User talk:J Greb/Archive Sep 2008

categories
You commented in the original discussion regarding these categories so I think it's only fair to let you know they've been re-listed as I'd like them recreated. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_30. Hiding T 08:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox comics character
Could you clarify something? Based on the sytax, would every (or most every) page with this box categorise the page to Category:Fictional characters in comics? - jc37 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The structure is such that the default for both Infobox comics character and Infobox comics set index was Category:Comics characters, which changed over to Fictional characters in comics. It's to allow an editor to add the 'box, but not necessarily know where the article should sort to. Infobox comics set index actually has the full docs for it, which still need to be ported over to Infobox comics character.
 * Similarly, Infobox Asian comic series and Infobox comic book title default to Category:Comic book titles; Infobox comics location to Category:Comics locations; and Infobox comics elements to Category:Comics objects. These are the cats that will have changed at this point.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, all but the "titles" one changed to "Fictional x in comics", so those should be easy enough to change? (And please do, since you're the expert : )
 * As for titles, perhaps that should just be removed? Unless there is a way to sub-cat under Category:Comics by company? - jc37 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * By and large, the templates themselves were updated - Kbdank71 got most of them - it was the docs subpages that were missed.
 * As for titles 'boxes, they're defaulting to Category:Comics publications. And there are a few reasons for that:
 * It is the base category for both "by country" and "by company". If an editor is unsure about the company or country, this is where an article on a publication should wind up. By all rights it's contents should be reviewed periodically to migrate articles to the right sub(s).
 * "Company" isn't an automatic default. Some titles, when the article is written, either won't have an obvious "Company" or would be in a 1 article category. Some thing like Category:Eclipse Comics can be justified with only one article, but Category:'s Vanity Press titles isn't. In such cases the default would be "Country", something that also may not be clear cut.
 * There is a way to force the "Publisher" field to set, or be set by, the initial category field, but that becomes messy. First there's setting up the 'box to accept an override field. This is needed for title like Doom Patrol or Blue Beetle, cases where the title has migrated through 2 or more publishers and/or imprints. And the Asian 'box would use it exclusively given the convention of using flags with that one. Then there's the consistency between category and article titles. For "Publisher" to work that way, the articles and the categories would have to call the company the same thing. Remember, the convention right now is to link the publisher's name in the 'box to that article, so it would have to be  linking to the article  and Category: titles. Redirects may work, but only until we hit a case where " (dab)" cannot be avoided.
 * Lastly, and a bit to the side, there was a discussion about prioritizing and/or including "by Company" and "by Country". Just a short example... Action Comics would fit under "DC Comics titles" and "American comics titles", but would only be catted under "DC". The hash-out was that "DC" would be a sub under "Title by publisher" - naturally - and "American comics titles" since DC is, essentially, an American company and all of its titles would be published in the US.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move discussion that may be of interest
I'm leaving you this note because of your extensive work with many of the Fictional foo categories. I have initiated a request here to move Fictional film to Fiction film and I believe your input would be valuable. Otto4711 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IvyVI.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:IvyVI.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Category question...
Just wondering... but is there a reason for both Category:Comics genres and Category:Comics by genre?

Is is it just a case of the "merge to" hasn't been proposed/finished yet?

- J Greb (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One is a parent cat of subcats which have comics titles as members (comics by genre), and the other is a grouping of articles describing comics genres. The same applies to Category:Comics by type, and Category:Comics types. In other words, one is a cat of publications, the other is a cat of terminology. - jc37 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. However... at least 8 of the subs in Comics genres look like they should have migrated with the other 19.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. (Now that you mention it, I seem to recall having discussed this with someone else recently too.) - jc37 00:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged. - jc37 00:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - J Greb (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments about my defense over keeping the "Batman's career timeline" article

