User talk:DrBat/Archive 2

Trading Cards
Just to let you know that Trading card images are not fairuse. T-1000 19:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
I am not appreciative of the fact that you are being deceptive in order to mold the page how you want it. Three to one is NOT a consensus, and you closed the vote only two days after you put it up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not being deceptive. The vote was for moving the book to the main article, and creating a separate page for the movie. It was suggested that the main article be made a disambig that would link both entries. Since the pre-existing vote was requesting something different, I shut it down. --DrBat 21:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, you're an admin, I forgot. You have the authority to end a vote whenever you want, even though you're a biased party. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Argh. I ended the vote I created because it became irrelevant. The vote was requesting for something different. --DrBat 21:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, Mr. Admin. I know you have the authority to do whatever you want, such as disregard guidelines. So, what, do I have no right to vote on anything? You went ahead and skipped the democratic process in order to mold the article like you want it to be like.

3RR
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. (Violation at One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.) -- Essjay ·  Talk 21:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I was reverting vandalism. Furthermore, I dont see A Link to the Past being blocked. Didnt he break the 3RR rule as well?--DrBat 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Vandalism? So, it's against the guidelines to enjoy democracy? There was no consensus to move the article as you did. Any legitimate Wikipedian would inform you that three to one is not a consensus.
 * And you made a bad faith edit, closing the vote preemtively. More votes could have come in to keep the article as it is, and that fact alone shows you were biased in your closing of it and making the move. I only commited three, and 3RR says you can only make three reverts. You did not revert on your first edit, but you certainly tried to cheat the voting process in order to make the article how you want it to be. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The vote was for a separate matter. The vote was for having the main article featuring the book. Once it was decided to make the main article a disambig page instead, I closed the vote to avoid confusion. Do you understand what I'm saying? --DrBat 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CLOSE IT AFTER TWO DAYS AND ONLY FOUR VOTES. Do you understand ANYTHING of what I'm saying? For Heaven's sake, you are not an admin, nor are you in anything resembling a position allowing you to close a vote, preventing others from adding their opinions. The closing of the debate was not only acting out of bad faith, but you had no right whatsoever to make this decision, especially since you are clearly biased in your preemtive closing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The vote, as it originally stood, requested that the book be moved to the main article, and the movie be given its own. It was suggested that a disambig page be made the main article instead. Seeing as the request for having the book be the main article was no longer valid, I closed it. --DrBat 21:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So, there was no consensus to do this, and you did this without any regard for the opposition to this? If so, thank you, as you have just shown you didn't act with the intent of having the article how Wikipedia wants it, but how you want it. You cited this move is authorized by consensus, and the only consensus on the page is for moving the book article to the main article. So, there is no consensus to move, and you used deception to hide that fact. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are the only person on the page who wants to keep it as it is.
 * Second, the vote was for A SEPARATE MATTER. The vote was TO MAKE THE BOOK ARTICLE THE MAIN ARTICLE. Since it was later decided to make it a disambig article, I deleted the vote (because the only options were to have the book as the main article or the movie as the main article, not to have a disambig linking to both). --DrBat 22:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So, basically, you're saying that I am the only human being on the face of the Earth that will ever object to either making the book the main article or making a disambig the main article. And wasn't it YOU that used the three to one vote to support your case? For Heaven's sake, PAY ATTENTION. Did you notice that you only have 75% of the votes (not the 80% required to reach a consensus)? Or the fact that the 75% is only THREE votes? Or that you closed it after TWO days, which you have no authority to do? Like Essjay said, a consensus can NOT be gathered after four people making a vote in a span of two days. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny Requested moves says its 60%. Hmmm.... And again, I deleted it (and Im the one who made it) because the disambig was not an option in the voting. --DrBat 22:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My bad. Although, would you say you had 100% consensus to move just because only you voted on it? Four people is not enough to claim consensus, especially in the time you allowed the vote to take place. If someone wanted to object to the move, what would you tell them? That the vote is over? You were trying to circumvent the process; there wasn't any consensus to do this move, as a consensus to move constitutes that you have a clear majority percentage, combined with adequate time for people to vote on it, and combined with enough people to say that there's enough people to say that there's a considerable amount of people to make it undisputable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So if no one else came along, we would just have to leave it. And according to you, the whole voting process is wrong because only the editors can vote. --DrBat 23:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:RM> "Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged."

