User talk:BaronBifford

Mafia move follow-up
You recently participated in a move request of Mafia. Since the final location of the page was not settled, please discuss it at Talk:Mafia (disambiguation) if you care. —  AjaxSmack   02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your thoughtful response at Talk:Superman. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Reign of the Superman
You acted unilaterally without discussion on a subject that was clearly disputed. If you want to propose a move, you are welcome to add to the existing discussion and seek consensus on it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I should have checked the Talk page. It seemed so obvious.BaronBifford (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well done on the Superman article.
I have noticed the discussion between you and Tenebrae the reason I didn't reply to said discussion is because I had nothing to add. But you did a good job at the Superman article, I do appreciate how you are doing your best to improve the article, I'm proud of you for that. And I'm also glad that you and Tanebrae were able to settle things. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Baron. Books haven't arrived yet. They each shipped Dec. 7. Been on deadline a lot, so haven't been on here much. Planning to get back to WIki tonight. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Superman 34 (2014).jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Superman 34 (2014).jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Superboy (Kal-El), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don Cameron. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Superman 34 (2014).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Superman 34 (2014).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically User:BaronBifford/sandbox, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know the rules but I think you can make an exception for my Sandbox because it's a page hidden from public view (or at least not advertised and presented for public consumption). I don't consider my private Sandbox to be a publication.BaronBifford (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Non-free images may not be used in any user sandboxes. See WP:USER. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Kudos
Great work creating Superman ownership disputes! I made two small adjustments for Wikipedia guidelines, but otherwise ... wow! My sincere compliments! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd be more than happy to. Again, wonderful work. I can help on copy-editing and smoothening text — I'm an editor, after all — but otherwise, that was one hell of a job of research and summation! Bravo to you, man! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. There are other places I can try, but I figure this is a good one at which to start. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Baron. I was going to look for another place to post a request for a fresh set of eyes on the copyright-related content, but from what I can tell, you seem to be handling it enormously well. I can find someplace to make another request if you still want; just let me know. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I contacted Joe Sergi, a lawyer and the author of one of the books I'm referencing, via Facebook and he has helped clarify a lot of points (it turns out he made a few mistakes in his book). So I don't need your help anymore. Thanks. BaronBifford (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Keep in mind no editor owns a page, so this has all been a courtesy. I do ask that you reply to my question at Talk:Superman. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That anon IP
I'll ask for page protection. Under his various IP addresses, his edits have been non-constructive and needling. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Superman article
As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know about my reverting Superman to the status quo before your two edits today, for grammatical, syntactical and cite-format issues as noted at your Sandbox. Per WP:BRD, protocol is to discuss the issue on this article's talk page and not edit-war.

Conversely, if you'd like, I am offering to place my tweaked version of your work here &mdash; and again, this version does not change the content of your research, but just the grammar, syntax and cite formatting &mdash; and then further edits can be made from that baseline. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk)


 * I published that in order to draw attention and feedback for it. I expected it to get reverted quickly.  Do you have any critiques beyond grammar and syntax? BaronBifford (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, just grammar, syntax and cite formatting. Like I've been saying, your research is impeccable. The article is very, very lucky to have someone who has done all the work you've done. I've been saying that consistently and I mean it very sincerely. And since I'm a professional journalist-editor, I think that combination could produce something exemplary. What do you think of my suggestion? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Right. I said you are free to edit my Sandbox, so go ahead and do whatever tweaks you like and I will look them over. BaronBifford (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Most of it's done already, so it should just be a few minutes unless my editor calls in the interim. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Okey-doke. I've a got a version at User talk:BaronBifford/sandbox awaiting your comments. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm at work, and am only taking time right now to reply since I was on Wikipedia anyway looking something up, so I'll try to be more detailed later. For now, it's not a matter of that section specifically, but of unilaterally removing an entire, stable section: WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD. We can't have repetitive material in both places, so if you want the other-media stuff under "Publication", then that means you don't want an "In other media" section.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I should delete the In other media section - or, more accurately, move its contents to Publication. The In other media section is under the Culutral Impact section. That doesn't make sense to me.  The franchising of Superman is not a cultural effect. BaronBifford (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Your recent editing history at Superman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aoidh (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

March 12
I'm kind of Superman'd out for awhile. I'll be back to the sandbox in a day or two. I want to concentrate on more citing and real-world quotes for context. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, Baron. I try my best. And sometimes what it really is, is that Project editors can see that a couple of editors are rolling up their sleeves and putting in a lot work, and rather than being "too many cooks who spoil the broth", they stand back and let us do our thing and then, if they want, make their own edits afterward. I like to think that because we're taking our time and being meticulous — me to the point of grammar Nazi! :-)  — that once our final draft is in there, there will be few if any edits. And when you're ready afterward, I think we should submit it again for GA status.


