User talk:J Greb/Archive May 2011

Etrigan the Demon page -Extrenal links
Hey J Greb, I had a concern about a link on the Etrigan the Demon page under External Links. The third link listed there [] -it's called Jason Blood Fan Page, but it's actually just somebody's blog with poetry and opinions. I looked through it and found nothing related to the DC Universe character. This should be deleted from the page but I wanted to reach out and get a second opinion.YuYuNinjaGaiden (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Since the main WikiProject Comics Noticeboard has not been significantly updated since 2009, and since the 2011 merger/move noticeboard is seldom used, I'm asking a few Project members to spread the word that this page exists and that there is a current merge proposal at WikiProject Comics/Notice board/Requested moves/2011. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Iron Man
Sorry about that; my revert was a combination of being too busy and distracted by a bunch of things, and too much work being involved, but I didn't want to leave the damaged parts the way they were. Iron Man had a few people messing with it over the weekend; see the current version's lead paragraph, for example, with the apparent nonsense phrase "affection of the surroundings", and the unexplained removal of the creator information. A few other things got damaged and then fixed, but other than that example, I'm not sure if anything was truly messed up, or just messed with.

Oh, and the IP editor with the hangup about the amusement park rides reverted again... 129.33.19.254 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Iron Man 2
Hi, J. You might want to keep an eye on Iron Man 2. Twice today I've had to revert Easter-egg inserters re: Mjolnir, and I'm wary of 3RR since what with the Thor movie just released this will probably be a recurring issue by editors who haven't read the talk page discussion/consensus. Hope everything's well with you otherwise! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Apocalypse Evolution 2.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Apocalypse Evolution 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Restraint
I just wanted to drop in and say that I feel you have done well in dealing with User:Mr._Simon_Green in not using your Administrative powers to place a block, as your disagreement with the user relates to pages in which you are actively involved with editing. I would like to encourage you to continue to exercise patience and civility in any interactions with him and other users in the future. While I feel Simon does honestly want to help, his editing at present is overly disruptive to you and other editors, and so I have placed a block on his account in order to give him more time to become familiar with Wikipedia. If you have any further needs or concerns please feel free to contact me. Best regards,Evilphoenix Talk 22:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Edit Summaries
1) You've made it abundantly clear that you are unable or unwilling to accept any change to the infobox image. Therefore, you've made the initiation of any debate on the issue useless and unproductive.

2) We've already established that the image of my preference doesn't actually break any of the guidelines, except for your opinion that the "crackle" of lightning somehow disqualifies it as being too "recent" to be of candidacy. We've already debated (and you somewhat agreed) that an action shot of the character running would probably be ideal given that this is his prime action. Regardless, cloture without any real progress always seems to be your goal in a debate on any image issue in the superhero articles that you and I have clashed on.

3) I suspected immediately when the NeoBatFreak image went up that you would not notice the change unless I intervened. This wasn't so much an exercise in "creating a confrontation" as much as it was the exploration of a theory, that has now been confirmed. If you're not going to watch the article's specific image changes when others act and instead only seek to "correct" my alterations to articles, then that may be a hybrid-violation of WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. I'll have to consult with other administrators in order to ascertain the policies that would be permissive of focused and discriminatory edits of an administrator on an editor that is not blatantly vandalizing and attempting to edit in the WP:AGF. --CmdrClow (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Where I've had problems is either A) replacing a stable infobox image that represents the bulk of a characters appearances in comics with one that pushes the current costume variant, or B) replacing an image to fix one deficiency while creating another.
 * At this point the crackle is contentious issue and you know it. Period. If you feel enough time has passed to revisit changing to an image from the last 2 years, there is always, always, the option to raise the issue on the article's talk page instead of being provocative.
 * Between your stated intent/belief and the edit summary you left it looks like you assumed bad faith as well as editing provocatively. Instead of undoing the change to an image broke more while adding less and going to the talk page to broach the contentions topic again, you edited to get a reaction and followed up with what could be seen as a petty snipe.
 * At this point, since you've suggested outside administrative review, I'm placing this up on WP:AN.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I understand that this is your stated intent, but where you claim that debate is always an option, you never really allow a debate to continue until a conversation simply fizzles out with no consensus. Then, you simply say, "Well, no consensus = no movement" and nothing is actually forwarded. You get to say you encourage debate while actively cloturing it.


 * 2) See item one, debate never yields results when you're involved in this particular issue. The so-called "provocative" nature of my edit still proved to me that you actively floated my change while ignoring someone else's, even though they were both similar in nature. If these are equal "offenses," why did you not treat them as such?