Neither of you is an admin.

Just to but in and point that out :). - SoM 00:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Jean Loring

 * I'm thinking of making a SHB box for Jean Loring. Do you think she should have a Villain box or a Supporting Character box?

SHB (Villain). She started as a supporting character, she's not now. - SoM 01:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Korea Jindo Dog photo
You uploaded Image:Dcp00103-Jindogae-or-Chindo.jpg claiming fair use; however, to make it legit for use on wikipedia, you'll need to read the info about fair use and then make a statement on the image's page about why you think fair use is justified. Personally, I don't think that a dog-breed photo can be justified in most cases. In addition, there's already a Jindo article with a free image on it. I've tagged your uploaded file for probable deletion, FYI. Elf | Talk 01:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I e-mailed the guy, but it was sent back as an error message. Anyway, I didnt know the Chindo/Jindo dog had its own article. Sorry. --DrBat 02:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for trying. You can always check list of dog breeds or Category:Dog breeds to see what's already there. :-) Elf | Talk

Xavier article
What's up with removing the "Xavier and Magneto" image from the article? I returned it because I think his relationship/conflict with Erik is quite an integral part of the character's history that should have at least one visual representation. I know you've added a rejuvenation picture, but I think the thing with Magneto is far more well known and more prominent, and therefore more deserving of an image.

However, I wanted to have a talk about this in order to reach a compromise and avoid a big editing dispute.

--James26 16:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the image quality isnt that good, and it doesnt fit in place within the context of the article. --DrBat 21:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote on moving Lost (2004 television series) to Lost (TV series)
Hi. Just a quick note that we're voting (again) on renaming/moving the Lost (2004 television series) article, this time to the shorter Lost (TV series). As you were a participant in the previous discussion/vote, please register your support or opposition here: Talk:Lost (2004 television series) Thanks! LeFlyman 05:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

X-Men collaboration
Hi. You voted at the Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight for X-Men which has become the current collaboration. Please help to improve it in any way you can. --Steve block talk 10:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Spider-Women
If I'm completely incoherent here, it's because I'm only on the computer at this ungodly hour because I can't sleep.


 * In cases where multiple superheroes have the same name, their articles just have their name. For example, the various Green Lanterns and Robins; the Hal Jordan article is Hal Jordan, not Green Lantern (Hal Jordan). And the Tim Drake article is Tim Drake, not Robin (Tim Drake). Should we do the same for the Spider-Women articles? And should the main article have a minor summary of the characters, like the main articles of Robin and Green Lantern do?

Basically, my opinion is that they should be at Codename (Real Name) when disambiguating between characters with the same codename. If it's the character itself, due to multiple codenames, being disambiguated (e.g., Bart Allen), or they're best known without a codename even if they used one for a brief period, they should just be at Real Name. Saves trouble later on if someone with that name in real life becomes prominent, and it might lead to the elimination of messes like the bloody Starman disambig tags.

And both the pages you link to suffer from the same problem as your Spider-Woman ones did - they have no introduction because they've just been cut out of longer articles fundamentally unchanged.

And depends. I'm minded to think that Spider-Woman should stay a straight disambig - the characters really have no connection bar the codename FTMP. - SoM 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Copyright Problem RE: Image:Josh.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Josh.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:
 * The copyright holder, and
 * The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this:.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:
 * An open content licence
 * Public Domain
 * Fair Use


 * The copyright holder gets the best protection of his work by licencing their work under an open content license like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: cc-by-sa-2.5.  The GNU Free Documentation License is another choice for licencing one's work.  Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag: GFDL.


 * The copyright holder can also release his work into the public domain, see here for images released into the public domain.