 * Comment That's not a good comparison to ask people to make... a bullet point, cruftfest, in-universe POV list and a fairly well written, prose piece that is grounded with real world context. That's without looking at the footnotes (minimal 'notes as opposed to "mini-articles") and reference (some but more needed vs "There are some there?"). And then there's the 44 external links... - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And on that note... Delete. Yes, "History of Superman" is a good example of how an article for the publication, licensing, and merchandising history of a long running comic book character. But what here now isn't that type of article, and it doesn't look like it will become that type of article. - J Greb (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Still, a "career timeline" registers as a source of history and relevance. Except for the Batman article, it focuses strictly on the comics/publication from 1939 through the present. And another thing, how exactly is this a POV list? The primary source was from "The Ultimate Batman Guide". Besides, how else is a timeline supposed to look light other than anything resembling a "bullet point, cruftfest"!? TMC1982 (talk) 7:47 p.m., 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheBatmanRiddler.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TheBatmanRiddler.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises
Dear J Greb...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page.) @ 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The Powerpuff Girls
Someone removed the images claiming something about a lack of rationale. I started to leave a message on the talk page of one of the uploaders, but then I realised I wasn't sure what to ask for. Help please? : ) - jc37 03:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Powerpuff Girls


 * Looking at it...
 * RPoD has a very solid reason for removing them... a few actually:
 * The FURs that are there include the "in conjunction with critical commentary" verbiage. The use in the article lacks that — they're simply for identifying one cover of the DVD releases to a list of what is on that DVD.
 * As used, they create a gallery of the DVD covers. We aren't allowed to use non-free image in galleries.
 * Any greater understanding of the topic they provide winds up being minimal and redundant.
 * To be honest, this is a very good example of why images and tabled/simple bulleted lists don't mix. If there isn't something of substance in the text, the image doesn't have a solid fair use rationale for inclusion. And even then, if there's a larger or more generic image, the individual ones become redundant. (For example List of The Batman villains had screencaps of most of the characters along with the 1 or 2 paragraph description and synopsis. To a fair degree this covered having a few dozen images since they were each tied to a fair chunk of text. But the article also had a panorama image at the top including most of the characters and most of the characters had the same, or similar image in the "In other media" section of their main articles. Editors stripped out the individual image as "redundant", and even with the removal of the images from the main articles, like the Joker, still say the initial image is "enough".)
 * The best suggestion I can make is to see if the DVD section, and the tables, can be expanded to the point where the use of the covers can be justified.
 * - J Greb (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification.
 * Based on the above, I think I'll just revert myself, restoring their removal. (That looks so odd in the same sentence: revert/restore/removal : ) - jc37 06:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Justice league.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Justice league.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Smallville justice.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Smallville justice.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JLA1 turner.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:JLA1 turner.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JLA1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:JLA1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gus lewis21.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Gus lewis21.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure of Image:Lt Clayton.JPG at Deletion review
As a partipant in the IFD, closed as keep, you may be interested to know that it is now at DRV and I invite your comments. Justin talk 09:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Infinity Inc v2 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Infinity Inc v2 1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jadedeath.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jadedeath.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Need for extra eyes
With Kristin Wells‎

Last time I had this same situation with Qilinmon I wound getting the back handed smack for edit warring from AN3. I really don't feel like getting that again, and I really am sick of the "Fuck you, I'm right, my edit stand, discussion and consensus not needed" attitude.

- J Greb (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked over the edit history, and it seems to me that discussion is needed at this point per WP:BRD. So I reverted back to before the edit reversions began. If this continues, either the page will be protected, or someone will be blocked, whichever is more appropriate, depending on the situation. - jc37 00:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (sigh) Please take a look at the image file now. - J Greb (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Justice pre 07 lg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Justice pre 07 lg.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem?
Wikipedia clearly states that a entry's picture is preferably forcused on THE SUBJECT, don't use a magazine cover with a rose on it for the Rose article (because the article is about rose's not the magazine) when a photo of a rose will do etc. You had no reason to revert a perfectly logical and more acceptable image..the fact is you clearly do not like me and see some personal attack where there is none..you even got your friend to revert my edits to get around 3RR..very childish. One would think after the whole psylocke debacle you would be more level headed..but instead you accuse me of having a "f--k you attitude and never tried to fully explain why you reverted an edit that if anyone else had made you wouldn't have bothered. The pic in question (which I uploaded by the way) was never a good SHB pic, it focuses far to much on Superman, I finally find my copy of DC Comics presents 4, remvoe the background, and make a good faith edit and you take it personally. Grow up. Qilinmon (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you decided to ignore/avoid discussion.
 * Someone stuck there head up and said "Hold on a sec, that doesn't make sense." Instead of discussing it, you flipped your change back in and gave a one line walk-away in the discussion.
 * We've done this dance before with Psylocke, where you standing response was "I don't need to take this to the talk page." Once bitten, twice shy. And yes, that does come off as a "Fuck the discussion" attitude. And over loading your new version to avoid the edit protection of the article reeks of the same.
 * "Level headed" would be to engage on the talk page and sell the change. Some thing that is more likely to happen without insisting the change stay in place for the discussion. In your words "to "grow up" and work with others. As for Jc, yes, he's an admin I've worked and talked with on other things, but he's also some one that I find objective — he's just as likely to smack me upside the head for screwing up when it happens.
 * Oh... and with the rose example... you are aware that the text would lend itself to arguing that, for a fictional character, the whole page/panel be used. No cropping, no whiting out. And even then it still falls to "This is an example of a comics panel/page.". - J Greb (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

