User talk:ChrisGriswold/Archive 4

Offense
hi, i feel offended by the fact u called me a vandal.84.234.110.198 11:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I guess all I can suggest is not vandalizing my user page. Does that help? --Chris Griswold 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Past tense context
I'm not sure if this is exactly you, but in a lot of your tense revised articles you have edited there are real world events that are written in present tense. "Frank Miller retells Batman's origin." This isn't a fictional event. Miller retold the story in 1986 or whatever. Then the plot description goes into present. At least that's my take. Exvicious 21:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agre that real world events should be in past tense; however, sentences like the one you used as an example above are kind of a gray area for some editors, including myself because the writer speaks through the work. If you can point me to reference material that addresses this issue, please do. I would be grateful. --Chris Griswold 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that the example sentence still falls under the same conceit as any other instance of literary present tense: Miller is in the act of telling not when he is writing, but when the reader is reading. That's certainly the approach I'd take when writing criticism: "Melville writes in his introduction," "Fitzgerald tells the reader through allusions," "Shakespeare uses varying meters," "Miller retells Batman's origin."  As long as the action being described is directly part of the text itself, (and not an unrelated external event, set firmly in the past, like an interview) the perspective of our third-person critique retains the immediacey that any other reference to the book would have. ~CS 05:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's how I understood it as well. Thank you, CS42. When it comes to things like "Miller began writing DKR in 1984", it's past tense because it is not related to the text. --Chris Griswold 06:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Miller began writing" is directly related to the text. That's exactly what I'm talking about.  "Miller began writing DKR, in which Batman is blah blah blah.."  Also you changed "Funeral for a friend" follows "The Death of Superman."  The real world defines them as storylines and the event are referred to as different things.


 * Or your edit "The Man of Steel reduces the emphasis Kryptonian heritage." Just to avoid any argument, I would have written it like "In The Man of Steel, Superman comes to place less emphasis on his Kryptonian heritage..."  Man of Steel reduced emphasis as whole to the Superman story, it's not an event in the story.


 * Also, since fictional events aren't referred to by their storyline names, i think the mentioning of storylines in succession should be in past tense, or you could just not mention it. "Funeral For a Friend" followed "The Death of Superman."  Also, I think when you started your whole present tense thing, you just changed the verb tense without looking at the rest of the phrasing.  But that's just my opinion.

Categories
Chris,

The issue regarding including both main & subcategories in the same Article wouldn’t stop nagging me. I communicated with several other editors and they all led me to the same link: Categories

There I found this: "An article should usually not be in both a category and its subcategory… except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio." In the case of cancer, 'Cancer deaths' and 'Death from stomach cancer'.

Therefore, I shall continue to include both categories in the same Article. It just didn’t make good sense not to.

Regards,


 * Michael David 13:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but Mr. Rogers doesn't define stomach cancer deaths. Ohio defines Category:Ohio.--Chris Griswold 22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris,


 * Perhaps I'm being completely dense on this (and that's entirely possible) but please consider this example:


 * Jane Doe dies from breast cancer. She (her Article) is entered into the Category:Deaths from breast cancer, but not in the Category:Cancer deaths. When I click on the Category:Breast cancer, her name is included in the list. But, if I click on the Category:Cancer deaths she is not included. Therefore, the Category:Cancer deaths is incomplete. What I am wanting by adding her name to both Categories is a list of ALL persons who died from breast cancer, and a separate list of ALL persons who died from cancer. Not entering an Article into both Categories makes the Category:Cancer deaths not only misleading but useless.
 * Am I making any sense?
 * Frustrated,
 * Michael David 11:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not incomplete, misleading or useless. "Cancer deaths" still has that article, but it's in a subcategory. Look, your argument is not with me (that's what it seems like at this point), it's with whoever is working on the category guidelines. I and other editors have referred you to the same page and you have chosen to ignore what the page says. Please do not re-add these redundanty categories. --Chris Griswold 12:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris,


 * I have no argument with you. I am just trying to gather some information. Who would be a good person to discuss this issue with?


