User talk:Exvicious/Archive 2007

User talk:Exvicious/Archive 2006

My bad
I was using your template to create an Earth-Two Robin, had both windows open and guess I edited this entry by mistake. My apologies. NetK 17:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Shalias box...
Looks like a very nice addition.

If I could pick one nit though... just for consistency with the other 3 boxes maybe the title should be something like "Superaliasbox"?

J Greb 06:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Rider split
Hi. I saw on the Comics Project Noticeboard a proposal to split up the Ghost Rider article, but no discussion or consensus. Could you point me to where a consensus was reached? Thanks.

Also, the article had a copyright violation in that, apparently, an editor named Fifth Horseman copied the Marvel.com Johnny Blaze bio.

Thanks for any information. --Tenebrae 08:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thanks.


 * I was juggling three different Ghost Rider articles and digging back through histories and Marvel.com bios, so, definitely, I wasn't finessing things &mdash; just trying to shovel as much snow off the driveway as fast as I could! Good working with you &mdash; now let's whip these things into shape! --Tenebrae 03:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Robin Earth-Two
Just an observation, but the original character was not created as "Robin of Earth-Two". The Earth-Two version was created for a specific purpose, then assigned a back-story mirroring the original material. It wasn't a retcon or a revision. — J Greb 03:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that... Just a bit touchy on this set of articles. I want to make sure that they don't see the publication history migrate. — J Greb 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Exvisious, your points have been noted. The link at the top of the Lex and WW articles (which were created as there was no objection raised to Kal-L nor Batman of Earth-Two...so I'm simply following precedent) is simply to state that there is a main article to refer to. There is distinct content in the new articles created, and the WW article can't be reduced in content simply do the nature of the narrative approach on his summary. As to biographical data relating to Robin of Earth-Two, that is the apparent estimation of abilities (and also his status...he is Batman's sidekick and his mentor was deputized hence logic would follow that Robin would have similar status, otherwise he'd be considered an unlicensed vigiliante). I'll look into the alias...I still hold to the fact that his assuming of Batman's costume and identity is different from the Superman/Batman swap, however you raise and interesting point. Netkinetic/T/C/@ 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Robin comic book series article
At the moment, most of the information related to the 3 minis and the ongoing are on the Tim Drake page. I put the Infobox on the "header" page since that is, to me, the most logical place someone would expect it to be. (Entering "Tim Drake" when looking for the "Robin" comic seems counter-intuitive.)

IMO, since the book has effectively 184+ issues (ongoing, all 3 minis, and the annuals) it seems notable enough. But, I'm not positive that the Drake page needs the information split off. You may want to check that page for length first, and play around with what would need to be lifted off and what would be left.

I would also suggest proposing the split on the Drake page first. Everything that' happened over the last month with the E-2 splits makes me think that the hot-button of this type of "Bold" edit should be avoided.

FWIW, if you have a solid grasp on the information related to the book and if the length of the current article warrants, I'd support the move if it is suggested. — J Greb 03:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

namespace vio
I have moved Exvicious/Robin (comics) to User:Exvicious/Robin (comics). -- RHaworth 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lady Styx
Admittedly, I don't much about her myself, outside of her appearances in 52 and what they said about her in Newsarama.

I'll try surfing the internet to see if I can find a better image of her, though. --DrBat 16:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN
WP:OWN springs to mind when make edit summaries like this. That image can be changed at ANYTIME by the consensus of editors. Not saying you ARE engaged in WP:OWN but I'd be a bit more careful with your summaries in future. --Larry laptop 11:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - it's just one of those things that people will point at if there is a problem. BTW I actually agree with you about the image and have re-added it. regards --Larry laptop 11:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Protest
You seem to think that you are an administrator and can ban me - and you also seem to think that I've reverted that page. I heven't; I merely replaced htat image to prevent the topic looking like it was built by a seven-year-old. That picture ruins the look of the whole page, and clashes with the related Articles House of M and Avengers Disassembled, both of which use promotional covers.

I am right. You are wrong.

Deal with it.

Historical/Retcon 1st app. (DC Characters)
Regarding your post on my user page: (1) I'm not an idiot; I can certainly understand what you are saying. (2) Every single time DC has published a "Secret Files" issue or section for one of the "duplicate" characters (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Luthor, etc.), their actual debut has always been listed as their historical first appearance, and the first appearance of that version of the character in current continuity is listed as the current version's first appearance (or "retcon"). Example - SUPERMAN: historical: Action Comics #1; current: Man of Steel #1 (or Superman: Birthright #1, I'm not sure which is most applicable)

BATMAN: historical: Detective Comics #27; current: Batman #401

That what DC does, that makes the most sense logically, and DC is the primary authority on this issue. Now if the Wikipedia Comic Project has a different policy regarding this, that's another issue. But otherwise, all the pages you just mentioned have labelled the appearances incorrectly.

-- 65.215.37.164, 16:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 2¢...
 * While the argument to cite the first appearance of the progenitor character is strong, there is a difference between "current", "retcon", and "version", especially with "First appearance". "First appearance" is the first time a character, or a particular version of it, first saw print. This isn't something that can normally be retconned, save if the character's alter ego is never given (ie, a writer decides that Hero A from Creator 1 is a second identity of the earlier Hero B from Creator 2).
 * Giving the Batman E-2 article another look, I can see the reason to list "Historical: Detective #27". That is the first appearance of the progenitor character. I would argue though, that "This version: JLofA #82" or "Current:" are more appropriate than "Retcon:" since that is the first appearance of the S-2 version of Batman in print. Up to that point the Batman character had just one history.
 * — J Greb 23:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (Cross posted on other editor's and article's talk pages.)

