User talk:Tenebrae/Archive 11

Request for review:
Hi. You tagged Micky Ward as a copyvio. Could you review. It's quick and dirty, written from what sources I could find quickly, but it's a complete re-write (didn't even look at the main article, so I wouldn't contaminate what I was writing). Hopefully, when the book on Ward gets here (late this week or early next) I can expand it. Thanks SirFozzie (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:JackColeMagArt01.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JackColeMagArt01.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rawhide Kid
Thanks for the heads-up. My thoughts:

If the title of The Sensational Seven is on the cover (which it is), then that is the title of the series, and I think it's redundant to first introduce that series first by "vol 4" and then by reiterating it with the subtitle. It just seems like overkill. I don't have any previous familiarity with that source that's in the passage, but unless they're super-authoritative, we should consider that they're wrong, or that they simply list the series in a way that's unique to them, but not common among the general public. I think we should just call it Rawhide Kid: The Sensational Seven, because it's easy for a reader to distinguish that series by that unique name, than by a volume number that may either be wrong, or that no one else uses.

I also think it's not the best writing to put "published biweekly" in the date parenthetical, as that could probably be incorporated more smoothly into the passage in a different way. And saying "parts 1 - 5" is definitely redundant. That each issue of a miniseries is Part WhateverNumber is self-evident. The title of the book is enough, I think.

Lastly, Slap Leather should be italicized, not quoted, if it's part of the book's title.

Thanks again for the glowing compliment. It is much appreciated, buddy. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that about those sources. But the distinction between the name of a miniseries and the name of its story seems like an odd bit of hair-splitting. I supposed I could simply be out of the loop on those Project consensuses, but then I'm wondering why I've never heard or seen this in my time editing here. (Are these recent consensuses?) Legal technicalities notwithstanding, I just don't see why we have to overexplain the Sensational Seven subtitle. Just calling it by that entire combined name would seem to be straightforward enough. As for the biweekly and "parts 1-5" points, I moved the former to a different part of the sentence, and removed the latter entirely. Nightscream (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't so much suggesting other sources as questioning just how accurate The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators is. I mean, is that a wiki? Is it used in the industry? I had never heard of it before. But if you insist on these points, then I'm not going to quibble with it, since I admittedly am not that familiar with them. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Btw, I've been meaning to ask about this at the Project Page for some time now, but since it's sometimes hard to keep a conversation going consistently there, and since it bears on the issue of sources: Can I presume it's okay to rely on the Official Index to the Marvel Universe? It's written entirely in an out-universe perspective, unlike the in-universe OHOTMU, so I think it should be allowable. Nightscream (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of George Olshevsky, and his article says that his Index is from the 1960s-1980s. I'm talking about the series of books Marvel is currently publishing. They have all publication info, including credits, dates, story, character and synopsis info, etc. It began in 2008, as described in the final paragraph of the Lead section in the Official Marvel Index article.


 * Should I start a consensus discussion on the Project page to have it more formally codified? Nightscream (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Awesome. I've started the discussion. Nightscream (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletions
Are you going to request Fictional history of Spider-Man and Fictional history of Wolverine? I'll support you. LittleJerry (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Extra set of eyes needed
Hello. It's been a while. Could you take a look at [this possibly escalating situation] for a neutral evaluation before it gets any worse. Thank you. Dave (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

suggestion.
You might want to go to this discussion. Because I think you were involved in writing that portion of it. − Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Click this gift to see what your Christmas gift is. − Santa  Claus  00:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Need opinions on photos
Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Our Boarding House
Good upgrade to Our Boarding House. Does pic in white space work for you? Pepso2 (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain America: Patriot
It's a fasinating series about Jeffrey Mace, both as the Patriot and as the third Captain America, and deals with characters that were important in his life, such as Miss Patriot, Golden Girl, Fred Davis. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Ross connection was a neat Easter egg. :) Happy editing! 108.69.80.49 (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Overly enthusiastic response
Do you really think it is appropriate to issue warnings to an editor when they have committed no disruption since they got a previous warning? You did just that to 71.184.156.63 who had not even made another edit since the warning I issued. Did you perhaps think my warning was too friendly? Ashanda (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand. I was agreeing with User:Cresix about an IP address with several warnings at its talk page and whose edits for days have been non-constructive / vandalizing. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind my copying your reply back to here, I dislike disjointed conversations. I am referring to the fact that I reverted that user's edits and wrote a note/warning after which the user made no further edits, then and yourself issued further warnings even though no disruption had occured since the warning I wrote. I do give you both credit that you didn't just throw another template down on the user talk page, but don't you think it is wrong to issue repeated corrections to a person who has committed no further disruption?--Ashanda (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're correct: I hadn't noticed the timestamp, and that Cresix had posted at 18:33 when the anon IP's last edit was at 09:43. If I had noticed, I would not have posted my addition.


 * However, while I can't speak for Cresix, with whom I have had no interactions, I personally would not dispute his after-the-fact choice, as this IP has had a days-long history of both disruptive editing and belligerent edit summaries. He has stopped for a time when warned and then started up again. I don't believe he was heeding previous warnings, and his recidivism seemed to be a pattern, so while I myself would have waited before issuing a warning at this point, I don't believe Cresix acted in an untoward or unreasonable manner given this IP's overall history.


 * I do recognize and applaud your concern over Wikipedia being seen as welcoming and not a snappish elite, and I have personally helped shepherd many new editors here. This particular IP, however, over the course of days, appears to be an irresponsible party not inclined to review policies and guidelines and to behave as a constructive member of a larger community.