 * I might put in a little work on the draft today, but it won't be much — I work Sundays, and I'm just finishing now, at a little after 8 p.m.... --Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to make the edit to your phrase about Siegel and the love triangle here. I've restored it, though I did do a one-word tweak since the sentence had three "that"s. -- [User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

March 16
Hi, Baron. I've melded our two versions, incorporating discussion comments, into what I believe is middle-ground version that addresses both our concerns. It's in the sandbox under "Third Pass". I'd still like to get a couple more/better citations in there, and we still need to add more real-world quotes other than Siegel's and Carlin's, and I'm sure you'll have tweaks and adjustments as well.

The only major thing I did was re-incorporate the "Supporting characters" into the FCB. The article already has a "Supporting characters" section that includes more, obviously, than Lois and Lana. Reincorporating also was necessary chronologically for the last sentence.

Argento is a good and responsible editor, but his single opinion doesn't represent consensus. I don't know where you got that impression.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Superman
Hi, Baron. I appreciate your note on my talk page. No, haven't lost interest; in fact, I worked on the sandbox on March 19. But as you know I;m a journalist and editor and I had particularly pressing magazine and newspaper deadlines. (The few edits I made involved subjects I was writing about.) I'm don't know what kind of job you have, so I'm not sure you have the same kind of time-sensitive work I do. I'll have some free time later today. Thanks again for the note; it was wonderfully collaborative! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Baron. For a young man, you show a lot of empathy and understanding. I'm writing something about Hilary Swank, so I'm tending to a few things there while doing research; it's my last thing of the day, if nothing breaking pops up, and I'll go back to the sandbox after that. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * RE "And here mentioning press coverage does not provide any insight to the character of Superman." You're talking about the character as if it were a real person. You really don't see how weird that sound? It's a fictional character — it only has significance in relation to the real world. This part of his fictional biography is important in the real world as determined by the massive amount of media coverage. He's not real. None of his "life" matters except insofar as it impacts the general public, and this press coverage is exactly what that means. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In that case, do it in Publication history or Cultural impact, not in Fictional character biography. BaronBifford (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that so goes against Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction. According to your logic, there shouldn't be any real-world press coverage in a fictional character biography. This facet of Superman's fictional biography made national and international news. That is exactly the sort of real-world perspective we're supposed to put into an FCB.


 * I believe you are letting your emotions get in the way of Wikipedia guidelines and MOS. I was concerned about that when you wrote, "I will fight you tooth and nail over this". That's not normal. This is a fictional biography about a fictional character. The press covered this fictional development in depth. That's real-world perspective about this fictional character's biography. And you're getting all emotional and "fighting tooth and nail"? I'm not sure I understand why. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Warning
I'm sorry to sound harsh, but the RfC is over. You can't now make wholesale changes to reflect your personal version. Do that again, and several of the editors who discussed this on the talk page will take you to WP:ANI over your disruptive behavior. Take your issue to the talk page, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, no — the sandbox phase is over. I'm just waiting for admins to do a housekeeping edit and remove the two draft pages. You need to understand: The RfC is over. Editors can make small technical changes or updates to the FCB, but this is the consensus version — for anything more than that, you, like any editor, has to go on the talk page and seek consensus for any major change.


 * You seem intent on being disruptive, which must be what you meant by "fight tooth and nail." The path you are on will likely lead to an admin action, which could involve your being blocked from editing Wikipedia for some length of time or even topic-banned from editing Superman. Please don't force us to do that. And on a personal note, I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly 11 years and over 115,000 edits. I know very well how to write in appropriate tone. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warhammer 40,000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warhammer Fantasy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Foottit
Hello, BaronBifford. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, George Foottit, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want George Foottit to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Daniel kenneth (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk: Superman
I understand you're upset, even though consensus for the point regarding the high school has gone in your direction. So, please let it go with the name-calling and the "piss off." The other editor is correct in that this kind of language is uncivil and only leads to rancor that builds up over time and which does not look good to future editors with whom you'll deal. Having a reputation for being uncivil tends to follow editors, and in the long run works against them. It just is better for everyone and for a non-poisonous atmosphere to state objections calmly and as dispassionately as possible. That's reasonable, right? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Maha
Hi, you seem to be on a crusade to remove the reference to maha in the Mafia articles, despite the fact that there are two independent academic sources to back this up. Indeed, it may be archaic Arabic, since the Arab rulers were kicked off Sicily in the 11th century. Anyway, please refrain from deleting the information, which could be considered as WP:vandalism, and discuss the issue on the Talk page. Thank you ... - DonCalo (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mafia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. '' Despite the debate you keep on deleting information from academic sources. '' DonCalo (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=730554753 your edit] to Lyndon B. Johnson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * and showing off his massive penis to assert dominance over his subordinates.

