User talk:Mtn

Actually, I did add the co- once: I restored your edit because I thought it made sense. Naturally, you must be a sock puppet of mine. No way anybody could actually agree...

I'm offended that he's accusing me of sock-puppetry, but he's accusing you of not existing! Sorry you had the bad luck of hitting a troll so soon in your Wikipedia career. Took me months.

It might help matters if you said who you were--my identity's public, as I link to my home page from my userpage--but I certainly would understand if you prefer to remain anonymous. &mdash;Chowbok 21:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My identity
I entered my e-mail in my profile...doesn't that mean you can contact me directly? I appreciate your support. It took me a while to sort out who's writing what and how I can respond. I'm pinging back and forth between your user page and Tenebrae's...

Best, Mtn 21:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)MTN

Kane
The fact is, Finger's contribution is not universally acknowledged, and much legal and formal credits goes the other way, and so it cannot be stated as fact.-- Tenebrae 21:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Finger
Did you read my citations? Kane himself stated Finger deserves credit. So did Kane's first ghost, Jerry Robinson, who was there from issue #2, I believe. That's why he created the Bill Finger Award, which was first given out last year, to honor writers and publicize Bill's legacy. As I wrote, even DC acknowledges Finger's contribution--one place I didn't mention is Amazing World of DC Comics #1 (1974), page 28, the Bill Finger "In Memoriam." I'm happy to e-mail it to you if you provide your e-mail address.

Not everything on Wikipedia is universally accepted. Few theories are. There is not a single source in my hundreds of pages of research on the creation of Batman (not to mention the interviews I conducted personally with half a dozen Golden Agers) that gives Kane (or Finger) sole credit. The law (i.e. the contract that Kane signed without Finger's knowledge) does not make something a fact. Everything I've cited does make it a fact. I'd like to add the "co." Will you support it?

Mtn 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)MTN

Re: Your comment
Your last comment on my page looked like it was directed at Tenebrae, so I removed it. You should re-post it on his talk page. Please try to only post messages to me on my talk page. --Chowbok 23:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Compromise solution
I've made a compromise solution at Will Eisner that ID's Kane while eliminating the entire issue of credit, since this is an article about Eisner and not Kane. Please see it and let me know if you have any objections. -- Tenebrae 00:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's fine by me, thanks
Mtn 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)MTN

Bill Finger
OK. That's good to know. Regardless, it's not clearly evident and the Finger family site states it more clearly, so that seems the more practical cite of the two. Good to work with someone else who appreciates Finger's contributions! --Tenebrae (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate what you're saying, and as a fellow journalist and author I give you much respect as a passionate and much-published professional. I caution, however, that Wikipedia has strict guidelines about citing oneself. If a work is worth citing, other editors will cite it once they're aware of it &mdash; as, indeed, I have done, citing pages from your blog that were not cited previously. Wikipedia takes self-citing seriously: As it states the guideline for Conflict of Interest, "COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted, and if it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked."


 * Fortunately, Wikipedia is collaborative, and I and fellow editors are here to help. To avoid self-promotion of your work, what generally happens in such cases is that you suggest at Talk:Bill Finger what additions you'd like to see cited to your work. That way other editors are aware of information they might not have noted otherwise, and can decide objectively if it should go in the article. This is Wikipedia's collaborative way of balancing conflict-of-interest concerns with Wikipedia policy and the good of the article. I know you understand the reasons for this, and I'm sure as a journalist and researcher you see why this is necessary. Looking forward to our continued collaboration, and I'd be glad to ask some of the other WikiProject veterans to help work on Bill Finger! --Tenebrae (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What you call mistakes and mischaracterizations are descriptions per your own perspective only. No matter how much you may have written about Bill Finger, other comics historians have as well; your perspective is not the only perspective to which all others must agree &mdash; learned historians disagree over facts regularly; there's nothing unusual in that. In the specific case of Roussos, he was working with Kane as early as Batman #2. He was a witness. He was there. And the editors of the DC Archives evidently accord him enough respect and credibility to publish his eyewitness statement. Just because it disagrees with your personal research is no cause to exclude that eyewitnesses point of view. It's not as if other historians and participants aren't be given their say or that Roussos' statement is given any undue weight whatsoever.