 * May I please mention, however, that I find your term "Hogpiling" perhaps a bit untoward itself, as it connotes boorish behavior and absolute guilt before giving the parties you accuse a chance to offer rationale and explanation. I'm sure you didn't overtly intend it this way, and were only being colorful and attention-getting, but it can be read as an offensive addition to one's talk page. If you would choose to be collegial and remove it, I think that would be in keeping with the overall tenor to which we try to adhere.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I have modified the section title per your most reasonable request. Actually the timeframe on the user's editing pattern goes back to October 2010 when they decided to remove biblical references from the history section of Vinegar for the first time. Their edits before that and even after that seem to be legit to me, at least until December. Since the negative template warning approach seemed to have the opposite affect than was intended, and since the user showed a certain amout of good edits too, I wanted to try a more friendly approach to see if that would work. However I do not agree that repeated warnings in the absence of continued disruption is ever appropriate or even productive - it's like repeatedly slapping a puppy for piddling on the floor or having three different people yell at a kid if he forgot to wipe his feet when he came in from outside. It may even lead to an increase in disruptive behavior. Anyways, that's my wandering opinion, for what it's worth (maybe two cents). I am glad we could have this conversation. Have a happy new year! --Ashanda (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sam Grainger
Tenebrae, I just wanted to say thanks for all the work you did on the "Sam Grainger" Wikipedia page. I live in the Charlotte area and first met Sam at the local comic conventions when I was in high school. As I grew older he became a friend and mentor to me and many other aspiring comic book artists. Sam welcomed us into his home, provided art tips and advice and shared many stories about his commercial art career. I was just thinking about Sam tonight and thought I might start a Wikipedia page for him if no one else had. But I see you’ve already done a fine job, I couldn’t add many more facts to what you’ve written, only feelings; Sam was a really nice guy who always had a smile for everyone. Thanks again. Spazhoward (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Amaaaaaa-zing
Thanks. It all seemed like pretty obvious info that was surprisingly lacking. Then again, I have plenty of experience writing lead sections, so picking out the essential details for leads is pretty intuitive for me at this point. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've worked on and reviewed so many Good and Featured Articles over the years that I do become frustrated on occasion that comics-related articles aren't better than they can be. Aside from exceptions like the massive overhaul I did for Watchmen when it was under Featured Article Review, editors are often unwilling to be bold and strip comics articles down to rebuild them (which in my experience is the best way to create decent articles).


 * By the way, if you wish, I'd recommend using that lead I wrote for Amazing Spider-Man as a template for other comic book title articles. You can essentially copy it and tweak the details where necessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've long maintained that the best examples of plot summaries to be found on Wikipedia are those found in film articles. The Film WikiProject is one of the most prolific and high-quality WikiProjects here, and checking out their best articles is a fine way to get an idea of how to write an article on similar storytelling mediums. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story
Many thanks for your editing of my section about "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story" in "The Green Hornet (TV series)" article. I clearly had expressed the scene incorrectly and it read like WP:PEACOCK -- I definitely wasn't trying to big up Bruce Lee/Jason Scott Lee, but rather I was trying to indicate than in the movie the fictional cast and crew were not just impressed, but rather stunned (and the stuntmen seemed afraid) by Bruce Lee's fighting skills, I'm not sure how to express it better, but I definitely think the current version doesn't quiet capture the tenor of the scene. Damiantgordon (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, you're a gent! Damiantgordon (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent discussion
Hey, I hope you weren't upset by my recent revert of your change. My response was a bit rough, but that's because the edit summary only gave me so much room after including a large link. I've always gotten along really well with you (often asking for your opinion or help) and think of you as a great editor and would prefer to not ruin our professional relationship. I think the discussion will finally help hash out this problem once and for all so problems like that do not arise again. Spidey 104  18:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RE:Good point
Thanks. It's definitely not a major issue, just one for someone like me to be obsessed with! :) Cresix (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mask of Zorro lawsuit
How do you suggest an event that happened in court is handled. The case is many pages long and I only used the bare minimum that related to the film and tv without copying the many indvidual items and each judgement in the cite which anybody interested in can read.REVUpminster (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried to cut it down but have a look and see what you do not like. What about the image. It illustrates to the reader why sony sued but also why it failed because her costume was similar to the 1920 film which was out of copy right.

Sony v Fireworks Entertainment
Following the success of The Mask of Zorro a syndicated tv series called Queen of Swords (QOS) aired in October 2000 and Sony believing they had purchased the rights to the character Zorro from "Zorro Production Incorporated" ("About Zorro Productions Inc." page from the company's web site) sued the producers Fireworks Entertainment claiming damages. Some of the salient points being:
 * Tessa Alvarado/QOS is an amalgamation of three Mask of Zorro characters: Elena, Diego (the Zorro played by Anthony Hopkins, "Hopkins Zorro,"), and Murietta (the Zorro played by Antonio Banderas, "Banderas Zorro").
 * Sony also argue that the TV series copied Mask of Zorro's Don Montero to create QOS's Colonel Montoya, and that they copied Mask of Zorro's Harrison Love to create QOS's Marcus Grisham.


 * The first two episodes of Queen of Swords display similar plot elements from Mask of Zorro such as the death of the protagonist's beloved family member at the hands of an expatriate American mercenary, the return of the main female character to Old California from Spain, as well as the protagonist's learning to fight with a sword, donning a black costume and mask to avenge the family member's death, freeing secretly enslaved gold miners, before blowing-up the mine.

The Court noted that since the copyrights in The Curse of Capistrano and The Mark of Zorro lapsed in 1995 or before and the character Zorro has been in the public domain.

Sony was denied its request for an injunction to stop distribution of the syndicated television program Queen of Swords.(|Sony v Fireworks Entertainment)

