User talk:GodzillaWax/Archive 1

Reversion and inappropriate comments
Your incendiary comments (No_personal_attacks) on the Daredevil History page are in violation of Wikistandards, as are your reversions of edits made in good faith. I'm not sure why you call me "pepe", but it's inappropriate regardless. You ask, "Inappropriate tone? Are you serious? What do you do for a living, write algebra textbooks?" I'm surprised that writing for a living should be a matter of denigration in your view. Factual material does not have to be dry; please read any of the articles I've created and see for yourself. Factual material does, however, have to be accurate, objective, written in a neutral point of view (Neutral point of view), a.k.a. NPOV, and in any encyclopedia's case and specifically in Wikipedia's, not use such words such as "currently" or "recently" (Avoid_statements_that_will_date_quickly). Additionally, the writing should be direct and to the point.

We are also not supposed to remove tag templates; this is not your personal article, but all of ours.

I am reporting your behavior to the admin. As a final note, and I understand you may scoff, there's just no downside to being courteous to others. - Tenebrae 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

GodzillaWax attack
A seemingly hotheaded and clearly passionate Daredevil fan is making wholesale reversions, being intemperate on the Histroy page, being personally insulting on my Talk page, and making a large number of what seem to be subjective statements, backed with partial citations if at all, and solipsisms.

Since he's making wholesale changes at a quick rate, not reading the article thoroughly before adding repetitious paragraphs, and since I've take then steps of trying to reason with him and of bringing in an administrator, who said "if the editing gets hot and you can't resolve matters on Talk:Daredevil, please notify me and consider visiting the administrators' noticeboard". I have now taken those recommended steps.

Following is one example of the exchange. It got more heated on the Daredevil history page.

This particular Kirby-credit example is only one example of of my trying to reason with GodzillaWax. He's currently in Daredevil putting in opinions of questionable encyclopedia value, behaving beyond discourteously and well into insultingly. Disregarding the specific Kirby issue below, please look at my tone, and his tone in response, and then see the kinds of changes he's making.

My response on DD page: Kirby
Marvel doesn't give Kirby credit for a lot of things. Everett said Kirby contributed -- including coming up with the idea of the billy club, and the record shows Kirby helped designe the costume, a highly integral part of any character's creation.

I footnoted the source in the first graf. I understand you may have missed seeing it. Here's the quoted source, from someone who spoke personally with both Kirby and Everett:


 * Comics historian and former Kirby assistant Mark Evanier, investigating claims of Kirby's involvement in the creation of both Iron Man and Daredevil, interviewed Kirby and Everett on the subject, years before their deaths, and concluded that, "in both cases, Jack had already drawn the covers of those issues and done some amount of design work. He ... seems to have participated in the design of Daredevil's first costume. ... Everett did tell me that Jack had come up with the idea of Daredevil's billy club. ... Jack, in effect, drew the first page of that first Daredevil story. In the rush to get that seriously late book to press, there wasn't time to complete Page One, so Stan had Sol Brodsky slap together a paste-up that employed Kirby's cover drawing. ... Everett volunteered to me that Jack had "helped him" though he wouldn't — or more likely, couldn't — elaborate on that. He just plain didn't remember it well, and in later years apparently gave others who asked a wide range of answers".

I can see you've been a faithful contributor to the Daredevil entry, going back months. That's a good thing. Sometimes that can make it difficult to accept others edits, even when well-sourced and factual. That's OK. People of all different ages and temperaments work on Wiki, and by and large they make it work. As long as we're all courteous and can back up what we say.

I'm looking forward to more of your work on Daredevil, and I know the more you do, the more interested you'll get in digging into sources. - Tenebrae 18:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

His response, on my Talk page: Lighten Up
First off, you need to calm your nerd rage. Second, in your effort to revise Daredevil, you continually omit facts under the claim that they need sources. Fine. But do a modicum of research on these things to find the source before you remove them completely. You clearly have google at your fingertips, so use it. Third, Kirby is not recognized as a creator of Daredevil. At most he did a sketch on page 1. Marvel does not recognize him as a creator, so neither should wikipedia. Fourth, "style" is not in violation of wiki guidelines. Incoporate some into your work. My dig that you 'must write algebra textbooks for a living' is not a dig at writers. I happen to be one in real life, as shocking as that might be to you. I was suggesting that you are removing any element of readable prose with paint-by-numbers drivel. GodzillaWax 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As required, I'm putting a notice of this on GodzillaWax's page now.