1st, the comic cover you used isn't the subject of the article (if anything it would bests used in the DC Comics Presents article, which makes it a poor example for a primary image. 2nd, I have made several attempts to discuss it, and you have yet to give me a decent reason to keep the old image I UPLOADED, and you clearly are not going to listen and are only reverting the image and even demanding a discussion, becuase you are still clearly mad over the whole Psylocke thing in which my image was kept and you are just trying to make sure you get your way this time. Virtually every comic book article on this site uses a single image of the article's subject with nothing behind them, because a subjects image should be about them (in the old image superman is twice the size of Kristin). And you know this, and if anybody else were to have made that edit you would not be doing this edit warring

and wikipedia clearly states in Non-free content Images


 * Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

1. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).


 * Unacceptable use

8.A magazine cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover does not have its own article, it may be appropriate

DC Comics Presents has it own article, and is not the subject of the article, the old pic is unacceptable to use here Qilinmon (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, if you had bothered to post that and waited for a response, I wouldn't be torked off. You didn't and you still aren't. Your plowing ahead without a whit of care. You see yourself as right and without the need for discussion.
 * I'm sorry to break this to you but you needed to convince others, not the other way round.
 * Now, there is a problem with the content guideline you're citing: none of the examples cover "characters that are works of fiction". I'd like a little more clarity on that... Or I would have if you would have deigned given me the opportunity to go ask instead of insisting on getting you new image into the article.
 * Oh.. and by the way... If you are going to insist on over loading the shopped image over the cover file, fix the FUR since it's now invalid. - J Greb (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
User:Qilinmon has been blocked for edit-warring and attempting to use technical means to bypass a page protection.

That said, I'm going to leave a post at WP:AN/I, asking for advice concerning this situation.

Should you (J Greb) have reverted him, and if not, should you receive a warning, or is further sanction warranted.

I'm not exactly positive. Since on one hand, you were attempting to "restore" to the protected version (undue his action), but on the other, you're involved, so perhaps it might have been more appropriate to get someone else to "revert", or at least to comment (as you have done previously - and I note that you left a comment for me above, which I have only just now seen).

Also, as this is reversion of uploads (and involves licensing), I'm less than sure of what is appropriate concerning tht as well.

Hence leaving a note at WP:AN/I for transparency reasons, and to get further insight.

One thing seems clear: you in no way used any "tools" during all of this, so no question of "abuse" there. So this is just a question of being "just-another-editor".

I invite you to comment there yourself. - jc37 07:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: - User:Qilinmon has been indefinitely blocked, and a sock puppet (User:NeoCoronis) was apparently discovered as well.