Hidden text
I know you don't agree with some of my views regarding the Superman article. That said, please do not mock my point on removing sourced content, which has also been raised by others, like you did here and here. At the very least, it's probably not the most appropriate use of hidden text. Thanks. Levdr1 lp /  talk  19:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to September 11 attacks. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This applies equally to Lyndon B. Johnson. The hidden text thing gets old quickly.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson
Please stop adding content to Lyndon B. Johnson that does not have consensus for inclusion. The proper place for discussion is here. Frank &#124;  talk  13:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This and this are exactly the same as what I referred to above. Please stop. Frank  &#124;  talk  14:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your recent additions need consensus; which they do not have at this point in time. Per WP:BRD they need discussion on the talk page. Otherwise, you are only engaging in an WP:EW (edit-war), at this time. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONSENSUS and especially WP:3RR. You're technically already in violation of 3RR; next stop would generally be a block but I'd really rather not go there. This is an encyclopedia; the purpose is to build and improve. Please concentrate on that. Frank &#124;  talk  14:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Superman article (July 2016)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Superman, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The issue of Siegel & Shuster's school has been thoroughly discussed on the talk page, and yet for the second time in three days, you have attempted to make changes to the lead without first revisting the issue. Please discuss the matter first & try to generate consensus rather than forcing through your view unilaterally. Thank you. Levdr1 lp /  talk  17:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Baron, I really, really wish I could get through to you that I respect your research and your work ethic and just wish I could get you to understand how inappropriate your attitude and your editing behavior are. Multiple editors are concerned about this at Talk:Superman. You can't just go and make 34 mostly large edits on an article when multiple other editors have issues with your behavior. You revert things to how you personally want them, despite no consensus to do so, and your deliberate barrage of edits that others have to pick through one by one are exhausting. Please, I beg you, don't force me and other editors to bring you up for administrative action. Please believe me, no one wants to do that to you.


 * All anyone is asking is that you evolve your attitude toward the article and other editors, not make contentious reverts, and discuss any major edits. Because I respect you, I've taken the time to come here and explain all this, and to let you know forthrightly that I've reverted your most recent barrage of edits since many appear to be your reinsertion of things I or other editors have removed. Please: You can't keep doing this. It's not just the insufficient or nonexistent edit summaries. It's the slow-motion edit-warring and the seeming contempt you have for others.


 * I can't speak for them, but I want to work collaboratively with you. I think I proved that when we worked together in the Sandbox some time back, and despite some difficulties managed to make the article better. Please, Baron. Please go to the talk page and work with other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I respect what you have to say, because you at least have contributed to the Superman article. Sometimes you are a hindrance, but you have also been an asset, so I think I can work things out with you, at least. I am sad that you keep pulling in to these this squabble editors who seem to have little interest in comic books, never mind Superman in particular. BaronBifford (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the kind words, and I've expounded on your talk page about my mutual respect combined with other issues. Please, please, I'm asking in all sincerity and hope that you demonstrate some respect for the others who volunteer here. Calling your fellow volunteers "squabble editors" because they disagree with you — surely you can see how this isn't polite, non-antagonistic behavior? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That was a typo :O . I'm sure these guys do good work on other articles. BaronBifford (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Here we go again.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Baron, please, please stop edit-warring to make non-consensus changes. Your actions are bordering on obsessive. If you do it again, as much as it hurts me to do so, I and these other editors will have to take this to ANI and ask for a topic ban to keep you from further disrupting this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * You really should address the issues at the above ANI. Continuing to edit Superman after multiple fellow editors have expressed concern over your edits and your behavior is inviting admin sanctions. It's not proper to run roughshod over other editors by insisting on your unilateral vision of an article. Collaboration is highly valued and I urge you to work with other editors and with admins at the ANI on these issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

3RR
I hate to break it you, but as an admin will notice, you began edit-warring the second you broke WP:BRD, and you've already two edits in. So: Your recent editing history at Superman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Comic Book Infoboxes
Hey I wanted to discuss with you how the relatives section would be very useful and nice to have. I personally love the info boxes on comic book character pages and I am very disappointed when I go to a page that doesn't have one (usually a sign of a barely developed article). Anyways I was wondering if we could discuss a way to make it a reality as it won't be as complicated or over bloated as you think. So what do you say?

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * My instinctive reaction would be to say "No, let's get rid of infoboxes altogether!" Or at least reduce them to the barest essentials: character name, author, first appearance, and current copyright owner. However, nothing has been decided yet.  There is nothing wrong with experimentation.  What I propose it to construct a prototype to see whether or not this idea is actually good, and a good place to start would be a character which I think would cause the most problems (what engineers would call a stress test).  Let's try Cyclops, as you propose - he has an extremely convoluted family tree.  Implement a prototype infobox for Cyclops with all his relatives and let's how bad it can get. If you can think of any other characters with ridiculously complicated family trees, please propose them. If he or any other character breaks the system, we should scrap this idea. BaronBifford (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok I'll do that but, first I'll have to figure out how to make a prototype. Alright lets see how this goes. I think we will be able to experiment and get it just right.