 * Michael David 12:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd go to the talk page for that guideline. But right now, "Cancer deaths is so full" that "Deaths from stomach cancer" doesn;t even show up. This is why articles have to be migrated (moved) and not copied. --Chris Griswold 12:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jean Grey picture
Most of the changes were to the jagged edges to the hair and to the obvious clone stamping where Wolverine's claws used to be. You can see a side-by-side on my user page... and yes, I did crop it to reduce the large amounts of space around the image. -Vontafeijos 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting help on Alternative rock
I know this is out of your general sphere of interest, but alternative rock, an article I've worked extensively on, is on hold for a Good Article nomination right now until we address some minor points. I've been able to tackle most of the points brought up on the GA nomination discussion on the talk page, but I tend to have trouble copyediting stuff I've written myself. Can you give the page a look? If you have any questions, let me know. WesleyDodds 10:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd be glad to; I won't be able to until tonight, though. --Chris Griswold 10:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

AWB and its penchant for irrelevant edit summaries
See. You might consider configuring your bot tool to abort the edit if the primary intended changes (the ones reflected in the edit summary) do not apply to the page you are working on. Simply changing &#91;&#91;category:... to &#91;&#91;Category:... is not worth an extra line in the page history, especially when the changes are not visible to anyone reading the page, or even to those reading the html source of the page. Moreover, the edit summary is misleading, as no real change was made. — Jul. 23, '06  [18:09] < [ freak]&#124;[ talk] >
 * Oh, thanks for the heads-up. I will correct this. --Chris Griswold 07:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Disagree
o i strongly reject the summary written for x-men 3. it is short, ambiguous and sometimes irrelevant. I have more suitable summaries on previous versions of that page and i wish to revert'em. i'm leaving you this message not to ask for permission or something (lol) just to let you know so that you wouldn't be too surprised.Ex Pluribus Unum 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The current version of the summary came aftwer several discussions about how long, sloppy and detailed the previous version was, and this is the summary included in the article when it achieved "good" status. It is generally accepted that new changes should be brought up on the talk page. --Chris Griswold 15:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Lift in excess"
Thanks for weighing in, Chris! It's always good seeing your tagline. And incidentally, I agree with you completely about the above X3 point. --Tenebrae 17:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice word. I've been disappointed with the amount of work I've been able to put in recently, but I've been interested in organizing or assisting other editors, and I'm finding I don't need to do quite as much because of fine editors such as you. It's also nice to take a step back from Wikipedia, because I have some more pressing real-world concerns. --Chris Griswold 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your rv's
I think you're being unfear with me. Nobody qualified my recent actions as against consesnsus before you did. Those were the 3 very episodes Gillespee sumarized. Prior to that the deal was expand the info in the list page and when it, gets too big, move the info to a subarticle. You're just reverting and calling me things because it was me who did the changes. You have become very subjetive towards me.--T-man, the wise 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you just don't understand, but no one said that you should do that, after over a month of telling you not to. The way you talk to other editors comes across as arrogant, rude, and disrespectful. I'm among very few editors who have tried to be reasonable with you despite your actions: I even suggested the compromise of letting you expand the sections on the main article, but now you're not even doing that. Either do what the consensus says, or move on to another article. --Chris Griswold 06:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Chris, I've stricken a personal attack above. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Steve block Talk 08:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. I apologize. I need to remember how to phrase the things I say. I hope my alteration has made it more appropriate.--Chris Griswold 08:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aye. The thing to remember, and it's hard, I don't get it right all the time, is to comment on the content.  Don't think I'm singling you out here, either, it's just your instance was the easiest to deal with so I dealt with it first. Steve block Talk 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine. I knew I was walking a narrow path in what I was writing; I'm glad you called me on it. I will phrase things more appropriately from now on. --Chris Griswold 09:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Category renaming
Um, did you suggest the renaming of Category:Deaths from leukemia to Category:Leukemia deaths at WP:CFD? That's the standard way of doing these sorts of things in huge impact changes such as this one. I notice you are renaming a couple of other categories too. Wikipedia tries to maintain a standard across the whole category structure, so it is best to go through there first. Apologies if you have, Steve block Talk 08:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, crap. Ugh. I will go do that now. Hopefully, people will be amenable. I assumed that, like re-naming articles, small wording changes were not a big deal. --Chris Griswold 09:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Categories have their own policies guiding them, but at times Wikipedia can be a great bureaucratic nightmare.  I was quite involved in the category discussions for a time last year, so I'm fairly well versed in the ins and outs.  Wikipedia is a vast place, and it's always worth broadening out your bases.  If you're interested in categories it's probably worth keeping an eye on the discussions at WP:CFD to get a feel for current thinking on category naming. Steve block Talk 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Succession Boxes
I'm sorry, but other succession boxes that I found were not italicized. See, for example Christopher Priest.