See WP:AN/I and User_talk:FisherQueen and the page history of User talk:Qilinmon for further information. - jc37 22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that... and the AN/I thread.
 * The AN/I thread has me wondering though. It almost reads as any action by an originally uninvolved editor/admin can be seen as "becoming involved". If you reversion to a "wrong version" prior to the "kick off point" is advocating, then wouldn't locking the page at what ever the "current version" is be the same? I'm also not sure that (locking at "current") would be the best way to move the article forward. My understanding is that a contentious edit needs to be justified, not the removal of such an edit. Not the other way round. And frankly, there's little incentive for an editor making a contested change to engage if the default is going to be their version once the page is protected, it would boil down to "Prove me wrong or mine stays."
 * As for Qilinmon's reaction... the only thing I can think of is WTF, and even that falls short. The sad thing is, that if I'd had the time this morning, I would have left a note for you re the original block. I understand why you did it, but I wasn't 100% happy with it. A discussion has started on the article page and the NFC talk that I would have though Q would have chipped in on, and I would have liked to have seen his thoughts there. That was before the diatribe though. Now though...
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the previous discussion is somewhat moot...
 * To clarify...
 * I posted to AN/I for transparency. It looked to me that there was a potential for drama here (from several directions) that I presume none of us would have liked to see.
 * And I felt/feel that you have the strength of character to handle the potential "nail-biting" on the short term, as well as to accept a discussion of your edits/actions. (Which, as I read the above, I feel I was justified in that belief.)
 * Seemed better than to presume that everything was "self-evident".
 * And also for transparency because I do tend to look to you for advice concerning images. and since that resource (in this case) was temporarily denied me. (Especially concerning the uploads/image page. I finally decided to just revert his last reversion (per The Wrong Version, but I'm still not sure about what was/would be most appropriate in that situation.)


 * "My understanding is that a contentious edit needs to be justified, not the removal of such an edit." - Yes, per WP:BRD.
 * As for the block, that was egregious, he was irrepentant and consistantly edit warring. And there's a fairly long history of heavy blocks for that. (1 week was light - my experience is that it's typically indef right away - but I still was hoping for the possibility of further discussion eventually.)
 * And yes, B's comments (presuming that's what you're talking about) didn't make sense to me either.
 * Obviously, further comment welcome. - jc37 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's B's position I'm having trouble with. I'm tempted to post a question along the lines of "Is a page protection in an edit war, potential or ongoing, to foster discussion or pick a 'winner'?" It's really not a nice question, especially since most of the situations will be between version "A" and "B", not version "B" and "C" which are both based on "A".
 * Images are a bit easier — especially if it's a choice between two. Create a stock "yellow tape" image noting that the image is currently down to to content concerns. Then add a tag to the images that will actually prevent admins and bots from deleting them. That creates neutral ground that requires both sides to talk. - J Greb (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, he just accused me of... Well, I'll let you read it.