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As Argento Surfer said on the infobox Talk, this is a sort of thing that could get really out of control if other editors are unsatisfied with the listing (the trend on Wikipedia is to add and resist subtracting). I've seen tons of squabbles over Team Affiliations and Powers.  Now you want to add Relatives! BaronBifford (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand that but, I believe there are only a few characters that could run into that problem but, most characters won't have that problem. Also in my experience on Wikipedia its the opposite whenever something unsubstantiated is added it is removed very quickly. Anyways how can I make the prototype? Also you guys see the problem thats good now how can we come up with a set of guidelines/parameters to prevent those problems from occurring?

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of substantiation but importance. Are you going to list Cyclops' every single relative, or just immediate family?  That's where the bickering is going to be.  And that's something we cannot really predict through an experimental infobox.


 * I hate bloated infoboxes when they protrude into the main body of an article. They fuck up an images there. BaronBifford (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah just the immediate ones and I believe optimistically that people will understand that and that the abuse of that section won't occur that often and would be resolved swiftly with common sense if you know what I mean. So what exactly do I need to do to make this a reality?

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "I believe optimistically that people will understand that and that the abuse of that section won't occur that often"
 * Oh, bless you, sweet child. BaronBifford (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I honestly do believe that it won't be as bad as you guys think and the pages that do have the potential for abuse and bloat are the ones already heavily monitored and would be resolved quickly. Also do you think it could be left to the talk pages in those cases since those pages would have very active talk pages anyways? Also what is your final stance on this and is there a potential solution or compromise for this if it were to be added? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm ambivalent, leaning towards opposition. I mean, I think it's OK for you to experiment with a prototype box, but that won't help you predict how to prevent the endless squabbles I foresee over what should go in the list.  And once something gets added to Wikipedia it is typically hard to get it removed, so if this proves to be a bad idea it will not be easy to reverse. I suppose at this point my misgivings mean nothing since you have other supporters.  Go ahead and see what you can do.  All I can promise is that if any infobox gets so bloated that it starts penetrating the main body of the article, I will shrink it down. BaronBifford (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand the misgivings everyone has about it but, is there a way to get past it? It apparently used to be part of the template but, was removed at one point for unknown reason according to one of my supporters and I noticed this because it is still in the code of some pages. Anyways I feel I need at least one or two more supporters to get this approved in a consensus. I will also be monitoring it to make sure that they don't get over bloated or penetrate the article. So what do you say? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Fine, let's see where it goes. BaronBifford (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! Also what does the arrow like think mean up top that got ride of this as a category? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? BaronBifford (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Nevermind it was fixed so where are you currently standing on the topic at hand right now anyways? I think I need 1 or 2 more supporters to get the consensus I need to get this added? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * hey are you still neutral or are you leaning to oppose or support? Where do you stand on it right now? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Baron, Fluffy is citing you as a supporter of this proposal. Could you please confirm that and continue the discussion here so others can see your comments as well? Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * : I never cited him as a supporter. I said I don't think he could be counted on either side yet since he hasn't clearly stated what side he was on as he wishes to see where this goes and is waiting to make his final judgement for when he is ready. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

OWN, again
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This'n'that
Hi, Baron. I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days for health-related reasons; I hope you're well. Of course I'm open to collaborating if you have something specific in mind in a sandbox, as we've done before. If you've started something like that, I'd be glad to contribute.

I think what you characterize my lack of collaborative work is in fact my stepping aside and letting a talented researcher do his or her thing. I follow up by fixing grammar and syntax, and trying to clarify anything I see as vague or confusing points. That's an important thing to do, too, I think. More controversially, apparently, is when I see an edit that seems wrong either for policy/guideline reasons; because it's overdetail that bogs things down and better belongs in, say, the separate Wikipedia article that focuses on that particular thing thing; or because I feel it's unintentionally misleading or factually incorrect.

That's basically the way editing in journalism and publishing works, and having been on both sides of things, as an editor and as a journalist/author, I've almost always found that an editor's outside, objective eye turns out to be correct. I think from the fact that fellow editors seem to agree with me on these things, that perhaps my editorial comments are worth listening to. In any event, a good editor lets a writer write, doesn't put any but the broadest restrictions (in this case the restrictions of Wikipedia policies / guidelines) and then helps rein in the writer when the writer goes off a cliff a little bit. I think it's a mark of how much I respect your work that I try to polish it, and not rewrite it.

Anyway, my health is, I hope, improving, so I'll try to respond to the Superman talk page soon. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Update
After writing the above, I saw that you went and made the same undiscussed edits without consensus that you were trying to make before page-protection. This is exhausting, and you've already helped drive away WarMachineWildThing. I think I'm ready to give up. I've notified that closing admin of your continuing OWN behavior. I would advise not editing or edit-warring until he decides what to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should actual participate more in Talk and address my arguments instead of this knee-jerk reversion and whining. BaronBifford (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John A. Grambling, Jr.