 * 3) My assumption wasn't in bad faith, it was in your nature. Your nature was to revert my change, as it has been for a long time and I've suspected you were particularly focused on my edits. Should I not have left a comment there? Maybe not. But even so, that further proves that you are seeking out my edits and reverting them, and as an administrator you should be waving the very banner of WP:AGF and shouldn't resort to such behavior. This wouldn't even be an issue if you had treated me as an editor in equal standing with another that did the same thing, and petty or not, you proved with your actions that you do not critique all edits equally, which I expect of every administrator here. I think the fact that you've responded without addressing the actual intent says a lot.


 * I welcome the findings of other administrators, whatever they may be. If this is permissible behavior then I won't speak of it anymore, but even if it is, I don't believe it should be. I'd hoped you at least respected me slightly more than that. --CmdrClow (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

IP user 76.24.77.138 again.
Hi JGreb, Just a heads up that problem child IP 76.24.77.138 was up to their old tricks again today (5/7/11), removing citation needed templates from Electro (Marvel Comics) and Doctor Octopus. Apparently they didn't learn from the 72hr block you placed on them earlier this week. I repaired the damage and issued a "final warning", not that its likely to do any good. But at least it clears the way for a much longe block next time. I'd recommend a 3-month one at least, but thats not for me to decide. Have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we say sockfarm? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of minor Marvel Comics characters for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of minor Marvel Comics characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of minor Marvel Comics characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Neelix (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Alchemy
While I am not totally against the idea of a list of minor X characters article. When it comes to Flash enemies I would have left the original classic Rogues characters and the characters who have had media adaptations alone. Furthermore that means I would leave Doctor Alchemy stay with having his own individual article. What do you think? Jhenderson 7 7 7  21:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The long and the short? If the article could be more than a growing plot dump I'd agree. The same with Golden Glider, Magenta (comics), Tina McGee, and Rainbow Raider which I'm looking at as later moves. (Though the above may moot that.)
 * A "classic" character isn't guaranteed to be able to support a Wikipedia article. Nor is having an IOM or AV section - especially when that section can be knocked down to, or is already, 1 or 2 lines.
 * The very scary result of this is that a lot of longer articles also fit this situation. Look at the examples we've been using for a FCB in "Good Articles" Is it justifiable to have articles on characters that are 3+ times the length of the FCB of Spider-Man but are 90+% FCB? Once the section is trimmed can retention of the article as an article be justified?
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a work in progress so that means that some articles will be imperfect. And there has been other characters that has used Doctor Alchemy aliases then the character that you just merged him into. Basically none of these Flash villains are really that great of articles and some of them aren't going to get better but that doesn't mean merge that particular one. Just about every original Rogues (with the exception of Golden Glider) that have appeared during the age of the third Flash as well and have had alternate versions/ media adaptations are mainly primary villains of the Flash and DA happens to be one of them. Some times we just need a different pattern on determining which we should merge and not merge, not just how the articles look, and what I already explained is a fair way to determine that. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would probably not be too against it, it's not too much of a loss of information. But I do need to bring up that the section title header of the redirection I am not sure it's appropriate because there has been more than one alias of Doctor Alchemy. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Last I checked current cannon only has Desmond as the only Doctor Alchemy. The "New" one was "The Alchemist" and that name has been used by at least 2 other characters.
 * As for lost of information... at this point it is better to provide the link to the DC Project on Wikia (which is there) rather that defend the indefensible right to get an appearance by appearance fictography of the character. Give the initial and basics and move on. The same is the case for the IOM - and bluntly the costumes appearing as non-talking cameo scene dressing doesn't even get to the point of pointing to Wikia. It's a footnote.
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia shouldn't point to another website. Except it being on a external link section. And even if it did the Wikia has less information than we do half the time. I was just defending that this character doesn't seem to be a minor league character but it's kind of useless stating opinions without proof for now. I would probably better of asking User:Tenebrae or somebody to help in the near future if I am determined enough for it being a individual article. I am assuming you are wanting a publication history in the article for it to suffice so I will see with what I can do. Good luck with whatever you are doing. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * At a minimum. But it's also a case of keeping the in-story sections to a minimum. As for pointing to Wikia... it's a bit of a "damned if we do damned if we don't". Since the list - any list - is going to nutshell the characters, I've very little problem with pointing to where a reader can find more information. Essentially this is embedding the "External links" section with each entry. I'm also have less trouble with linking to a Wikia article if Wikepidia guidelines and policies make an article here unlikely. That is if mentioning the character/topic is warranted in a Wikipedia article. - J Greb (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A word of advice
assume good faith, and don't think it's "pompous" when someone makes a big proposal. its uncivil.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Read a bit closer. "pompous" wasn't applied to the overall proposal but in the reference to an "approved" infobox. And yes, I may have miss read that, sorry if I did. - J Greb (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Image
See also WP:NFC #1 C T J F 8 3  21:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See comment made at image talk page - This is one of the rare instance where a free use photo is not going to be obtainable. - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do you see an exception for "a living person that is unwilling to be photographed or participate in public gatherings related to his profession/source of notability". By that logic we should be able to add thousands of non-free images. C T J F 8 3  22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.
 * Emphasis added with regard to the guideline point. The item is written with the expectation that there are exceptions. One that has been used at times is that the person is a recluse or in some other way shuns public appearances or having a picture taken. This is also in line with WP:MUG:
 * "This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed."
 * Again, emphasis added. If the only method available to get a free use image is to surprise the person, we are not going to get a useable free use image for a BLP. The alternative that is left for the exceptional cases is to use a neutral non-free image if one exists.
 * Now, does this mean every BLP without a pic is exceptional? No. But there are grounds for some of them use non-free images.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's to say it is hard to get a free image of him?...where do we go from here, WP:FFD? C T J F 8 3

