets our policy on WP:NPOV. Hiding T 02:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, and I certainly don't disagree; it's better to be more strictly businesslike. One can't let the goaders get your goat. I have to admit it's hard, but it's a goal worth reaching for. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct title for the Vanguard book is 'John Buscema Sketchbook' and not 'Art of John Buscema'. As per - http://www.vanguardproductions.net/buscema/

The correct number for the Alter Ego magazine is 15, not 21. As per - http://twomorrows.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=55&products_id=492


 * For the ibidem problem, see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style_recommendations

--Skyelarke (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_page_guidelines

--Skyelarke (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm away from home until at least January 17, tending to my family health emergency. The title of the book on its copyright and indicia page is as I gave; it's entirely possible we have differently titled editions I will reconfirm and respond to these and other points after returning and physically examining my publications --Tenebrae (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself - and as far as I can tell, all 7 footnotes from that book in the current article have been provided by myself - and the book that I used was entitled - The John Buscema Sketchbook.

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's true. For example, I made corrections to such things as an unfounded claim you attributed to that book. See this edit. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also made this addition with information from the book. Please, I ask you again, as I have numerous times: Do not say things you know are untrue. It's neither reasonable nor fair to make another editor frequently have to point out untruths. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only vouch for myself - this version seems to confirm that all the original Vanguard book footnotes were originally provided by myself - if subsequent modifications were made using a different edition - I suggest that corrections be made to reflect this.

--Skyelarke (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've checked my copy of the book, and you are correct, the cover and indicia title are both John Buscema Sketchbook. Looking at Footnotes 1 & 2 no2, I can see it was a simple error of copy-pasting the cite for Quartuccio and Keenan's The Art of John Buscema as a template to save typing time, and inadvertently not changing the title. That's a very small thing, and aside from that, my fully attributed citation, with all the various editions' ISBN numbers, is the more proper and preferable of the two versions.


 * Also, I have never argued in favor of the deprecated Ibid. I seem to recall agreeing with you about that, somewhere in the mist of history.


 * If a third party wants to change the title in Footnote 2 and remove the word "Ibid." where it appears throughout, I'm in agreement with Skyelarke on that. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can the two of you sandbox a version of the article that makes the changes you have mentioned above and it's best if you stick only to those at John Buscema/sandbox. Once you've done that ping me and I'll do it for you. Hiding T 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, H. As asked, I made the sandbox title-correction to footnote 2, and removed the Ibids. I took the liberty of adding the New York Times obituary as a reference. No other changes made. Thanks for helping out. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's done. Tenebrae, is it okay to delete the sandbox page now? Hiding T 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks again and as always, and, yes, it's OK by me at least if you want to delete the sandbox page --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)