A tag has been placed on John A. Grambling, Jr. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Ramaswar57 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ta
I don't think there is anything I could say that hasn't already been said, so I'll just leave gracefully. I've made a few final edits to my Sandbox. Consider the changes I have prepared there, and copy whatever you see fit to the Superman article. I will turn my energies to other projects that better suit my personality and work ethic. I have no hard feelings. BaronBifford (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your showing class in this exit, I appreciate your extensive research and placing important documents on Scribd, and I'll only add that I'm very, very disappointed in discovering this hidden past of yours and the extensive sockpuppeting. I'll say no more about that. As a last comment, it's only fair that I warn that you, to save us all a lot of trouble, that you have a familiar editing and discussion style, and that I and other editors will be watching the Superman-related articles and other comics articles for any potential sockpuppet return.


 * That said, I'll keep my word and look over the sandbox work. I also think I came up with a solution at the Superman article about "proto-comic book" vs. "comic book," and that is to remove the reference to the Detective Dan comic altogether — it's Humor Publishing doing comics that's the pertinent fact, not any particular comic it published. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Mentioning Detective Dan is important, I think, because Siegel and Shuster decided they could match the quality of the work they saw in it, as opposed to pulp magazines. Look at any scan you can find on the web - some of the art is exquisite.  The Superman story they submitted to Humor was done in book format to emulate Detective Dan, whereas up to then they were doing strips, and when the negotiations fell through they went back to experimenting with the strip format.  Really, I'd sooner ask that you keep "proto-comic book" in the article than remove "Detective Dan".  A semantic quibble is not as bad as removing a key fact.


 * Well, you appreciate the research efforts I've made. The article sure needed it.  Wikipedia articles improve at a glacial pace.  It can take YEARS for a Wikipedia article to reach a level of quality that a graduate student can pump out in a few weeks for his professor.  I know you like to say that Wikipedia does not function on a deadline, that excuse gets abused too much.  I suppose I did not show enough sensitivity for the feelings of other editors, but I did concern myself a lot with the reading experience of Wikipedia's general readership, and thought they deserve better than the sloppy work that characterizes most comic book articles.  Do you notice that article pages don't give readers an opportunity to give feedback?  There is no "rate this article" option or comment section that will allow a reader to quickly say what an article is lacking.  Wikipedians are too distracted by internal politics, and too self-congratulatory (I can't help being self-congratulatory either, with no means of receiving reader feedback).  Giving the general public, which Wikepdians claim to serve, a voice is necessary. I haven't lost anything by being banned. I could write a book or start my own website.  But the general public loses out when it reads inaccurate or poorly-structured articles.


 * This private talk page, of course is not, a worthy forum for this kind of discussion. Just know that I do not resent you on a personal level for getting in my way. You were trying to uphold the rules and traditions of Wikipedia and protect the feelings of other editors, which is not a bad thing.  The issue I have is with the general culture of Wikipedia, which has become too cliquish and sclerotic (disturbingly, you seem to confuse obsession with passion and focus).  But this is the way of all organizations. BaronBifford (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll keep researching the Detective Dan thing and try to find some wording that addresses both our concerns. In the meantime, I think it's probably best to leave what's there since while it may not be as detailed about the panel structure of the comic, the facts are all correct and non-contentious as far as they go. I'll even put your first paragraph above onto the talk page so that other editors can comment.


 * I appreciate your civility. I wish to heavens it had extended to others both in this and in your Kurzon guise, but what's done is done. You did inspire me to push deeper into Superman's background and to buy additional reference books, which I do enjoy doing. I sincerely wish you success in future endeavors. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Detective Dan should be called a comic book because it was a book and it was not a periodical, nor was it a collection of re-printed strips. Comic books as you think of them were actually called comics magazines back in the day (case in point). BaronBifford (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion
Baron, you need to please stop block-evading under various anon IPs. Editors including myself can see right through this, and all you're doing is wasting effort by being reverted. That is, to allude to your post above, obsession and not "passion and focus". If you're mentally or psychologically or emotionally unable to let it go after spurning numerous chances to work well with others and finally being blocked, that lack of control is the mark of obsession. Thats's not healthy for you, not helpful to other editors, and not constructive to Wikipedia. Please take a step back, take a breath, and think about what you're doing. It's not healthy. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Obviously, all of Brussels shares a deep interest in Superman.  Your hurtful words has sent shockwaves through the Collective. Prince Philip is beside himself. BaronBifford (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Y'know, that doesn't make me any less worried about you. I guess it was an attempt at sarcasm, but it just seems like an odd reply. Look, you can Wikimail me if you want to talk offline. I've seen the good work you do, and I also see someone who maybe doesn't need professional help but perhaps just someone to listen to them. I'm here if you you do. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Now you are fighting me on Superman ownership disputes, an article which nobody else has ever taken an interest in and where nobody has fought with me. BaronBifford (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * First, another editor reverted you there before I did, and a third editor has just done so, so it's not just me. Second, you're block-evading. This is about a bigger issue that whether I like your edits, which I do. But Wikipedia is bigger than you and bigger than me, and if we start letting people we like get away with things that other people wouldn't get away with, then we introduce anarchy. One person here, one person there ... and soon it all adds up. You seem like a student of history ... you know what I'm saying has been true in many societies and organizations long before Wikipedia. I think this free, altruistic public encyclopedia is too important not to protect, no matter how I personally feel. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * And students of history are also familiar with how organizations and societies calcify due entrenched old boys who are obsessed with convention and politics, who find all sorts of excuses to explain the weak results they deliver. Every now and then the forest must burn to revitalize the undergrowth.BaronBifford (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox
Why don't you email me a copy of my Sandbox so that I can at least recover all the research I did. There is nine months and hundreds of dollars of work in there. Quite a few notes in the references that I didn't back up on my PC. BaronBifford (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You've banned my IP and at some point you may lock the articles in question, so at least give me the page so that I can complete my notes. I might write my own book. BaronBifford (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Tenebrae promised to review my Sandbox and integrate whatever he felt worthy into the Superman article. Did you delete it just to spite me? You should care more about the content there in. I'm powerless to cause trouble now anyway. BaronBifford (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No, you continue to cause trouble even today. You are sock-puppeting as anon IPs 88.188.39.122, 188.188.37.175 and 108.12.101.46. I'm washing my hands of you. Whatever good you may have done is far outweighed by your hubristic, obsessive, hugely disruptive and time-consuming behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed recently that DrRC made a strange edit to the Superman article. I'm sure he meant well; like you, he spreads his attention across a dozen articles at once so maybe he didn't notice the flaw (and nobody else noticed either). It bugged me so much that I just had to fix it.