 * Images from certain sources are automatically release into the Public Domain. This is true for most governments like the federal United States government. (See   here  for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments)  However not all governments release their work into the public domain, such as the UK government (See herefor images from the UK government).  Non-free licence governments are listed here.


 * Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of Fair Use. To see if this image qualifies and then how to tag it, see Fair use.

For any other sources of for more information see Image copyright tags. Please remember that if you don't tag your images, they will be deleted.


 * P.S. If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them.  Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 20:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That notice was added to the image's description in error. Firstly, the image requires fair use rationale (in other words, justification for why the image is being used on the articles it is being used on). Secondly, it's impossible to claim "fair use" on a copyrighted image without specifying the source and copyright holder of the image. See Fair use for more information. 81.106.65.28 81.106.65.28 Extraordinary Machine 16:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * , Fine just delete it. --DrBat 23:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Monet St. Croix article
Hey, thanks for adding that picture to the article on M. It was much better than the one I had up there, and I'm glad you did. It looks great. THanks a bunch! Elefuntboy 05:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Deathstrike

 * The SHB has the people who wrote her first appearance in Daredevil as her creators, but her character was rapidly changed in subsequent issues. Should the the guy who made her a villain in Alpha Flight, and Chris Claremont (who made her into the 'cyborg woman who wants revenge on Wolverine', which is what she is most known for today) also be noted?

Honestly not sure. Current practice would leave it as it is - but as you say, most of her defining attributes were added later, and I've never been especially happy with the "current practice" in such cases.

Add it. If anyone vehemently disagrees and reverts, at worst it's an opening for more general discussion. - SoM 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian Mckellen image
Hi I have ifded this as there are free images availiable there isn't a fair use argument. Arniep 23:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, if there is a free image availiable there is no fair use argument in the law. If you read the fair use template it says "in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose", see also Fair_use Thanks Arniep 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Ianoscars2.jpg has been listed as a possibly unfree image

 * Hi the image you just uploaded Image:Ianoscars2.jpg is a copyrighted photo, you don't have the right to release it under a free license as you didn't create the image.Image:Ian McKellen.jpg was uploaded by the person who took it who agreed to license it under the GNU Free Documentation License. Arniep 00:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OMACs
Presuming you mean the Pérez IC3 cover, I'd ask if you didn't have a pic that focused on the OMAC(s) rather than Wonder Woman firstly and foremostly :)
 * In your opinion, what would be a better image for the OMACs SHB box; Wonder Woman #221 or Infinite Crisis #3?

Seriously, neither's very good, since neither has OMACs as the focal point. If it had to be one or the other, I'd say WW221 - SoM 22:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll just keep the one it has now. --DrBat 22:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

X-Men image
I keep reverting to the XM174 solicit image for the XM STB image because it's the only readily-available image that has the full X-Men lineup on it since the X-Men: ReLoad lineup shift. It's not ideal (not least since several characters have their back to the "camera" and there's just been another, less drastic, shift), but it's the only option since most group covers only have one of the teams on them and we haven't got a similar (or better) post-DeciMation image yet with Cannonball, a depowered Iceman, no Storm, etc.

And Mystique being blacked out is not only not a problem, it's an advantage - she's not a member of the X-Men, thus showing her in an image being used to illustrate the X-Men as a group is, well, think about it. - SoM 17:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry.
 * Ack, s'okay.


 * There's a cover that shows the current Uncanny team with Cannonball, by Billy Tan, btw. But it only shows the Uncanny team.
 * Yeah, I saw it - but, as you say, it's the UXM team only.


 * The problem is, each book has a different team, so its rare if a cover will have all the teams together.
 * Exactly - as I said, XM174 is the only cover in the past year and a bit to do so, and I haven't seen any interiors with such (the Cable/Deadpool issue I uploaded a pic from before came close, but it was still missing half the X-Men team and a couple of members from each of the others). I'd consider splicing something together, but I have no idea how that would stand fair-use wise, so I'm leaving that for right now.