REVUpminster (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

David A
Tenebrae, I saw your comment on the Chaos War talk page, and I just want to say this: I seriously don't understand what is the problem, nor do I understand why exactly you seem to be supporting David A on everything he says, giving him such leeway in all his efforts here, misguided or not. Tenebrae, from my posts, surely you saw nothing I said trying to provoke David, and surely you must realize that, despite his own tiresome and quite direct insults, I kept a level head and continue to speak civilly to him. I have not edited the article since, as you can see from its History page; all I did was try to discuss it with reason and civility. But David A is just degrading me with everything he says on the page, and, even if such is at all allowed on an article talk page, I don't understand why. I will note that, from his user page, David has claimed he is autistic, as well as having other possible mentalities, and, though I have great respect for all editors here, I will admit that I did wonder whether this could be possibly related to his own writing style and comments.
 * I don't know what to do. I'm already not editing the page, and, seriously, what does David himself want of me? That everyone who edits an article in a fashion he doesn't like has to go? Would my leaving Wikipedia permanently be the only option to satisfy him, especially as he has continued raving and complaining against me? I don't know much about this user, but if, as you yourself claimed, he has had difficulties interacting with other editors here in the past many times, even if I go, well, it's very, very likely he will continue to involve himself in conflicts, deliberately or not, with many other users in the future. I'm sorry to bother you with something as juvenile as this, Tenebrae, but, seriously, Dave really does need to change his attitude if he wants to effectively contribute to Wikipedia... Aidoflight (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been extremely clear with my stated viewpoints, and as for your own comparative civility, you did make plenty of questionable statements (including calling me an "asshole") in your own talk page or profile, and I certainly don't have the impression that you have held any higher standard than myself in our exchange. I do tend to state outright what I think though, although what I think is almost uniformly comparatively tame.
 * But regardless, that kind of thing is irrelevant by my standards (whereas torture fantasies are far less so), and my only interest in yourself is that you stop inserting long sections of largely made up text segments in the Marvel Wikia style. The combination with stating that Wikipedia overall is a bad source of information, while doing exactly the least reliable type of editing isn't good either. Basically Wikipedia is supposed to be about catching and removing each other's biases, as any text will contain them.
 * I'd also prefer that you reign in your tendency to insert phrases such as: "and thus the ruler of the afterlife realm called Heaven, where souls of mankind's virtuous and pure are committed to upon physical death" in combination with "Satan tells Amatsu-Mikaboshi that the damned choose their own paths and fates through free will" (except that I don't remember "Marduk Kurios" saying anything of the sort).
 * I'm not sure whether or not that part is an ongoing thing for you, but going by your past "mission statements" combined with some talk page post about dubious edits at satanism, you do seem quite committed in that direction, and I severely dislike the idea of attempting to pervert the ultimate ideal of God as an absolute good and bringer of hope, into a torture-happy sadistic tyrant, or what easily sounds like endorsements of Nazi torture owens for that matter. Basically, stop doing that and we're fine. I've been told to stop doing things in the past and simply stopped doing them. You can probably do the same. Don't stop doing that, and I'll probably still not have the energy to deal with it, as I'm running extremely low, but at least I have brought some attention to the potential problem if anybody else is interested.
 * Anyway, I apologise if I've come across as more impatient or grumpy than usual. It used to take much longer time, but regrettably I'm more or less in a perpetural state of it nowadays. In an any case, I did remove all of the parts that you made specific notes about, so it isn't like I haven't attempted to compromise. Dave (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * David, I did not say anything at all about torture fantasies. Whatever my religion is, I have not stated my own beliefs here, and, what is more, this discussion is about Chaos War. And, in truth, the Satan-being in Chaos War did indeed say just that, disturbing his words may be to some; I can try to post comic scans and links if you require verification, but it may take a little while. I wrote that the realm Heaven was a world where the souls of the pure and virtuous are generally committed to upon physical death; that was a generic description. Heaven has indeed shown up and been mentioned in-continuity, and, indeed that is the general consensus, supported by canon. One did not see hordes of super-villains, for instance, the time Ben Grimm was shown in this afterlife realm. But, all in all, you have since removed that, and many of my other edits, so what's, like, your problem now, no offense? And this is not relevant. At all. So, please, David, as a huge favor...can you not post here for a while, and maybe give Tenebrae a chance to respond? I have stopped editing on Chaos War talk page for fear of inciting you to further accuse me of supporting torture fantasies and Nazi ideologies, so... Aidoflight (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm more than willing to take a step back, and apologise if I have misunderstood your intentions. Dave (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's go the Chaos War talk page, where this really should be. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:InvasionOuterSpace fromTalesOfSuspense2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:InvasionOuterSpace fromTalesOfSuspense2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * What do you say we start on Siege (comics) next? I can probably help out more with that article since I'm more familiar with it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliments. I copied the article to my sandbox. We can work on the article there.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh, I was expecting we'd work on this slowly but surely in the sandbox but you already got it done. The article looks great, it could be condensed further if it has to be but 900 words under the circumstances is acceptable. As far as the footnoting is concerned, I approached it like a literary work distinguishing primary sources from third party sources, which we value higher. It was just an experiment and if you don't like you can just reincorporate the two.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuck on an (un)deletion
Hi, Tenebrae. I was going to ask for the page Glenn Cooper to be undeleted, but I don't understand where I should put the request. It seems that I should go here, but there is no match for the search term in the logs. I may try here, but at this point I think it's better ask, before I screw up something. Thanks --Webwizard (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What I got is this. It looks to me like a deletion discussion. What do you think ? --Webwizard (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It helps indeed. Thanks a lot. --Webwizard (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

film in Green Goblin
I know you undone me but I am sorry it doesn't sound right (in my opinion) leaving that word out. Jhenderson 7 7 7  17:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe I got you now. But it still sounds better to have film there in my opinion. It still have a uncomplete vibe going on with me. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Iron Man (film) question...
Just wondering, was Stane credited as "Obadiah Stane / Iron Monger" or the like in the film credits?

This was pointed out with regard to pushing "Jim Rhodes/ War Machine" in Iron Man 2. If Stane is credited like Rhodes, the the first films article needs a tweek.

- J Greb (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Rather than typing, I copied the Box Office Mojo source from Cop Out then changed it for The Green Hornet (2011 film) and forgot to change the link, thanks for fixing it. HrZ (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Queen of Swords
I know you don't like this but how can I cite DVD.s on a series that was effectively buried by Sony when all that is left is some archived official website info. Some transferred to a shadow website, and Anthony de Longis who was the first swordmaster and wrote very detailed episode info on the six he did. Even on his site the links are not now visible but are still there http://www.delongis.com/LaReina/index.html. The court cases and stunt performers was mostly developed by Taram and I did simplyfy some of it. I need help as this is a very difficult article to develop. Just seen your message.REVUpminster (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With the DeLongis site. Never hit any link other than refering to the next page or back to the link above. There are about 24 pages in all. This link http://www.delongis.com/LaReina/Destiny.html is to page 1 of Destiny. you can go on to page 2/3 etc or back to the QoS index not the de longis index. As for dvd the Japaneses and french they are official, everything else is bootleg. To Americans the series doesn't exist. A British company holds the rights and dvd rights worldwide except America.REVUpminster (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. It's nearly midnight. I will be off line for now.REVUpminster (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am pleased you have had another go. I thought you might when I added back Linda Luken because I had found a second source, Incidently she is not credited on broadcasts here in England or on the two official DVD's (French and Japanese) and I do not think in Canada either, only in the US. The Queens doubles was written mainly by User talk:Taram who seems to have links to Roberta Brown and other production staff. I did rewrite some of it when he made it seem Tessie Santiago did not appear in the first six episodes. As for the accolades cite, I looked at Gina Torres the winner and it is mentioned but no cite I could copy. Thanks. REVUpminster (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Films based on comics task force
Hello! At the talk page for WikiProject Film, I have proposed a films based on comics task force, which would be a collaboration between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Comics. TriiipleThreat mentioned you as someone who may be interested in the task force, so I invite you to join the discussion. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey as Erik mention I thought you might be interested in helping us form this new task force. Your expertise in comic book related articles would make you a valued member. If interested please sign up here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome aboard! We'll probably kick off the task force soon. Check out the talk page for a few early discussions. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Darknight Detective
Hi. Wondering if you can help me, Tenebrae.