 * I think you washed your hands of me a long time ago; you were never very supportive of my work. Have a little empathy for the stress I was put under. All those man-hours, all that money I put into that research, all those phone calls and trips to New York... I was nearly driven to tears myself at several points by the sometimes baffling arguments other editors presented me. So much work, only to be dismissed with a couple of lines, and then treated as a pest when I defend my position. How the fark does anything get done these days on Wikipedia?  Now I am banned with no path to rehabilitation. So be it! What have I left to lose? BaronBifford (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If you don't see how supportive I was of you, then you're worse off than I thought. Regardless, "[T]he stress I was put under. All those man-hours, all that money I put into that research, all those phone calls and trips to New York... " That doesn't sound like obsessiveness to you?


 * And you brought the ban on yourself, by lying to me and others about your identity as a sockpuppet, pretending to be different people to defend your contentious edits. That was dishonorable and wrong.


 * Now you threaten to continue your disruptive behavior under anon IPs, since "What have I left to lose?" I suggested previously you had self-dignity to lose, but that clearly doesn't bother you. At some point, enough of your IPs will be blocked that you can't continue your disruptiveness, and multiple editors will be watching out for new registered editors making suspiciously similar edits. If all you care about now is being disruptive and taking up editors' time purely out of spite, that's your prerogative. But that's a terrible way to behave. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, Tenebrae, I'm sorry for upsetting you and other editors with my behavior. It doesn't matter how good one thinks one's ideas are - if one violates the protocols of the community he works in, he shall be punished and his work will not only be ignored but spited. Both of us had good and bad points. You acted in good faith. The problem is that you and I have incompatible styles. You're the kind of guy who likes to keep the community harmonious and smooth. You go around Wikipedia settling arguments, soothing tempers, and fixing small errors here and there. I am the kind of guy that likes to super-focus on one topic at a time until the article or articles in question reach perfection. I go to the library and stick my nose in books for several hours on end to get all the facts and write essays. I worked at a pace that you and the other editors were not comfortable with. Perhaps some things could have been done to find a middle ground, but we failed each other. BaronBifford (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the understanding words. I'd be happy to come back and discuss this with you more some other time, but I need some time off from this right now. For your part, you should know that continued sockpuppeting will result in further reverts like this one. But I'll tell you what; I'll look over the cited content you wanted to add, and do what I can here and there to incorporate things that meet fellow editors' consensus. I make no promises, and I'm not doing anything right away. But I hate to see good work go to waste. Just, please, don't put any pressure on me. I'll make a good-faith effort and do the best I can, and know that it's going to be slow. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Too slow.  You promise collaboration but you were very slow to deliver on such collaboration.  The same is true for all the other editors I got into arguments with.  They had little appetite for engaging me with the evidence I dug up.  It felt less like collaboration and more like arguing with a committee. I've looked at the user pages of you and a bunch of other editors (and not just ones who work on comics articles).  Most of the awards they list (barnstars, etc.) are for political activities, such as arbitrating disputes and pushing through project-wide reforms.  There are not that many awards for doing research and developing articles.  It's not surprising, really.  Why should other editors be grateful for an article's quality being improved?  Why would one feel happy when an article reaches Featured status when one had only a small contribution to that achievement?  But they feel gratitude when somebody stands up for them in a debate, because that relieves their stress and raises their stature. Such things are necessary in an organization so I'm not singling you out, but I feel that Wikipedia has too many managers and not enough cooks. BaronBifford (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, most of us have full-time jobs and family responsibilities, so if changes go slowly, that's the nature of unpaid volunteerism. And I don't want to get into a prolonged debate with you about my work, but I have created close to 200 longstanding Wikipedia articles on both comics creators and a host of other topics including New York institutions, creative individuals, newspapers, theater items and more. So to tell me I've not done a large amount of research and of developing articles is flat-out untrue. It's possible to do that and still try to get along with others. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, I apologise. I should have looked closer at your history. Peace?