 * Also, what does watermarked mean? --DrBat 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Digital watermarking :)
 * Specifically here, I'm talking about the MARVEL logo Marvel overlay in the bottom right of all their non-solicit preview images. Using watermarked images on Wikipedia is certainly discouraged, although since the image use policy, Fair use guidelines and copyrights policy don't make specific reference to them, I don't think it's banned. It looks ugly though. - SoM 19:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

(TV)/(Xena)
Uh, no. Look at other character pages, they are never referred to by the media they're most represented in. The only exception are comic character (which is inane, but I digress). They are to be referred to by the title of fiction. Fiction easily transcends media, and thus has higher priority than media. --Apostrophe 00:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben Reilly and Catwoman
I agree! There's really nothing wrong with the images you've uploaded. But the fact is there was nothing wrong with the previous images either.

I think Ben Reilly image should portrait "Ben Reilly". Not Scarlet-Spider ou Spider-Man II, just "Ben Reilly". The article already presented images of Reilly in SS and SM costumes.

And about Catwoman, the image in the Superherobox already shows her in her current outfit. I see no need for a new one. The image showing her crying in a police-lineup in only a cover being presented in the article.

That was my point: you tried to improve articles that did not need it the way you did. So I think it is better to keep the previous version. But as I said before, if this is about to change the article just to please you, go ahead, change it. I was thinking about the community and the article, not about the way the article will please me. Regards, Lesfer &#9742;  19:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's right, the SHB box for Catwoman shows all her costumes. Including the new one. And concerning Ben Reilly, you said yourself: You used an equally image. What for? It doesn't add nothing. It doesn't improve the article. Anyway, I'm not even editing none of both articles anymore. Feel free to edit however you want. It's fine by me. :) Lesfer &#9742;  02:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Main Article
The main article says it is being cancelled, final issue in Feb. '06. Also found a link that says that IF this happens, DC Comics may end up being sued by the Wonder Woman's creator's estate.Martial Law 03:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Source of possible litigation DC Comics may face is:

http://www.acme-superstore.com/viewtopic.phpbb?t=2188&sid874223a454d571f4fcc8c2fcbc9b3108

See a designation on the left called The_Mess. These claims are there. Thought I might bring this to your attention. Someone should send a copy of this link to DC Comics. My server is affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.Martial Law 03:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The original link is on the Wonder Woman Discussion page.Martial Law 03:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC) -- in case this copy is malfunctioning, which it is.Martial Law 03:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Been told it was being retconned.Martial Law 07:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Iceman
Given your current edit war at Dazzler, any particular reason you reverted the box pic @ Iceman (comics) to Iceman's old look? - SoM 12:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between the two Icemans? There's no real significant change. And the one right now looks weird, with his awkward pose and the thing that looks like a red scarf on him.

Click on the zoomed-in version. Besides the "hair" (and the fact that you can see more of him than half his face), he's actually fairly contorted in a way that may suggest deformation.

(oh, and the red thing's the remnant of his hawaiian shirt.)


 * Dazzler's new costume is almost a complete overhaul of the original one; hence the change in images.--DrBat 12:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's based on her second costume - SoM 12:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Dazzler
With regards your dispute concerning the image, please remember the Three-revert rule. Try and build a consensus as to which image to use, and be prepared to compromise. Steve block talk 22:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration hearing (2)
A complaint has been made about you, with a Request for Arbitration:
 * Requests_for_arbitration

FT2 13:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Hi Dr Bat, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Zatanna and have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this is unwarranted, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Dr. Bat, this 65.110.6.40 has been very obnoxious. I'll respond to Virgin as well.

I pulled it once I saw that incident had already been reported. But you argue on talk pages, not in edit summaries. Reread WP:3RR again. - SoM 13:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So the fact that I was reverting libel and vandalism doesnt count?