I have been trying to update the Batman page by adding the often-used sobriquet "The Darknight Detective" (many a comic book referenced it before anybody referred to Batman as "The Dark Knight," for example) for a few months now. In the past, it had been deleted by one person without comment as to why. I decided that adding a reference mentioning a title of a comic book story from the Seventies with it would finally allow it to be included.

Of course, I found it deleted by you today with this message attached:

Established, stable, longtime outside wikia can be used as EL, but not footnote reference)

I'm confused now - how can I prove my point that "The Darknight Detective" was indeed a sobriquet used by DC without using a footnote reference? Your guidance is appreciated. jtmatbat (jtmatbat 13:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response on my talk page, Tenebrae.


 * I have many old comic books from the Seventies and Eighties where Batman is referred to as the Darknight Detective that I could reference, but unfortunately that's not what you're looking for. I'll see if I can find a book that meets your criteria. Thanks!jtmatbat (jtmatbat 16:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises
The article The Dark Knight Rises was created due to a discussion with Erik. But I know due to his discussion that Erik also wanted opinions from the rest of the task force. So I am asking you weigh in on the discussion page of the article about how you feel about it and suggestions how it should be written. Jhenderson 7 7 7  21:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Kick-Ass edits
Hi! About this edit

Firstly, let's consider the source http://www.ugo.com/movies/kick-ass-spoilers. the sentence said "UGO.com released a summary of a draft script of Kick-Ass around 2008." - The source has a summary of a draft script and not the script itself. The point is, this is a secondary source, so it's okay to refer to the existence of the draft script.

As for Method Man, the UGO article links to an MTV article at http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/08/25/method-man-wants-to-kick-ass-in-nic-cages-upcoming-comic-book-movie/ "And hopefully soon you can add Method Man to the list; the MC-turned-actor is throwing his hat into the ring, enthusiastically hoping for the role of the "black cop." Given his passion for the material we'd love to see it happen...tell us what you think in the comments below." - So Method Man himself wanted to be picked.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And this edit

It's fine to change it to the book source directly. However I'll add the pageneeded template so people know we need a page number.

You said: "Also, quote DIDN'T EVEN COME FROM THAT SOURCE but from a book" I made that edit knowing and understanding that the information directly came from the book (the webpage explicitly said it). I cited the website because I don't have a copy of the book and don't know the page numbers, and that I got the information directly from the site.

About the website comicbookmovie.com - I'm going to take a look at the reliable sources noticeboard and see if it's been mentioned there. I'll also take a look at the Avengers film project article WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you! Your explanation helps a lot! Anyway, I'll see what more I can dig up on the characters On the talk page I proposed making a Characters of Kick-Ass page so creation, conception, and reception info on various characters can be posted to one place. What do you think about this idea? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "comicbookmovie.com" doesn't appear on the RS noticeboard. Next time, if there's a debate about a source, it's great to get it referenced somewhere in the noticeboard so people can search for any debated site and see if there is a previous discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find "comicbookmovie.com" at Talk:The Avengers film project - Where are the discussions about it? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Underwood Sardines
True about the snark, but I felt that way for two reasons: 1, it just seemed lazy to me -- mark something as CN without trying to help, which is one of the credos of WP; and 2, there are so, so many pages in WP with so many things that could be tagged CN, if I went to work on those and started trying to find cites for things and marking everything that defensibly needed citing as CN I'd be flagged for vandalism (and I don't know if I'd argue being flagged in that situation).

You have a point about the sardines, but they did make sardines for a long long time, I have some currently but I don't like them, although I don't see them on the website. Maybe I should delete them and add the products that are shown (four total). I could include a photo but the article has three already, and I don't think one of sardines would add that much. --Wmjames (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha, and, I realized I am also snarked a bit because it seems to me either random or incomplete. The "White Collar" mention that was added at some point needs a ref to more than just the TV show, it needs an episode and some verifiable source, but it doesn't have one. So, I don't see why one thing that should get a CN gets one, when another thing on the same page doesn't. Ok maybe whoever added it was just skimming around and noted that one thing, and wasn't looking over the whole page. I probably added the sardines, and I think it's been there a while (longer than the "White Collar" ref), so it just seems a bit unfortunate that it's been up for so long and only now gets CN'ed. I don't want to delete the "White Collar" ref, though, since it seems it was added in good faith.--Wmjames (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh you did the CN? I didn't even notice. You are right, though, but sometimes WP is kinda annoying in how some things have refs and other things don't. I am not such a fan of Deviled Ham anymore, it is an instant sandwich though, and their chicken spread used to be better. Yeah sometimes I'm inspired to fix things on WP, other times there are articles you just don't want to touch since the talk page is full of flames... And the rules and info boxes and, uh, other stuff, is all useful, but can make it hard for those less-familiar with such protocols (such as myself). I added some categories to an article recently, that was kind of cool! And I like the info boxes.--Wmjames (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I am reading about anchovies and sardines! Hmm the two pages don't mention each other as far as I can tell. They do seem to be related, not just in terms of size and oiliness, but their scientific classification is the same down to the family level, although maybe that isn't very close, I am not familiar enough with the biological classification scheme. I am tempted to think about a "Differences between..." section for each page, but I don't actually know what the differences are that are mentionable. Hmm Sardine has "See Also: Anchovy", but not why one should see Anchovies also.--Wmjames (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are awesome definitions! If we could find dictionary defs like that, they are citable! Hmm, would they be seen as adding useful info? Well maybe if we could make some sort of "Similarities..." section, or, something... It would need to be pretty good, though!--Wmjames (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My 1980 Oxford American Dictionary says that both anchovies and sardines are types of herring, although I feel there may be a more robust scientific definition somewhere (or a culinary one, or perhaps a fisheries one). It also said alewives are herrings (actually it somewhat oddly says they are "allied" to herrings). The definition for herrings is... totally vanilla! Just a North Atlantic fish used for food (to paraphrase the entry). Hmm, reminds me of the yam and the sweet potato. Commonly confused, one is often called the other (I think yams are often called sweet potatoes, but it might be the other way around), they are very similar (well they seem so to me, and I take it many other people), yet, they are from different plant families (IIRC). --Wmjames (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a Boston-area MBTA (subway) stop named for an adjacent brook and parkway, Alewife, where the fish used to run (probably not so much in the modern era). I am under the impression that o/possums are the same thing, just a slightly different version of the word. (Reaches for OAD...) Possum: An opossum. Ha! On herring/fish, the OAD may be more general, I am sure there are scientific and fishery and maybe culinary differences that people in such areas have noticed, or, not, but then they would say what is up with the naming conventions. I am not familiar with the defs of herring in such areas, though. --Wmjames (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe
I want to get your opinion about the recent addition of Jeremy Renner playing Hawkeye in Thor to cast box in Marvel Cinematic Universe. I cleaned it up but allowed it to remain for the time being. The editor who contributed the information used a reference from The Huffington Post but they cited The Wrap as their source. The Wrap cites an anonymous source who claims to have seen an early cut of the film. Do yo think this should remain or should it be removed?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Mutt and Jeff
It appears that you delted my references to the early sound MUTT & JEFF cartoons (which are the versions included on the Cartoon Craze DVDs and similar collections) and the 1960s/70s Fred Ladd reworkings of the vintage M&J cartoons, and the " Mutt & Jeff Meet Bugoff " feature film assembled from them Jgbook2007 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