I request he be blocked from the Daredevil page until some sort of resolution can be reached. The page as it is now is extremely fannish, to fancruftian detail in some points. Thanks - Tenebrae 19:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To which I would reiterate, lighten up
The two "insults" that have you enraged are that you a) may be suffering from nerd rage, and b) that your writing isnt good.

I am a nerd. You are a nerd. This is evidenced by the fact that we are arguing over a Daredevil encyclopedia entry. You are enraged. Nerd + rage = nerd rage. I am similarly undergoing nerd rage because your entries to the page are poorly researched and poorly written.

Which leads to my second "insult", that your writing isnt good. This can hardly be any more inflammatory than suggesting my writing has an inappropriate tone.

So Id say the scorecard is about equal right now.

GodzillaWax 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Response
I'm not sure why you keep hurling insults and inflammatory comments, when I have tried to be polite and courteous. There is nothing in what I've written that indicates rage. Sometimes people, when getting defensive, project their own emotions onto others, and that's what may be happening now. The only one of us who has been inflammatory, I'm afraid, is you, so I'm not sure "rage" of any sort is an accurate statement.

I also didn't read anything in your comments about the quality of my writing. Where did you say that? I said your criticism about the writing on the site in general, particularly of eveyrone who came before you -- was subjective. So, oddly, you continue to be insulting and discorurteous, but not even accurately so.

I guess we can keep trading quips until an administrator has a chance to respond to my Dispute Resolution request. Unless you want to play virtual pinochle or something.

One thing you said a couple of posts ago, though, is important enough to look at before I sign off. Please think about this: Just because a corporate entity, with a vested interest in not granting creator credits, says something, that doesn't mean it's true.

Marvel did not credit Steve Ditko as Spider-Man's co-creator for decades, until the first Raimi movie. Joe Simon had to battle Marvel for decades to get credit for co-creating Captain America. In both cases -- and in many that never reach such public scrutiny -- Marvel (and DC, etc.) may say someone is not a creator ... but that doesn't make it a fact.

Do you see why? Seriously. Saying that "Marvel owns the character" has no bearing on who created it. The recent Gerard Jones book on the hsitory of comics, for instance, gives plenty of examples of companies denying creators credits.

I've thought and thougth about your statement that "Marvel does not recognize him as a creator, so neither should wikipedia." That's like saying (as the tobacco companies did for years), that "RJ Reynolds does not not recognize smoking causes cancer, so neither should wikipedia." There's a basic issue here: Corporations can claim anythng they want, but that doesn't make it true. - Tenebrae 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Youre Disagreeing With Yourself
You have yet to produce a credible source that can identify Kirby as a creator of the character. As you have pointed out on numerous occasions, this is an encyclopedia, not a place for conjecture. The universally accepted fact is that Lee and Everett created Daredevil. It is not wiki's job to speculate on whether or not this is 100% true. Youve got your footnote addressing the issue, why is that enough for you?

Which leads to the problems I have with you. Your changes are capricious. You constantly drop fact based statements that are currently unsupported rather than putting any effort into investigating them. This is like going to the Civil War entry and removing a sentence saying "The North won" because there was no credible source. The source is out there. Make an attempt to find it.

Moreover you then inject your own conjecture. Talking about artist changes coming about because of a "kirby run house of ideas" is no more fact than any of the changes you have made.

Lastly, you keep throwing up this 'inappropriate tone' banner and then making changes with worse prose.

If you were making constructive changes, then cheers thats what wiki is for. But you are maliciously changing things and removing facts because they dont suit you. In other words, you are being tyrannical.

To suggest that I should be removed from the page that I helped resurrect is laughable. You call me a fanboy but then refuse to admit any mistakes youre making. I think you should be blocked from this page for an amount of time so that you can cool down and analyse your errors.

GodzillaWax 20:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do bring this up with Administrators, then
If you believe what you say is true, then by all means let an Admin or an arbitrator look at the page and render a third-party view. I urge you to.

Please be accurate: The terms "kirby run house of ideas" and "fanboy" appear nowhere in what I've written.

Please cite your sources. Wikipedia always asks for verifiable statements and citations. Asking others to do that work for you is contrary to the letter and spirit of Wiki.

I think we disagree on the terms "speculation" or "credible source" To me, a footnoted, full quote by a historian who spoke to two primary sources is not speculation, and is credible. I would say that helping design the costume and coming up with the signature weapon (akin to the Batmobile, say, in that it's a transportation device and weapon combined) is worthy of co-creation credit.

I'm afraid I can't begin to even address other of your comments, which are constructed on dubious suppositions.