* sigh*

SoM 16:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) You can't libel a fictional character
 * 2) The edits weren't libellous. Nor were they vandalistic. Most involved the pic, the others were trivial and not discernable.
 * 3) If you're referring to the edit summaries, you can't "revert" an edit summary
 * Re: 3 - They don't look libellous to me. I advise increasing the width of your pelt.

3RR
I don't know if you realize this or not, but Wikipedia has rules about not reverting an article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, which you can read about at WP:3RR. At this point, you've violated that rule. If you revert the article again, I will be forced to block you. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. But edit warring isn't the way to solve a problem, paritcularly when you violate 3RR in the process.  Next time stop reverting and ask for help.  If you revert again, I'll have to block you. Let someone else do it; there were three other people who preferred the other picture. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because someone wasn't there for an earlier consensusbuilding doesn't mean their opinions are discounted; consensus is not forever binding -- new people join, old people fall away. Selina is entitled to his/her opinion about what picture should be used, whether it's voiced a week ago or now.  But that doesn't change consensus; even with Selina's opinion registered, it's still four-to-one (or three-to-one, if you argue to discount the anon vote).  &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I did. I restored the consensus version and Selina reverted my change after I warned her about violating 3RR.  As a result I blocked her for 24 hours.  I'd prefer there be an amicable solution to this -- is there some way to find a picture both sides like? &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though you were reverting to enforce consensus on the page, you still violated 3RR. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I wasn't sure that you were aware of Wikipedia's policies on 3RR.  However, after looking through the 3RR page, it appears that you've been blocked for it before.  Even though you were reverting to enforce the consensus, you still violated 3RR in doing so, and so therefore I must block you as well.  Next time, please get help instead of violating 3RR. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm blocking you for breaking the 3RR, sorry! I'm not as lenient as Katefan0, and I believe the rules should be applied fairly. Once you and Selina come back from your bans, I hope you can sort this out in a more constructive manner. Dan100 (Talk) 19:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just blocked him as well. At the time I wasn't aware that he'd been blocked before.  Cheers! &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Willmcw 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverting
Hi, DrBat. I've put a comment on the Danielle Moonstar talk page. I would appreciate it if we could get some dialogue going here to avoid a revert war. Daniel Davis 00:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)

Reverting Supergirl & Powergirl
Is there a particular reason you are reverting the much newer and nicer image of Supergirl drawn by Michael Turner to that gawd aweful one that Ian Churchill did for SM/BM #19/SG #0???

Also, why are you doing the same thing to Powergirl. This image I loaded is the same except mine has none of the text & logos & a different color scheme???


 * RE Powergirl: The original image I found was the one that was posted for the solictations for the month. The final version (with new color scheme) came out later.  I found the new one on a Yahoo Group for... Powergirl. I will post the link later tonite.


 * RE Supergirl: While Ian Churchill does draw the book & half the covers (Turner does the other) it was Turner who created the visuals of this Supergirl and with all due respect to Ian C (whose art I do like very much) the image you use is atrocious in the context it is used (ala minus Batman, Superman & the rest of the background).

New Wolverine News & Images

 * I wanted you to know that I did not arbitrarily change the Wolverine images. There is new news (see the HOM aftermath tab) and you will see why I thought it merited the new character image. Dstorres

Poison Ivy
Please refrain from edit warring at the above article. It is now on my watch list and I will be blocking any user who violates WP:3RR. It would be better if you and User:Mistress Selina Kyle discussed your difference of opinion on the talk page rather than engage in an edit war. Learning to compromise and when to walk away is all part of being a wikipedia editor. Steve block talk 13:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Magneto's significant stories
I was about to put up those significant stories, until I saw that you beated me to the punch. I just wanted to say thanks and sorry. I know I said I would do it, but my life has just gotten so busy, these past few weeks. - -- LEC20 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Scarlet Spider
A few issues after Ben took Peter's place in jail, since Kaine had stolen all Peter's costumes. Tail end of Mark of Kaine, including the Sinister Seven Spider-Man Unlimited issue; and Web of Spider-Man #125. - SoM 12:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Drewbarrymore.jpg and fair use
Hello, I was wondering if you could explain why using this image in the Drew Barrymore article qualifies as fair use. Thanks! Postdlf 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I ifded it and removed from article as agency photos are generally not OK to use under fair use. Arniep 00:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to add Image:Drewbarrymorerwb.jpg you need to put some critical commentary in the article. Arniep 16:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi any fair use image needs commentary to make it fair use. You just need to say something on the movie, whether it got good or bad reviews etc. Arniep 16:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wicked (comics)
Hey! Thanks for the image. I don't have a scanner, so it was good that you were able to add that. Tullyman 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Your war on Mel Gibson