inre Talk:The Dark Knight Rises
Sure wish you had not redacted your comments, when a strike-through would have served... specially as your points toward naming are well made. What I tried to clarify in my long-winded section was simply that we need depend more on consideration of a topic's overall notability, and less on whether the topic is a proposed film or not. While few make actually make it through the gauntlet of notability.... most will not.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Morris Weiss
Tenebrae, thanks for keeping an eye on this; of course I'm related to the subject. I own the cartoon in question, which was hand colored post-publication--I thought it relevant to specify this, as some eagle eyed reader would notice the hand- made watercolor wash wasn't consistent with the tones used for a newspaper publication. Best, JNW (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

High School of Art and Design
January 27, 2011

I see there have been several "citation" requests since I was last on our page. I am the Alumni Association's former President (June 1990 to June 2007) and recreated this page, almost from scratch, starting in June 2006 -- when I came across it and found it in bad shape, including without a photo. I added one, though wiki editors have since changed it. And just to put things into perspective, I am now 68 years old and no techie, but I do try.

1. What is wrong with using the adjective "venerable"? Someone else described our school using that term, and it is absolutely true, not an embellishment. This school was so popular in the 50's they had to turn applicants away... and ultimately move to a larger (and newly constructed) building. This is the original "Mad Men" school -- where the great art directors and creative people from the Golden Age of Advertising learned their craft.

2. As far as the rest of the citation requests go, what are we supposed to post?


 * A link to a source? "Ninety percent of its graduates continue on in post-secondary education."[citation needed]


 * A link to a source? "Roundabout Theater Company works with students on drama."[citation needed]


 * A link to a source? "The theater was donated by the Friends of Art and Design (FAD)."[citation needed] Whom at FAD do I ask to verify this? Then what, add their name? Like, "Former FAD president Sara Koffman confirms they donated the theater?"


 * A link to what? I am the person who continues to edit and monitor this page. So, what am I supposed to cite? That statement is really a warning (that wiki editors rewrote) to discourage alumni from adding themselves, without running it by us first. Otherwise, there'd be thousands of people claiming they were notable enough to be listed.

BTW: I don't know who added Jae Millz but I don't know if he is notable enough, yet, to add his name. And Adele Geraghty (1969) added herself on for the second time. I had already removed her once. Her book is not a bestseller. I know more people who have done more.

Yvonne Yvonnefitz (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC) (did I do this right?)

Archie Goodwin (comics) and Marv Wolfman
Hello Tenebrae,

I added citations for most of the things you flagged on the Archie Goodwin article. There are a few minor points on the Goodwin talk page which are in need of some clarification. I did some work on the Marv Wolfman article that you might want to check out as well. Mtminchi08 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about being a bother, but...
Would you be willing to step in and do a quick neutral and concise summary at Galactus? It helps to have somebody like yourself step in and put a sensible unbiased "final say" on these types of things before they have a chance to start. Thank you. Dave (talk)

Mariah Carey birthyear is 1969
People Magazie confirmed her age with birth records, school records, and NY state ID records. Please return her DOB to 3/27/69. Thanks. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Behind the voice actors
What do you think of this as a source. Reliable? I have used it sometimes as a source in the articles such as List of The Spectacular Spider-Man characters when I couldn't find any other. Just to prove what's said true. Jhenderson 7 7 7  00:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

MoS discussion
I have opened a discussion in the fiction Manual of Style. I think you'll have an opinion on this subject. Spidey 104  14:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

webcitation.org
Thanks for posting the instructions on how to archive urls, I was just able to use webcitation.org over at the The Avengers (film project).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

new J. David Spurlock interview
new Collected Comics Library podcast interview with me. Subjects include Frazetta, Wally Wood, Infantino, Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steranko, Joe Orlando, my early days before moving to greater New York area, etc. This and other info updates at Talk:J. David Spurlock

http://www.collectedcomicslibrary.com/ccl-podcast-301-david-spurlock-vanguard-productions/ Vanguardpub (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

new instructional book by J. David Spurlock from Randon House imprint Watson-Guptill
How to Draw Chiller Monsters Werewolves Vampires and Zombies

(Vanguardpub (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC))

Kick-Ass
Anytime, Tenebrae :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Javier Bardem
I have fixed some of the tone. You can edit and fix as you deem appropriate here. Is this alright with you?--Anen87 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Maria Hill
Please come to the discussion at Talk:The Avengers (film project). I would like to hear your opinion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input and some good careful editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to come up with a compromise at Talk:The Avengers (film project), let me know your thoughts. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Come back to discussion an editor might have found a valid source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Avengers
Seriously, why can't i add those names alongside the other girl? They screentested and i provided a source confirming that, so why are you being uptight about it? You're not in charge of the page. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:25 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I provided anoter source saying she screentested, yet it was still removed. Why? Please explain why Mary Elizabeth Winstead cannot be in the article. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:54 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic Four
Thanks. I'm a bit too busy to go looking for another source, so if you want, we can just remove the AP source, and keep the other one that's also cited for that material. Nightscream (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man
As you may as well see, the argument of what should be named The Amazing Spider-Man (mainly the diambiguation page or the comic book article now) is still ongoing on Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man (comic book). And I am sort of neutral now that the upcoming film is titled as so. I would love to hear your opinion. Jhenderson 7 7 7  16:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of America's Best Comics (disambiguation)