Here are the last edits I would like you to make for the Superman article. Then I'm off to Narnia.

In the paragraph describing the Superman script Siegel showed to Russell Keaton, insert a line mentioning that the Kents named the boy Clark.

Change this line in Creation and conception

"They created Superman's alternate identity of Clark Kent, a journalist who pretended to be timid, as well as his colleague Lois Lane, who was attracted to the bold and mighty Superman but did not realize that he and Clark were the same person."

to

"Clark Kent became a journalist, and he had a colleague at this newspaper named Lois Lane. Lois spurns the mild-mannered Clark and is attracted to the bold and mighty Superman, and does not know that they are the same person."

Change the last paragraph of Creation and Conception to this:

"In March 1938, Siegel and Shuster sold all rights to the character to Detective Comics, Inc. for $130 (the equivalent of $ when adjusted for inflation). It was the company's policy to buy the full rights to the characters it published. By this time, they had resigned themselves that Superman would never be a success, and with this deal they would at least see their character finally published."

In the Influences section, split off the text concerning the inspiration behind Clark Kent into a second paragraph, and change that paragraph to this:

"The persona of Clark Kent was inspired by the slapstick comedian Harold Lloyd. Lloyd wore glasses, and he often played gentle characters who got abused by bullies, but later in the story would snap and fight back furiously. Shuster, who also wore glasses and described himself as "mild-mannered", found Lloyd's characters relatable. Siegel thought giving Clark Kent glasses would be interesting, because at the time no adventure hero in comics wore glasses. Clark Kent is a journalist because Siegel often imagined himself becoming one after leaving school. The love triangle between Clark, Lois, and Superman was inspired by Siegel and Shuster’s own awkwardness with girls."

Add this line to the Bibliogrpahy:

"*"

Finally, roll back the Superman ownership disputes article to this edit by some anonymous chump in Brussels.

That's it from BaronBifford, I guess. BaronBifford (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I promise I will look at all this when I have a bit more time. It may take a few days, and whatever edits I make may not include everything you want. But I give you my word I'll make a good-faith effort. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. BaronBifford (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Working on this.
 * I did not make the change from the sentence beginning "They created Superman's alternate identity of Clark Kent..." to "Clark Kent became a journalist..." since the extant version is phrased in a more real-world way: "They [i.e. Siegel and Shuster] created [such and such]." Also, since this is the first time the name "Clark" is mentioned, the extant version made more sense. I did change the sentence's tense to present tense, as per guidelines on writing about fiction. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * To the last paragraph of Creation and Conception, I added that middle sentence about it being company policy to buy all rights. I did not add the final footnote, which seems conclusory WP:SYNTH. I ask you to not argue with me on this, as I'm already taking time to make edits you want, and nobody can get everything they want, --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Kobler article added to biblio. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The name Clark first appears in the script Siegel sent to Keaton, but Lois does not, so Clark came before Lois. The timid guise came later, when they invented Lois. BaronBifford (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll look for wording and citing, since the extant article isn't clear. No worries.
 * I've split off that Kent section into its own graf, and adjusted it with a combination of your edits and mine. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Done, re: introduction of name Clark Kent, and later introduction of Kent's timid-journalist persona. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I've talked to Ricca, and he admits he can't say for certain that Superman was conceived on June 13, 1933. That's something he inferred through circumstantial evidence. I'd delete the mention of June, just say "The Superman" happened "sometime in 1933". BaronBifford (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

In Influences you should specify that Clark has a romantic subplot (or love triangle) with Lois Lane, not just anybody. BaronBifford (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right re: the addition of the name "Lois Lane," for clarity. I've added it. The Shuster quote supports "romantic subplot" but not specifically a "love triangle."


 * We can't use Ricca's statement here, as it's original research a) that other users, who have only the book to go by, cannot access, and b) while I'm taking your word for it, there's technically no way for anyone to verify that anyone spoke with Ricca and got this response. In any event, based on what we can verify publicly, I've written "In early 1933 or in 1934" with this footnote:


 * "Ricca (2014), p. 92, says, "It was the night of Sunday, June 18, 1933". Siegel says only "early 1933" In Andrae (1983). Other sources, including court records, list the year as 1934."


 * Note that I still need to insert a court-record cite to go in here, but my workday has just started so I'll return to do that later. Also, the illustration of that cover submitted to Humor does not seem to include the date 1933. I've just commented-out that portion of the footnote for now until you can clarify. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is an example. Interestingly, there are several versions of that cover with different dates. Ricca surmises that Siegel and Shuster deceptively tried to make Superman look like an older creation.