 * Anyway, as for your latter paragraph, as you know, I've actually removed images from an article in similar situations. (And had I realised at the time that Q was the uploader of both images, I probably would have in this case as well.) But I merely did the revert to prior to the contention, as is (AFAIK) fairly standard practice. - jc37 23:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:SuperwomanKW.jpg
Thanks for the update on Image:SuperwomanKW.jpg. For some odd reason when I did the delete of the other image I wasn't able to see the prior revisions of either of the images, hence my confusion on their being identical. Looks like everything has settled down there now! SkierRMH ( talk ) 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, surprisingly I wasn't able to see any of the prior revisions - just showed up as one upload per image! Perchance a glitch in their working out the details on the thumbnails - which as you pointed out aren't 100% working as of yet :(  Either way, it looks like it's been resolved!  SkierRMH  ( talk ) 22:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Image rationales and a suggestion
You may want to check image sizes when adding rationales to image pages. The rationale you added stated it is 250px, when it is not.--Rockfang (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Catwoman-ninelives-tpb.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Catwoman-ninelives-tpb.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spidermanep5.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spidermanep5.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All-Star Bats
Sorry about that. I contacted the store in Times Square, NY, and asked them if the books were sold before the recall, and they said that they were not. I guess that didn't apply to all stores. My bad. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What's "LCS"? (I'm guessing that "CS" is comics sellers?) Nightscream (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dormmspider.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dormmspider.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox sort
I updated the Henry Pym infobox and added "sortkey=Pym, Henry" but someone has added the defaultsort back in because it appears the sortkey only works for those automatically generated categories. I had been removing defaultsorts based on this from the comic title infobox: " sortkey is the title by which the article will be sorted in the categories placed by the template. This sorting will default to and will override  listings in the article. " This suggested to me at least, that it automatically generated the equivalent of a defaultsort for the whole page and all its categories. Have I got the wrong end of the stick? (Emperor (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Slightly... the Categories added by the infobox templates will ignore . They are set to use whatever is in the "sort" field or  (and even that looks like it has problems) as a piped sorting key. Reason being is two, First, I've been told that  works best when inserted immediately before the collection of categories, so one that is buried in the template may not read for the cats from the article page. Second is to reduce potential confusion/contradiction. If you take an article like Flash Gordon (and I'm going to over simplify) where some of the cats refer to the character and other to the strip, the system has to be flexible enough to allow "Gordon, Flash" and "Flash Gordon".
 * What I've been doing is leaving the if there are more than 2 categories that are added at the bottom of the article in the markup. In the example you cite that would be:
 * Category:American comics characters (Which I'd be tempted to delete)
 * Category:Fictional characters who can change their size
 * Category:Fictional scientists
 * Category:Marvel Comics characters who can fly
 * Category:Marvel Comics characters with superhuman strength
 * Category:Marvel Comics mutates
 * If it is 2 or less, I just add a pipe and remove
 * It may be that the notation under the "Categories" in the template docs needs to be tweaked.
 * - J Greb (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK gotcha. Thanks for that - you are too kind by saying "slightly"!! Reading back through that excerpt, it is actually quite clear - it only applies to the categories the template creates. Luckily I doubt I have gone too wild with this and I'll keep an eye out for places where I removed the defaulsort and should get things fixed. (Emperor (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Dragon Bridge
I want a second opinion regarding the images in this article. Do you think the images at present are at right format? I am a bit confused over the necessity of Image:Zmajski most-Ljubljana.JPG since Image:Dragon Bridge, Ljubljana.jpg depicts the bridge. There is a separate image for the dragon statue Image:Dragon Bridge.jpg. If I give Image:Zmajski most-Ljubljana.JPG, then Image:Dragon Bridge.jpg is placed in the references section. I am not sure if this is right.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image FURs, and thanks
Hi, J. Just wanted to say thank you for all your diligent efforts in following up and adding further fair-use details and rationales for some of the images I've put up over the years. I've kept expanding my summaries and rationales, but there always seems to be more required; pretty soon our FURs will look like contracts! :-)

I've been away for awhile; my mother passed on recently after a long bout with cancer. Time will heal ... as will trying to stay busy with work-work and volunteer Wiki-work, alongside a whole bunch of colleagues who may be anonymous like me, but are no less respected or appreciated than named collaborators. I value my longtime Wiki-friends, and almost feel like I know you and others. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ambush Bug Nothing Special 1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ambush Bug Nothing Special 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Westcoast45.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Westcoast45.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

???
Is the Vision image even an issue? I uploaded that weeks ago. The image I uploaded was clearer and had better colouring (obvious). I'm sure no one is even worrying about png, jpg etc. As for abbreviations, that's also a non-isse. Just retitle if unhappy.

Asgardian (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JusticeLeague42.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:JusticeLeague42.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We're Done!
Thanks for your help on the dr who production table. All of the episodes are now updated. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 07:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Comics (and fiction) categories
Well, we've had a bit of a break from it, but are you up for delving into User talk:Hiding/X7 again? : )

We're (mostly) done with the more "top-level" cats, so now I guess it's a question of spelunking : ) - jc37 01:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Tempting... but right now I'm trying to put out the brushfire that is FairuseBot and the operator that likes to let the bot remove the images from articles and to delete the tags after 5 days instead of 7. - J Greb (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Man
Thanks for spotting that - it is on my watchlist but I don't seem to be able to get a glimpse at it at the moment. I've asked about this on the talk page and will keep an eye on the issue - as you say the same thing has happened before elsewhere and I'll keep an eye on things and try and resolve it (or put it back and get an explanation). (Emperor (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Smallville justice.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Smallville justice.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Twofaceaeckhart.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Twofaceaeckhart.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

eyes
I'll try to help keep an eye out. Doczilla STOMP! 07:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)