The article America's Best Comics (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Orphan dab; nav function served by hatnotes

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DVD releases
Sorry to bring this up, but on todays featured article Dustbin Baby (film) they use as references to a dvd the commercial sites of Lovefilm and play.com so i think if it's good enough for a featured article then surely I could use it for Queen of Swords because there is nothing else. Also do you think theses sections should be changed to Home media that is used on a number of articles. Do you know what the policy is as most of the articles I visit it is split between Home media or DVD release.ThankyouREVUpminster (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have noticed and I am still not sure what the outcome is. Shall I put the refs back as my chance of finding a review in either French or Japanese would be almost non existant. Sony did such a good job of burying this series. I'd leave the VHS needing to be refrenced as someone else might be able to do it, the original editor maybe? Incidently Alliance films (canada) have been releasing old Fireworks TV such as Relic Hunter and Adventure Inc so I hope they get round to QoS. ThankyouREVUpminster (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough I found this link http://www.dvdfr.com/dvd/f23059-sous-le-signe-de-l-epee.html but the aspect ratio is wrong as I own this dvd.REVUpminster (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Art Simek
Thanks for keeping me honest. I should have been more careful in my research with regard to Art Simek's actual date of death. It was in the September 1975 Marvel Bullpen Bulletins (ref: Captain America #189 or Daredevil #125) Actual text (small blue box on bottom right-hand corner) reads as follows:

On February 20th, 1975, early in the morning, the comic book industry lost one of its foremost talents. ARTIE SMIEK died. For some thirty-odd years, the majority of his life, Artie produced a veritable mountain of work and gained a reputation for being a true professional. He was one of the cornerstones in building the mighty world of Marvel and his efforts cannot be ignored.

To those of us who were privileged to know Artie, he was a valued friend, a unique personality, and an irreplaceable co-worker.

He will be missed.

(Caps for his name are in the original.)

Please consider revising to include date of death and actual notice. I'm not going to revise it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherny1968 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dustbin Baby (film)
With all due respect, go away. I have no idea what you're talking about, you're just making a mess of things. J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Never once did I say "With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about.". If you want to play the lawyer game, the page you linked says that "one should generally avoid" those kind of links, not that they are banned, and specifically notes that "This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." If you want to play the "common sense" game, you're the one removing reliable sources from a featured article, leaving content uncited... And no, we don't need a RfC. We need you to reread the policy page you're throwing around as gospel truth. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you've quite clearly broken the 3RR yourself, I have reported you. I've really got better things to be doing than this. J Milburn (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of respect if I had my way both of you are guilty of being uncivilized on this one. It only makes it seem questionable how much a article should be a featured article when there is a edit war going on in it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I do respect your word and your comments, Jhenderson . You're a good and thoughtful editor. Perhaps J Milburn and I could together search for journalistic sources, e.g., reviews of the DVDs, articles about "this week's DVD releases," etc. I will say I offered mediation and conflict resolution in the form of an RfC, and he refused. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really think I haven't looked for sources like that? You'd think I'd never seen this article before. Seriously, go away. J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please quit saying go away. It's not very civil. Why don't you try to get along instead. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove my comments without good reason. It'd also be good if, y'know, you could answer the question. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not remove your content. We evidently had an edit conflict. I resent the implication as I have done nothing in these proceedings that would even suggest that I would do such a thing. Your incivility and lack of good faith are remarkable.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, no, you did remove my comment, there is literally no way you could even argue that that is not the case. Look at the diff. Dear God. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It shows up that way sometimes when there's an edit conflict and one takes the "Your text" and puts it into the top box. Your blasphemous comment aside, you are wrong here. I did not remove your comment. In my entire history of Wikipedia, nearly 48,000 edits, I have never removed another editor's comments. Why would I start now? Your lack of good faith is appalling.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You removed my comment. Why, or how, I don't know or care. But you removed the comment. Look; see how, before your edit, there is my comment, and after it, there isn't? You removed it. No assumption of bad faith. No "blasphemy". A simple fact. You removed my comment. I am asking you not to do that. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 'No 'blasphemy'.? "Good God"?


 * I did not remove your content. An "edit conflict" screen came up, I put my "your text" into the main box, and that was all I did. How the programming works from there, I don't know. But I did not even touch your content. If you don't believe me for any other reason, just consider that I have no reason to remove your content, and even if I did have some cockamamie reason, do you seriously believe an editor of over 5 1/2 years and 48,000 edits doesn't know what a History page tracks? Jeeminy Christmas. I did not touch your comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You telling me I can't blaspheme now?! Look, I'm sorry, this is ridiculous. No matter what you say, no matter what arguments you make, your edit removed my comment. If it wasn't you, that's fine, I can block your account as compromised. If it was you, then you can shut up. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't once threatened you. I have repeatedly said I think that you should be blocked, but that's a very different thing. You are responsible for your edits. Whether it was an edit conflict or the wrong box or whatever, you removed my comment, and all you have done is sat there and denied it with the diff right in front of you. How you can do that in good conscience is beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a talk page stalker but I feel that I must say this. To Milburn it seems that Tenebrae hasn't noticed that he did it. So it probably should be let go whether true or not. And also to Tenebrae even it wasn't on purpose stating that you are sorry can probably make an argument go away quicker. I admit it's hard for me as well. Happy editing!  Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You threatened, that "I can block your account as compromised" (emphasis added).


 * For me to have removed your content, I would have had to go in, block it, and erase it. Or put my cursor at the end of it and erase backwards. I did no such things. I moved my content from "Your text" to the top box. Whatever the programming does after that I have no control over. But that is all I did. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue about what you did on your computer; I don't know, I don't care. Let's phrase it like this:
 * Premise one: Your edit removed my comment, as can be seen here.
 * Premise two: You as an editor are responsible for your edits.
 * Conclusion: You are responsible for removing my comment.
 * What part of that do you not agree with? J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you interpret that as a threat, I can't help you. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not responsible for quirks in coding. If the "Edit conflict" page thought we were editing at the same time and overwrote you, that is not my fault nor my doing.