 * I'm removing that image of Herod from the Passion of the Christ that you put in the Mel Gibson article. As I've already written that article is about Mr. Gibson, not every movie he has been in. If you really think this business over Herod and how you think he's homosexual the movie, then put that in the Passion of the Christ article along with the image. It simply doesn't belong in the Mel Gibson page. And by the way, I asked you this last September: What do you have against Mel Gibson? What did he ever do to you to make you clearly hate him so much, as you've shown with your edits that obviously cast him in a negative light. -- Judson 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Amy 12.jpg
This image is being listed for deletion. --Zachkudrna18@yahoo.com

Image:Fall_out_boy2.jpg
Orphan-Bot keeps leaving messages for me about this image; all I did was revert to a previous version of the image; I never uploaded any version. --DrBat 05:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's messaging you because you're the most recent person on the uploaders list, and it keeps notifying you because you keep removing the notification. I'll see what I can do to keep this from happening in the future. --Carnildo 08:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Aileenchild.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Aileenchild.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sunpyre-Comic01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sunpyre-Comic01.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Man and dog
Though I didn't replace it in the articles, I created a modified image of Image:Man and dog.jpg sans the green eyes. What are your thoughts on it? --DrBat 14:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * that's fine, put it in the article if you like. the dog actually has green eyes, just not that green. Pedant 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dd10.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dd10.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. CLW 12:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Typhoid_Mary46.jpg
I listed this picture for deletion as I replaced it with the actual comic cover Image:TyphoidMary46.JPG and replaced it on both the Daredevil and Typoid Mary pages. As the uploader of the original picture, I wanted to give you the courtesy of knowing. AriGold 18:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :-) AriGold 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Singercc.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Singercc.jpg, has been listed at Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The JPS 20:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Tmoore.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tmoore.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 10:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagged as Fair Use
Greetings. Thank you for uploading Image:Uncanny451.jpg and Image:Uncanny94.jpg These images have been tagged as fair use. Please add a detailed rationale for each use, as described on Image_description_page, as well as the source of the work and copyright

information. Regards, Dethomas 19:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Echo/Ronin
I know it's been a while since you asked this, but I was on WikiBreak.

I seem to recall comments by Bendis that the Ronin costume (and I don't think she's ever been called "Ronin" in-story, has she? Even the panel with her taking the helmet off had her say "They also call me Echo", with the handprint on her face) was only for when she didn't want people to know that they were talking to the Kingpin's adopted daughter or something like that. I'd leave it at Echo for now at least, with that in mind. - SoM 22:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Typhoid Mary image
AriGold has reported you for a 3RR violation on the Typhoid Mary (comics) article. Instead, I'll ask you to give up inserting your image (which IMHO is definitely nicer looking). You've been told by two administrators (Postdlf and Steve block -- and now add me, so that makes three) that it will be easier for Wikipedia to claim fair use of the lower resolution image. And honestly, is this really big enough of a deal that it's worth getting blocked for? I should hope not, so please just let it go. Thanks.  howch e  ng   {chat} 22:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Archive07:
 * One: If these are truly promotional images, then the fair use argument is quite good, actually better than for scanned images of the covers. Such images should be tagged as promotional, however, not as "comic book covers", because they're not. And they must be sourced or they will be deleted.