Kal Kent
I'm going to move it to Superman (Kal Kent). Unless he has more than codename. Brian Boru is awesome 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you like it?Brian Boru is awesome 23:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Alias boxes...
Just wondering about this...

I like the 'box, and I think it works very well for pages where all of the characters have their own article. But I think it may be a mistake to use it on pages where one or more of the characters are dealt with on the "communal" page, such as the Ray.

Is there a particular rational for replacing the character 'boxes on these pages?

— J Greb 07:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at it, I can see the value of having both 'boxes on the page in cases like Superboy or Ray (comics).


 * However, I wouldn't go tweeking the Alias 'box too much. As you have it right now it is perfect for overview pages such as Robin (comics). Adding things like "Powers" would rais the question "Why not just use the Hero 'box?". — J Greb 17:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox
Why not just redirect it to your userpage instead, so you can preserve the edit history? &mdash; Deckiller 09:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bartallenflash.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bartallenflash.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Goddamn.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Goddamn.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Civil War (comic book).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Civil War (comic book).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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

move
I have moved Exvicious/Template:Superaliasbox to User:Exvicious/Template:Superaliasbox. -- RHaworth 10:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kate austen (Lost).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kate austen (Lost).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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Skeets
Sure, I'll add it in.--DrBat 19:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

re: title conventions
He's gotten notes regarding the citation guidelines from the Comics Project, as well as the Succession number and the Wiki guidelines for date formatting multiple times on his talk page.

Upshot of his comments when the subject of the citations was on the Project talk page boiled own to he was right, we're wrong, he'll do it his way.

Every now and then I'll check his contribs just to see what he's been up to. I was being polite and just hitting the relevant sections of the edits, but...

— J Greb 03:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fictional character biography
Please stop changing this to Character biography. WikiProject_Comics/exemplars is specifically worded to satisfy Manual of Style (writing about fiction) guidelines. If you want to change the exemplar, then bring it up for discussion before you continue with mass changes. CovenantD 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

AWB
Is there any reason why you requested AWB access even though you are already approved? Also, just a reminder that there is no need to replace a link of the sort REDIRECT with REDIRECT, per the redirect policy. — M ETS 501 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation/Title conventions -- as per Project Guidelines
Chris Griswold brought up a very good point on my talk page. The Project guidelines (link above) are very specific: second and later volumes should be tagged as "vol. n", not "vn". You may need to go through you AWB edits for to day an correct the formatting. — J Greb 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that conflict with the overall MoS, though? I seem to recall that they were in conflict on this, and that Exvicious is really just following the general standard. CovenantD 01:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a conflict? I think I'll forcus on getting rid of (Nst series) stuff first, but I'll use "vol. n" until further notice.--EXV // + @ 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I've found what CovenantD is referring to. The relevant information is here: Naming conventions (comics)
 * The long and the short of it is that "vn", "(nth series)", "(Year series)", and so on are wrong by either standard. Personally, if we are going to use abbreviations in other areas, such as the months for cover dates, then "vol." should be acceptable. Also, I don't like the inference the "volume n" should be italicized. In most cases the volume number, like the issue number, is not part of the title. — J Greb 03:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comics to Comic Book?
Why are you changing all these pages from Comics to Comic book? when and where was that change decided so I can review the reasons, please? thanks. ThuranX 04:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh. Shockingly logical. Thanks. I think that someday, there's probably going to be a mass disambig move series separating comic book and comic book character and so on... I just hope it's no time soon. My watchlist would double, and the amount of idiotic IP vandals putting in things like "is the joker's schlong white, is the thing's dork rocky"... would grow exponentially more. ThuranX 04:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain Marvel
Can you please edit your citation to the 'preferred format', perhaps using the 'cite web' template style? thanks. I'm slowly trying to reformat the citations to the newer style, and it'd help a lot if you could take care of the cite you added. If not, I'll get it in time, LOL. ThuranX 04:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation_templates is what I'm talking about... Thanks. ThuranX 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

re: More on comic references
To be honest I wouldn't propose a change to the ref template.

In general other reference works have two distinct styles for the text and the footnotes. This results in the 'notes being in an academic shorthand. The reference "notes" here seem to follow the same conventions. So, where "Wonder Woman vol. 2, #12 with art and story by George Perez" should be spelled out in the article body for the casual reader, it won't fly in the 'notes.

— J Greb 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you may be missing the point.
 * First, the style for the references need to be consistent across the board, both between the types of references and across articles.
 * Second, the style is to an extent dictated by academic standards.
 * You can creates any template you like, true. But since there is a current template in place, it is likely that a new one will be reverted to standing one when placed in articles. It's also unlikely to gain enough support to replace the standing one.
 * — J Greb 07:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Very true. It would move the "aside" comments to the bottom and make them uniform. It would still leave essential title/issue references in the body, but it would be a start. — J Greb 08:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Jessica Harp - The Wreckers.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jessica Harp - The Wreckers.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Extraordinary Machine 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Zolof.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Zolof.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShadowHalo 02:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Match.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Match.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Bigr Tex  20:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

re: free use
OK, thanks. :) --DrBat 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lex Luthor
Okay, I wasn't aware of that. Don't really know where to go from here either. See what someone else does? Steve block Talk 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * sounds good. Steve block Talk 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Dcp87p.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dcp87p.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Power Girl (Justice Society 8).png
Thanks for uploading Image:Power Girl (Justice Society 8).png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonder Girl
Don't worry about it. It happens. It was a simple fix. :) Artemisboy 14:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sopranos speculation
Some people have trouble explaining the meaning of the final scene in the sopranos, the list is a collaboration of all the interpretations out there to help people form their own since HBO left everyone hanging. Its a legitimate list and i posted it as speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3TTT5 (talk • contribs)