Again, please bring up with an Administrator any problems you have with me. - Tenebrae 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dont Worry I Have
I have expressed my frustration with you to the admins.

Re: Kirby. Read that source more closely. The author himself comes to the conclusion that nothing can be determined decisively regarding Kirby's creator stats.

I am in the process of compromising between what you wrote and what I wrote. Please have the courtesy to respect my changes as you have not shown to what I have written. GodzillaWax 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw that Kirby and Everett agree Kirby did design work on the costume, and devised the billy club, a major part of the mythos. That part wasn't inconclusive. Everett always said Kirby cotnributed -- the only thing inconclusive was how much. -- Tenebrae 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Thanks for the notification. I did see the one image of DD7 not showing up, even though it's fine on the Wally Wood page. I did clear my cache last night, but that didn't help, so I put in a bug report at 20:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC).

The issue 1, page 1, image that's not showing up: I didn't put it in, so I don't know anything about  it other than that it was showing up fine before. I can try and track down the original uploader on the History page and ask him or her to re-upload.

Seriously, thanks for the collaborative note. - Tenebrae 21:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Need to post your Admin note on my talk page
Per Requests for arbitration


 * "You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint."

I respectfully ask you to do so, as I properly did on your talk page.

Incidentally, rereading your first picture post, you make the unsubstantiated allegation, "You seem to have broken a number of picture links on the Daredevil entry." Since one of exactly two pictures that weren't showing up I had nothing to do with, and since neither you nor I know why the Daredevil #7 image isn't showing up, your accusation, with no evidence, is unwarranted and yet another attack. Please don't accuse people when you don't have facts at hand. - Tenebrae 22:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My amended Admin request
Copy-paste of ==GodzillaWax still at it== at Administrators' noticeboard

He is now making an unwarranted accusation that I "seem to have broken a number of picture links on the Daredevil entry." He has no factual basis for saying this -- one picture I inserted doesn't show up, though it shows up fine in another article, so I put in a big report. That's not "a number of picture links", and no one knows why it doesn't work.

If you read his posts on the Daredevil Talk and History pages and on my Talk page, you will see him hurl a number of insulting, inflammatory, and often plain untrue remarks, while I have -- and read for yourself -- refrained from doing likewise back.

In addition to his unsubstantiated allegations, he says he reported me to an Adminsistrator. That's fine. But when I did so, I adhered to the Requests for arbitration's statment, "You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint", and User:GodzillaWax did not.

I have been one Wikipedia's most credible comic-book editors, giving the sorts of proper and confirmable footnotes and source citations Wiki asks for, for nearly 50 neglected comics creators, including the Golden Age likes of Lou Fine and Syd Shores, and important Silver Age creators like Gary Friedrich and Dick Dillin, among the many that were amazingly missing. I've written deep historical pieces on the 1930s likes of Fiction House and Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson -- two creators of the form -- that certainly belong in any encyclopedia's comic-book. Please go to User:Tenebrae, click into some of the things I've written, and please ... let me know if it's right to have someone who doesn't follow the rules, doesn't properly source things, and does wholesale reversions with snide comments on top of them, be able to insult me, accuse me unfairly, flame me and God know what else. Please help me. - Tenebrae 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop the Denigration

 * Noticed the further character assassination on Sangos page from you. I would encourage you to copy such things into my user page so as not to have the reputation of someone who Pearl Harbors others.

I think you meant your Talk page, not your User page. In any event, I respectfully suggest you not make accustations about Pearl Harboring when I've abided by Wikikette rules and have done everything openly. I didn't accuse YOU of this very thing when you wrote about me on Sango's page. Please accept this information in the spirit of communtiy: All you have to do is check Sango's "Watch this page" box. Everything I've done has been aboveboard. Any more threats against my reputation will be dealt with with the Admins. - Tenebrae 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't threaten me
Take stock of yourself and of the comments you make to people. We've all seen the insults you throw on the History page, fulminating about the "Virgin Brigade" and the "awesomeification" of your edits. Seriously, I'm asking respectfully and calmly for two answers, and I'm hoping, to use your own phrase, you're man enough to give them. The two questions are: Why do you think you have the right to insult people and call them names, or to characterize your attempts at editing with such self-aggrandiing and non-informative descriptions? -- Tenebrae 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrae situation
There are some comments relating to the above situation at the bottom Talk:Daredevil. I would be extremely grateful if you read them. Thanks in advance, --Jamdav86 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure, judging from the order of entries, that Jamdav86 means the olive-branch thing, rather than NPOV thing. - Tenebrae 20:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mk1_dd.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mk1_dd.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 on Wikipedia 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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)