But Jhenderson  is right.I will say sorry for the bad feelings. Since neither of us is going to convince the other of his point, let's move on. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So be it, I'm going out for a bit. I don't care how this is resolved as long as no information is lost and everything is cited to a decent source, but I'd like to see the article unprotected ASAP. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've some fresh air and a decent meal now, so I'm feeling better. I was feeling a little stressed for non-Wikipedia reasons, so you caught me at a bad time, I guess. That wasn't your fault. I'm sorry, this whole thing has been a colossal mess. We've been talking at cross-purposes an awful lot, and I think we've had some real difficulty in understanding each other to a certain extent. I'm sorry if I've come across as overly aggressive/defensive; I stand by what I have said for the most part, but I appreciate that your intentions were sound. I think now that there is neither an active edit war nor protection of the article (as in, now I'm sure the article is safe, which has always been my first priority- of all "my" articles, this one is probably "my baby") I feel a lot better/calmer about the whole situation. A truce? If not friends, at least colleagues? J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I admire your candor and your thoughtfulness, and I, too, am sorry for my own part in what escalated further than two experienced editors such as ourselves should have let occur. I'm absolutely happy to consider you a collegial colleague &mdash; someone who cares passionately about this project is a valuable resource. (Though I'm glad you put "my" in quotation marks.) Looking on the bright side, I've learned yet another nuance of the many Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So: No hard feelings, and I'll do what I can to rectify things. I appreciate your being an honorable person and having the integrity to post what you have. With genuine regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

edit war
Out of concern please don't go on a edit war like that again. I remember losing editors just because of edit warring and I wouldn't want to lose such a responsible contributor like yourself. We need you. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion
Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation for a budding edit war
Hey, can you weigh in on an edit war that is starting between myself and Brian Boru on the Jane Foster (comics) article? I don't think I'm wrong here but I might be, so I want an outside opinion from someone who has a clearer head than I do. Spidey 104  17:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw your edits on the article. Thank you. Spidey  104  18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg
Per your revert, just thought you'd like to know that the vandal was User:94.11.150.66 per this edit. I've warned them on their talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS - Btw, I forgot to mention that I did figure out it wasn't a rumor but was pretty much vandalism...the "Dundee F.C." is the Dundee Football Club and the "Harry MacLean" is their Chief Executive. Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Howard Stern
Thanks for your recent changes! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit (film project)
Filming has finally begun! I could use your help transitioning the project article to a film article as well as your opinion regarding the requested move. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

request.
Just a request. Do you mind watching Ultimate Spider-Man (TV series) for me. There is sometimes uncited additions of cast and crew which can probably be made up. Thank you. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If you haven't noticed it's already happened. The only sourced cast seems to be J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. And if there isn't any source for the cast (or crew) than I feel it shouldn't be on there. It is probably the same IP editor though that keeps adding it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Moves
Hi! I undid two of your recent moves on cinema awards for black actors. The lists aren't limited to just Americans, so they can't be titled as such. If there's another title you'd prefer though, feel free to bring it up on the talk page. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sally Cruikshank
Great work with the Sally Cruikshank article as well as "Quasi at the Quackadero"! Sally herself said she found the article "amazing".--DrWho42 (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman
Hey Tenebrae, you may be interested in the recent edits. Drmies (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the article. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Green Lantern (film)
I could use some help cleaning-up this article, it uses some speculative sources (including comicbookmovie.com) for which I must take responsibility for creating in my wiki youth.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you do research and tell me why they keep breaking Batman's artistic license?
In Batman's Wikipedia page it reads "Batman is the most dangerous man in world" said Superman because he is able to defeat super energy powered aliens. In your definition of superhuman on Wikipedia, it does not say anything about energy exposure. Why do I see cartoons of Batman being superhuman? Can you just update the page like Superman's Wikipedia page. -- AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC) AnthonyTheGamer

Late response to you, sorry.
Hi, there is a late response to you here. I just wanted to be sure you see it because of my untimely manner in responding. I hope all is well, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Thor (film)
Would you care to comment here, this is growing tiresome.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Confictus is back, I do not wish to edit war with him.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor editing conflict
TB keeps inserting a statement about the Ultimate Nullifier being able to destroy and recreate the entire multiverse, which was never mentioned in the referenced introduction story/unsupported, and it has its own linked to page if somebody wishes to check it up. He simultaneously inserts a claim that Galactus' ship is the most powerful energy-source in the universe, by referencing a story in which it was explicitly shown as greatly inferior to a Cosmic Cube. However, I have no wish to engage in a pointless edit-war, and would appreciate your help to quickly handle it appropriately. Here is the latest edit.

Beyond this, the page still contains a reference about Galactus teleportinhg a galaxy, even though the issue itself is ambivalent, and much later Rom: Spaceknight issues, along with the 80s Marvel handbook, both clarified that Galactus "only" teleported the planet "Galador" to another galaxy. Dave (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dave, I supplied a scan "mentioning" the Ultimate Nullifier's multi-versal capability on the Galactus talk page. Not good enough?
 * The Golden Galaxy being relocated was made clear in the story, as proven in discussions archived on the Galactus talk page.
 * The Beyonder wasn't even from the Marvel universe in his original appearance. TheBalance (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I promise you both, I'll try and help when I get a chance, probably tomorrow. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Golden Galaxy's situation, being plunged into the Dark Nebula by "huge, galaxy moving engines":
 * http://img456.imageshack.us/f/rom02706jt1.jpg/
 * The resolution to the Golden Galaxy's imminent destruction:
 * http://img455.imageshack.us/f/rom02721vt0.jpg/
 * Galactus, "You said that your Golden Galaxy has been moved from it's rightful position in space...that an evil genius had sent it hurtling towards certain destruction in the Dark Nebula! Galactus will now show the magnimity of his spirit by preserving your world from harm!"
 * Rom, "As he said, turnabout is fair play. The Golden Galaxy is no longer plunging towards certain destruction in the Dark Nebula -- but neither is it anywhere where we spaceknights can hope to find it!"
 * As for the Ultimate Nullifier being mentioned as a multiversal weapon in the Abraxas Saga:
 * http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/6/62936/1348372-fantasticfourv34618_super.jpg
 * Mentioned and later proven in conjunction with recreating the Marvel multiverse. I'm still not convinced you have even read that story.  TheBalance (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's going to be another day before I can help. Just got his with a perfect storm of work and I'm treading water to keep up with deadlines. I apologize for the delay in doing what I promised, and I will indeed try to help. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys, I've got to apologize again. It's feast or famine when you're a journalist, and for some reason I'm getting crushed with a lot of stuff all at once, most with short deadlines. It's looking like the weekend before I can help. If I might recommend J Greb, Doczilla or TriipleThreat as three wonderful editors, off the top of my head, if you need someone quicker than I can get to it. I feel badly since I like you guys and I do want to help. But for now my hands are tied ... oto the computer keyboard and my various editors.... I'm sorry. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It will take a little while until I get the time and opportunity to find the relevant scans, so no problem at all. I will mention when I'm finished. Dave (talk) 09:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Wally Wood "22 Panels"
Thanks for your fixes and improvements on that section (as well as the other touch-ups to the Wood article). I always feel better knowing you've come over to give things the once-over. -- stoshmaster (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping this helps...
See Future Films  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Which photo is better?
Hey, buddy. Which of the two photos at the top of this Commons page do you think make a better Infobox portrait of C.B. Cebulski, the fifth one (which was taken with no flash) or the sixth one (which was taken with one)? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * M. Night Screamalan? LOL. Too bad you couldn't find a good filmmaker with "night" in his or her name.
 * I think you got the two pics mixed up, which confused me at first. The one you mentioned, which ends in 2.jpg is the one with the flash. The one without is the one with the shadows, which is why I wasn't sure if it was the better choice.