Still, don't keep reverting right now. - SoM 23:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, Kelly Martin (whom SoM is quoting) is right. However, you have to show proof that the image you found is indeed a promotional image. I went and read some of the threads you cited and that being a forum, there's no authoritative source that says the image was released by Marvel for promotional purposes. Assuming for the sake of argument that you do indeed find one, I would then cite that source on Talk:Typhoid Mary (comics) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics as well as linking to Kelly's statement and seeing if others will agree. Don't just replace the image or you'll end up starting another revert war. Good luck.  howch e  ng   {chat} 06:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you doing to me? Both SoM and I told you not to just stick the image back in. I even asked you to get proof that it's a promotional image and to bring it up for discussion so as not to rock the boat, but then you just went and did it anyway, which just caused AriGold to complain about your behavior again . Forgive me for sounding condescending, but it's like I'm talking to my three-year old daughter. Anyway, I started up the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics so please join in there.  howch e  ng   {chat} 17:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Image names
I noticed you've uploaded Image:2765 400x600.jpg and I thought I should warn you about your mistake. You shouldn't upload images with such names, because they're hard to track and we can't really know what is it about without actually looking at it. We suggest you rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and good editing! Flying Canuck 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * sorry, something went wrong it was Image:2765 400x600.jpg I was talking about.Flying Canuck 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Change
WHy'd you change your own image of Batman?

Reverting my work
I recently made a change to the Reno 911! page, and you deleted it stating 'rv'. It was factual information, and I don't see how it was vandalism.

24.22.166.130 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Image
1) If the mods come out and say that the non comic cover is definitely the better choice. I will stop, you have my word.  Until then, I am going with what we have been told thus far. 2) PLease stop spamming my talk page. Thank you. AriGold 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am being 100% honest when I say I am only doing this because this is what we have been told is the better image. You have ignored that from the very first time your image was deleted.  I have faith in the system here, but none in your judgment.  As I said earlier, if the mods say that they are certain your image is the better one to use, I will stop.  Until then, you are reuploading an image that has been deleted 2 or 3 times and ignoring the advice of 3 or 3 mods.   AriGold 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * STOP SPAMMING MY PAGE, PLEASE! It is clear I received your message and was in the process of responding. AriGold 21:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't grow tired of protecting pages from vandals, as I will continue to do on the Typhoid Mary page, but I do grow tired of listening to your excuses over and over and having to respond to you, so this will be my last response. Once a mod tells us that they think the art alone and not the comic cover is the better image, then I will stop. AriGold 21:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you a vandal? Because almost immediately upon your original image being deleted by mods, you reuplaoded it and reinserted it.  That is vandalism and also why I do not trust you. I am done responding to you, I thought I at least owed you that courtesy. AriGold 22:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You are blocked for 24 hours due to your violation of WP:3RR at Typhoid Mary. I note you have received prior blocks and warnings regarding violation of this policy and also regarding this matter. If you continue to edit war and revert in such a manner a longer block will be imposed. Steve block talk 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Steve block talk 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OMAC
Thanks for taking the low road of editing the redirect! I considered doing that to you, but dismissed it as being unprofessional. Glad to see that my kindness is being justly repaid. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 20:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Chrisclaremontx.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chrisclaremontx.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 21:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good edits
Nice streamlining of the over-wordy Jessica Jones article. Kept the pertinent information in a more condensed ways. Kudos, "doc"! — Tenebrae

Image Tagging for Image:SMichaelClarkeDuncan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SMichaelClarkeDuncan.jpg. 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.

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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Uxm247.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Uxm247.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 06:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Greenl50.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Greenl50.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Drat (Talk) 10:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Lieutenant Dangle
Regarding Reno 911, Dangle was attracted to Suzy Kim. Are you saying Suzy Kim turned out to be a man? - Richardcavell 05:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Nimrodxx.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nimrodxx.jpg. 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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Sonsandaughters.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Sonsandaughters.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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

THanks
You dont need to enhnace the pic, I did actually take the time to look at it, and your version is clearer, which is why I said I would cooperate. I just wanted to contribute something to the page.