 * Your one-sided, partistan edits and your self-promotion and self-citing are becoming disruptive, another Wikipedia-guideline violation. I don't like the idea of having to ask for admin intervention. but I've asked extremely politely and in a collaborative atmosphere, linking to the appropriate guideline pages, and I see you becoming proprietary and defensive. I ask you once more to please pull back, realize that you are editing as a Bill Finger partisan and self-citing to do so, and please refrain from editing this article. Go to the talk page to discuss issues. Everyone who edits Wikipedia needs to respect the rules and guidelines developed through hard experience and consensus over the years. Let's please work together properly.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that I, like the vast majority of Wikipedians, edit anonymously because this altruistic free encyclopedia is bigger than any individual and we're not doing it for credit or glory. And like the vast majority of us, I don't wish to engage in off-Wiki discussion because whatever there is to discuss should happen here, in full view of every other editor.


 * I appreciate your self-description of your expertise, though I find it a bit self-aggrandizing to hear of how you found photos when people said there weren't more than two, and that you tracked down his granddaughter. That's what book authors are supposed to do. I know this from having written six books myself. I, too, could list all my many professional accomplishments and my many writings in the fields in which I edit, but that would compromise my anonymity and is beside the point &mdash; which is that we edit as a community and no one expert, self-proclaimed or otherwise, takes precedence over the many and multifaceted viewpoints that anywhere from a handful to dozens to even hundres of editors may bring to a page.


 * As Wikpedia states: "Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts. Wikipedia does not have a process for determining (a) who is a bonafide expert and on what subject(s), and (b) in which articles a given expert should edit. ... Experts do not have any other privileges in resolving conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory. In short, "Because I say so" is never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise. Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts, nor is there any mechanism to do so. Ideally, if not always in practice, it is the quality of the edits that counts." (See the essay at Expert editors.) In short, experts don't have veto power over articles.


 * As I paraphrased earlier, and as I'm gratified to see you adhering to, "Expert editors are cautioned to be mindful of the potential conflict of interest that may arise if editing articles which concern an expert's own research, writings, or discoveries. When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article."


 * Let other editors decided about eyewitness Roussos. That's how Wikipedia works. Right now, we have two editors: One who believes it belongs where it does, for stated reasons, and one who does not, also for stated reasons. In the absence of any consensus one way or the other, the article remains at its longstanding status quo.


 * I realize editing Wikipedia isn't for everyone. But Wikipedia works, and it's been growing and becoming more valuable day by by. All of us who edit it regularly respect why the rules and guidelines were developed over the course of years, and we ask new editors to do the same. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Marc. Never for a moment did I doubt your integrity or knowledge &mdash; they're both impressive, and made all the more so by taking on as a subject one of popular culture's true underdogs, who needs passionate champions like yourself and Jerry Robinson. The fact Bill Finger hasn't receded into the mists of time is no doubt due in large part to you and Jerry. (I say "Jerry," but it is one of my comic-fan regrets that I never got to meet the man in person.) Sometimes we all let our passions come to the surface &mdash; it's human nature.


 * As you've seen, I've cited your excellent web site many times &mdash; and while I appreciate your generous offer to send me a book, I'ma big believer in supporting fellow authors and helping them reach royalties, and so I've just ordered a new copy of Bill the Boy Wonder. I'm on Amazon Prime so I should get it in two or three days. Rest assured, this fellow archaeologist of comic-book history will be using your work often &mdash; just not exclusively!  : )


 * I'm sure I'll come see you speak at some panel some time. You have my heartfelt thanks for all the very, veryy fine work you've done as an author, and that's coming from someone who knows just how hard and childbirth-like it is to research and write a book. With great regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And a comment from our mutual colleague Doc below reminds me to stop by and say I got your book over a week ago and just haven't time to to into it in much detail. I understand now what you meant by "picture book" &mdash; I was a little confused by that until I saw that your bio is, indeed, a picture book. But given what's on your website, it clearly seems an authoritative tome, and I'll be citing it in the article so that way it gets in without the spectre of self-citing.


 * I was introduced to Julius Schwartz once at the San Diego con by a mutual friend. Wish I could have thought of more to say than just exchange pleasantries. It's like, where would you begin? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, Marc. Hope you are well. As I've just said at Talk:Bill Finger: "Well, I've finished going through Bill the Boy Wonder, and I've added something like five or six cites from it, as well as a pertinent quote by Nobleman as biographer. The article seems better and better documented all the time. Marc Tyler Nobleman did very noble work, if I may be forgiven the kind of pun that Bill Finger himself enjoyed." Hope you have a chance to mosey on over there. With great regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comic-Con 2013
This is a weird place to ask this, but are you coming to San Diego Comic-Con this summer? If you are, I'd like to discuss a Comic-Con panel with you. Thanks. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)