Moreover, pay attention on the italics within an internal link (like X-Men (vol. 2)): you have to put the italics like X-Men (vol. 2), not X-Men (vol. 2). I'm fixing it. CapPixel 09:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. I went through immediately after to correct those. All comic book series titles are italicized. --Chris Griswold 09:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you help with List of Amalgam Comics characters?
I need some help with it, and no one seems to want to help. I have it at the comics project page already. Here is a link to the Amalgam page:

Basically it just needs general information on the characters. Plus all the merging, deleting, etc.. of the character pages once the list is done. RobJ1981 15:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I meant to get to it but got embroiled in some other things. I will work on it today. --Chris Griswold 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Superboy-Prime's Krypton
I just reread IC7. If that's your reference, where does it say his Krypton was swallowed by the sun, i can't find it. And where does it say there's not kryptonite anywhere that can effect him, he only says this universes kryptonite won't effect him, and then they go into the sun. Exvicious 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

New super mario bros
Im telling the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!some people say this game is too short, and lacks spirit !
 * Cite it. Besides, most Super Mario games are short. Regardless, cite it. And sign your comments, please. --Chris Griswold 05:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bionicles
The articles about the Bionicle series of toys and movies are pretty much entirely in-universe with little secondary analysis or criticism and with huge plot summaries (especially for the movies). Any ideas on how to confront this, or get the regular editors to confront it? I mean, there's a whole Wikiproject dedicated to Legos, so I assume it wouldn't be necessary to do the trimming/editing for them. --Newt ΨΦ 14:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I get uncomfortable editing non-comics articles because I feel that WP conventions are less protected...out there... My guess is that you should approach the Lego project and ask their advice, since it's kind of in their domain. Point them to the guidelines page we use to back up our edits. If you're interested in editing the articles, make sure they know that so it doesn't come across like you're pointing out a deficiency in their project. --Chris Griswold 22:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither am I, out of my domain. My gf's cousin was talking about Bionicles and so I went to the WP page so I could maybe understand what he was saying.  When I got there I found out that they were almost unreadable as they were entirely in-universe and I was unschooled.  I'll see what I can do for the articles without patronizing the editors. --Newt ΨΦ 22:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions
When a name is available for a title or character, we should use that rather than add "(comics)", right? Right now, Thunderbolts redirects to Thunderbolts (comics), and I'm not really sure why that's necessary. --Chris Griswold 20:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's just one extra level of specification that's not really necessary. By the way... did you mean to ask yourself this?  --Newt ΨΦ 22:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was looking up at the stars and being introspective. ...Not really. Now, I'm just wondering if I wrote something crazy on the WP:CMC talk page. And did I put a diaper on the dog? --Chris Griswold 22:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Magneto
I tried. I don't know why I bothered, but I tried editing Magneto (comics) a bit at a time, and my edits were reverted as they were "incorrect" (which I couldn't tell from the way the article was written). User:DrBat commented that they were incorrect both in accordance to the character history and grammatically, and that since the character has a forty year history he should have a long summary. Not saying you need to do anything about it, I responded to him with the links and such that we use to justify the edits, just letting you know what happened when I tried. --Newt ΨΦ 22:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I haven't looked at the page for a long time. If we team up, we can get it into shape. --Chris Griswold 23:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it needs so much work. However, with Bibliography of Magneto we may have a bit easier time of it. --Newt ΨΦ 23:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Spider-Man
Are you really deleting that article?--Brian Boru is awesome 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultimate Venom? yes. The decision was for it to be merged, and no one has gotten around to it yet, so I'm doing it tonight. --Chris Griswold 00:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Your purpose
What do you want? What do you get out of you actions? --T-man, the wise 00:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wolverine (comics)
You done with this one for now? The in-use tag is still up, has been up for 7 hours w/out an edit, and I just realized how much worse this is than Magneto (comics). --Newt ΨΦ 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh man. Sorry, Wikipedia was having problems last night, and I ended up kind of forgetting about it. --Chris Griswold 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Chase Stein
Actually the redirect was created, and then silently reverted three days later. As it is now more than a year since these events it is probably not appropriate to reinstate the redirect. As to the issue that no notice was left, how do you explain this section of the page's talk page? Please take the time to check the facts before making accusations of improper conduct. --Allen3 talk 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have apologized at the talk page. Because of the way I was alerted to this and the fact that someone redirected it within the past day, it was unimaginable to me that your comment was over a year old. Not your fault at all. Sorry about that. I can't imagine why this other user decided to re-instate the redirect. --Chris Griswold 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Doop-bisexual.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Doop-bisexual.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Help with a certain article
Hey Chris, you're more familiar with the workings of wikipedia than myself. Seems we've got some net trolls who keep adding their forum drama to the wizard article. Think there's someway to lock it, or restrict them? I think it's one guy who's only on two IPs, so... Anyway, help would be appreciated as they're starting to make it personal. 71.224.228.244 01:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not Chris, but I'll keep an eye on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Dracula (Marvel character)
Why did you redirect it? It could do with a major revamp with added information (Link 1, Link 2). --SGCommand (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the article already exists. --Chris Griswold 11:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! Revamp!  --Newt ΨΦ 12:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ? --Chris Griswold 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Making redundant article about a vampire... and he said "it could do with a major revamp"... --Newt ΨΦ 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are wise beyond your years. --Chris Griswold 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha, it's the unintentional ones that are always the best. --Newt ΨΦ 13:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