A question
It's just out of curiousity, I am a user and spend a lot of time here, but can't always be here. Not an insult but how can you spend all this time here. I find it impossible, I just want to know if you ever go on vacation or something. Wheatmen (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Starfire image
For some reason, the revert of the "Tales of the New Teen Titans" cover revert didn't work, and I couldn't get it to work, either. For that reason, I'm reverting to the version of the article listing Michael Turner as the artist, until we can get the damn thing working right again. Thought I'd let you know before I did it... rdfox 76 (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Interestingly the Java applte picks up the right image. Frustrating... - J Greb (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed. I'll try again tomorrow, and if it still doesn't work right, I'll try asking around AN, given I don't know where else to go for info on this issue...  rdfox 76 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also... look at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/4/44/20110520201551!Talesofthenewteentitans4starfire.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/4/44/20110525235800!Talesofthenewteentitans4starfire.jpg and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Talesofthenewteentitans4starfire.jpg
 * These are by clicking on the File history from bottom to top.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * hrm... the archives are fine, the "most recent" isn't updating though. - J Greb (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

source?
Hey do you know the best way to source (or find a source) information stating that John Byrne revamped the Spider-Man comics but it was then dropped by Marvel Comics and a new version of the Amazing Spider-Man began to be published again. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not off the top of my head... There might be something knocking around on the "Comic Book Urban Legends Reveal" site. - J Greb (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Tenebrae and Boringbob4wk
I am feeling that these user's may be better off with a third opinion from a administrator in their own talk page. Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * J, I rarely ask you directly for help, and since you've been kind enough to respond at the Wiki Etiquette, I hope you don't mind my appealing to you regarding Boring4wk crossing a serious line.


 * I don't believe he has gone to the Wiki Etiquette alert, or cares about it, and now he is slandering me to another editor. See here. You've known me a long time, and the good work I try to do. Now Boring4wk seems to be getting away with slandering me without repercussions or consequences. I implore you your help. Please. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tenebae, check the edit times before you jump like this. The post on GoingBatty predates your opening the Wikiquette thread. - J Greb (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I should have. You're right. I guess I was feeling so battered by that point I neglected to do that basic thing. I'll watch more carefully in the future. And I give you a long-winded but journalistically detailed thank you here for all your work, especially over a holiday weekend. (Also: Is the JoeLoeb post below meant for a different thread? And I thought it was Jeff Loeb for a minute!) --Tenebrae (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

LoD in Smallville
I gave you proof for the LOD in Smallville, so......? (JoeLoeb (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC))
 * No. You didn't. You linked to a "see the villains" clip. The team name is not used at all. Nor is there commentary within the clip.
 * You are evaluating it and editorializing "It must be the LoD", based as best I can tell on your familiarity with the LoD.
 * Now, can you point to "Legion of Doom" being mentioned by name in the show? Or a reliable source - not a blog or fan site - either drawing that conclusion or having the writers or producers say things similr to what came out from Dini/Timm re JLU?
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Catwoman
Is splitting the earth two version of Catwoman really necessary? I don't see it. Jhenderson 7 7 7  21:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. And I'm running short with the constant content forking Wheatman is engaged in. That and the IU focus. - J Greb (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed a few of the excuses that you explained to him. I would probably be even more strict stating that if notability hasn't proved with reliable sources or if it's a subject that would never make it as a good article or featured article if done right then what's the use splitting. All the information seems to be better off the main article. But that's just me. Anyways he's trying I will give it that but it still doesn't look any better as a article. Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

List of minor DC Comics characters
Hey there, just wanted to drop by and ask what criteria you were using to populate this list? And where can I find the discussion where it was decided to turn pages like Shango into redirects? --Xero (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See the lists talk page. - J Greb (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)