 * "Love triangle" is more appropriate, because there isn't any actual romance with Lois (not until the post-Weisinger era). Clark keeps wooing Lois, but she rejects him.  Lois wants Superman, but ironically Superman isn't interested in Lois (in the Silver Age, fighting off her irritating attempts to put a ring on his finger became a running theme).  In the interview with Andrae in Nemo #2, Siegel remarked that many of the great romantic men in history were actually not all that crazy about women (he cites Clark Gable as an example).  Maybe women are drawn to the hard-to-get types, I dunno, but that's the image Siegel wanted to go with.  It may have been Siegel's vicarious way of taunting the girls at school who spurned him ("I'm so awesome but you can't have me").


 * According to this register of copyright entries, Detective Dan was published on May 12, 1933. Siegel and Shuster received their reply from Humor Publishing in August 1933.  So I'd pin the creation of "The Superman" some time between May and August, but the idea for the character itself may have happened earlier. The Superman probably did not strike Siegel like a bolt out of the blue one night.  That was more likely the 1934 version, because Siegel always connected that night with Clark Kent and Lois.  In Andrae (1983) Siegel says "in early 1933". One must take Siegel and Shuster's recollections with a grain of salt. So it's best to say "sometime in 1933". BaronBifford (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Another paragraph that I think should be updated in order to square with the facts as I've come to understand them is the one regarding Humor Publishing and the 1933 comic book. Change it to this:


 * In May 1933, Siegel and Shuster read a comic book titled Detective Dan: Secret Operative No. 48, published by Humor Publishing in Chicago. Detective Dan contained all-original stories instead of reprints of newspaper strips, and since no newspaper syndicate seemed interested in Siegel and Shuster's strips, this publisher presented a new opportunity. They also felt they could match the quality of this book's art. Siegel and Shuster created a comic book titled "The Superman", featuring Siegel's new hero, and showed it to visiting agents of Humor Publishing. Although Humor expressed interest, it later pulled out of the comics business before any book deal could be made.


 * You can leave the bit about the visiting agent from Humor if you wish, though I personally don't care about it because it makes little difference and I have found no details on that meeting (who, when, where, etc.). It may not even have happened.



BaronBifford (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As I had promised, I'm happy to look over your suggestions and try to use whichever ones are workable. Just so you understand, this is an extraordinary gesture I'm making — most editors would no longer even talk to people banned for multiple sock-puppet identities and all the other things brought up at two ANIs. So please understand I'm not going to take time arguing with you when I don't even have to help at all. I will take the time to explain that Siegel's comment about being frustrated at romance only supports why he added a romance element to the comic. It does not support anything as specific as "a love triangle".


 * Your paragraph saying when you'd pin down the creation of "The Superman" is WP:SYNTH and, so, unusable.


 * I'll look over that long paragraph beginning "In May 1933" another time. It's a lot of work to go through long paragraphs and pick out differences and then see if the cites support them. I'll do, since I respect your work, but not this minute. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks.


 * I don't why you're hesitant over "love triangle", since a dictionary definition clearly reflects the relationship between Clark, Lois, and Superman. BaronBifford (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again: Because Siegel's own quote only supports the reason for introducing a romance element in general. Nothing in the quote suggests the source of what he ended up with, a love triangle. All the quote says is that he was unsuccessful at romance and so he wanted a romance element. It could have been any of a number of romance elements. What made him specially choose a love triangle out of all the possibilities? We don't know. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose calling it a love triangle would be an inference but I thought it was plain and clear enough. It's your call, I guess. BaronBifford (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston
Question: why wasn't I given a page-specific block instead of a site-wide block? Like, I should have been blocked from editing the Superman, which is where all my misbehavior was centered. With a page-specific ban, I could have continued making contributions in other parts of Wikipedia, where I would not run into the editors I upset. After all, I'm allowed to contribute to non-English Wikipedias because they're considered "separate projects". How about you let me back on Wikipedia, but you block me specifically from editing the Superman article, or even comic book articles in general? I'm not a vandal. I behaved badly, yes, but it was motivated by an earnest desire to improve Wikipedia in the face of people who did not agree with my vision. That makes me different from the typical troll.BaronBifford (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but do you think my unusual request has a chance? Are there precedents? BaronBifford (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Such a long SPI case as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurzon/Archive suggests to me that checkusers will be skeptical. Over the last year and a half you have wasted the time of a lot of people. They have started using the phrase 'WP:DENY' in the SPI reports which suggests to me you have been written off as a nuisance. It would take a lot to turn this impression around. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They seem to think I'm some sort of troll looking for perverse attention. I'm not. I was just really bull-headed. BaronBifford (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW what do you mean by "wasted the time"? Just how much stress did I cause the admins?  Because I wasn't out to troll anybody. BaronBifford (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh come on! I do great work. I have more energy than most editors here. BaronBifford (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DC Supergirls.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DC Supergirls.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)