An article on the Marvel Comics version of the Dracula character does not exist. An article on the Tomb of Dracula comic, where he made many appearances, does. It wouldn't be a redundant article. --Dr Archeville 14:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't commenting on the validity of the claims made in this discussion, but rather the humor of the statements in it. In any case, wouldn't WP:CMC naming convention be Dracula (comics) or Dracula (Marvel Comics) instead of Dracula (Marvel Character)? --Newt ΨΦ 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, gotcha.
 * And you are a popular guy ;-) --Dr Archeville 16:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Chris is anyway. I forgot to sign that comment above.  Sorry for the confusion.  --Newt ΨΦ 16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, you're both popular ;-)  --Dr Archeville 18:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OH yeah? YOU'RE POPULAR! --Chris Griswold 21:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

your images
just a friend ly reminder, when scanning copyrighted works, like comics, you must do them in low resoution, otherwise the license tag you applied won't hold and the image may get deleted. I downgraded Image:52-6-rip-hunter-lab.png. This from the part of that says
 * "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of a single panel from a comic strip or an interior page of an individual comic book..."

Remember that fair use is not a license but a defense that allows the use of an iamge, so in order of we using that defense, the requirements (as images being low res) must be met. -- Drini 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thanks for the heads-up. I can edit down any others that I have uploaded. I'll take a look now. --Chris Griswold 02:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Telefact
I am concerned about your request for deletion of the Telefact article. You state that it just isn't significant, but let me ask you: Is something that thousands of people in this area use every day as significant, as, say a Doop translator, or any other of the comic related articles that you and maybe a few of the people in your small clique read and contribute to? I can't imagine what you'd have against Telefact, a service that probably has surpassed Friday Nite Improvs a hundred fold in total usage. We may not have cited sources correctly, and that's something that can be addressed, but a request for deletion in this case seems more personal than anything. -- Jeff Harr 12:23 EST, 4 August 2006
 * No, it certainly is not personal; I use Telefact all the time, and I did so even when I lived in New York City. I also have been friends with a number of employees of Telefact in years past. Whereas Friday Nite Improvs passed the notability standards in its deltion discussion (particularly because I scrambled to find sources for everything), I simply don't think Telefact passes the notability standards for organizations. If you can demonstrate to other editors' satisfaction that it is notable, then I think that's great. At this point, it's out of my hands and in the hands of editors who have no prior knowledge of the subject whatsoever. I wish you luck; if the consensus says that the article should stay, I will certainly be satisfied. --Chris Griswold 04:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)