 * The one without the flash, which I believe is the one you said I could touch up, is this one. But how do I lighten it without completely washing it out and yellowing it? Which tool in Photoshop should I use? Can you describe the procedure, and show me what it might look like? Thanks again! Nightscream (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm familiar with that tool, but I don't like the reduction in contrast that using it causes. Thanks anyway. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hi, I just want to advice you of a discussion going on where I dropped your name. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  10:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No question DeadSend4 is a sock of Jane His Wife. But where's the evidence that Jane His Wife is a sock of Its Lassie Time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Jane his wife is listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ItsLassieTime --Tenebrae (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because I put the banner there on the strength of your assertion! And I have just removed it, to avoid "circular reasoning". It would be good if you could provide a case with a few diffs that convinced you that Jane = ILT. (Maybe you already have, I just don't know where.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry &mdash; I hadn't checked the history of that category page. I'll track it down. If I'd had known he/she would be back, I'd have kept careful records! :) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing at this point would be for you to add Jane to the current ILT SPI and provide some example behaviorial evidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Wow, this has become a lot of work. Ah, well  it's for the greater good. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DeadSend4
I think you have your facts mixed up. User:DeadSend4 is the main account and was created in 2007. DeadSend4 created User:Jane his wife in late 2010. Jane his wife was blocked indefinitely only after the discovery that it was a sock of DeadSend4. DeadSend4's main account was also blocked, but for a shorter time period for socking. DeadSend4 is not currently evading a ban, nor is he technically evading a block. He served his time for socking already, and he won't be blocked again because of that other account. Since it has already been determined via CheckUser, and the open admittance by DeadSend4, that Jane his wife was his sock, the SPI makes no sense.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Have checkusers confirmed the lack of any connection to ItsLassieTime? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See the SPI Tenebrae started: Sockpuppet investigations/DeadSend4. (And FWIW, I don't think DeadSend4 is Lassie)  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also in relation to this discussion, per a discussion on a historical version of the user's talk page, I have blanked the talk page and started it off fresh with the block expired. In other words, putting the past behind him and moving forward with a positive attitude, something I encouraged after seeing some of the comments made there today. It's ironic I made my way there only when I saw a perceived legal threat which he claimed only to have done to get attention; I don't think he was ready for the attention it got. I say let him be and give him a chance to prove himself again; unlike the historical versions of pages of some blocked users that I've seen, this user I feel truly wants to just move on and continue contributing in peace. Let's give him a chance to do so. Further, he did say in his first comment on the fresh talk page he might stay away from the Nicole Kidman article for a while, something I endorsed in response; hopefully he can contribute peacefully even there some time in the future. (P.S. Tenebrae, perhaps a polite apology to him might help smooth things over as well. I had to apologize to someone this evening as well.)  CycloneGU (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Thor # Idris Elba
I really do feel you are not borderlining on disruptive editing now. Here's the edit I made: I did it because you keep complaining that there isn't any WP:FILMCAST information to put in the article. This is film cast information. "...which uses well-written prose to describe the casting and staffing decisions made, as well as discussing the reasons behind some of the cast decisions, the thoughts of the actors themselves about their roles, and some brief explorations of their careers before and after the film, e.g:" Is there an attempt here to prevent any information whatsoever going in this section apart from to do with the disgruntled comin fan controversy? KN→   talk • contribs 23:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I told Conficutus that his most recent edit was fine at Talk: Thor (film) before he added it to the article. We can discuss this specific addition there if you like.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Feiffer's Tantrum
Wow, that was quick! I've gotta wonder what else is missing, though, if Tantrum wasn't there. Acidtoyman (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brute3.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Brute3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TalesOfSuspense48.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:TalesOfSuspense48.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. 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 04:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Comics
Marvel Comics -- Revision as of 21:11, 1 May 2011 (edit) (undo)Tenebrae (talk | contribs) (This lawsuit refers to a Marvel Comics-related 1990s contract, and unless someplace else exists where this information can go, it belongs here and not disappeared.)
 * If you bother to read my edit there is a place for it in Marvel Entertainment's, the parent corporation's, article where it already existed. It has to do with the movies not the comics. Spshu (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "No need to be snide or not to assume good faith. We're all volunteers here, and I'm sure we'd all appreciate civility in our posts. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)"
 * I just state the fact of where this is cover (granted my edit summary wasn't really good) and you don't assume good faith and post the above message on my talk page in response. Man, wait until some one is really uncivil to you.  They get really nasty and gang up on you to get you to leave. Spshu (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Larry Hama
Hi. Regarding the photo, I personally don't think the problem is the fact that PermanentVacay's change was unilateral, since I change photos unilaterally all the time. It's part of WP:BOLD, I believe, and it would be impossible to start a talk page discussion on every single photo change I implement. I sometimes start discussion when I'm not sure about a change, but not with every one. The problem I see with PermanentVacay's change is that it was arbitrary, as his/her photo is more poorly lit than the one already in the article, it's more blurry, and Hama is not facing the camera as in mine. Nightscream (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the crucial point is when you say, "That said, if an editor is replacing a clearly terrible picture with a reasonably decent one, then, yes, I agree a quick change can be fine." In other words, the issue is not the our newbie friend changed it unilaterally, but without just cause or an edit summary explaining his/her rationale. Again, I haven't talked or discussed about the photo changes I've made. Nightscream (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Because you're replacing clearly inferior images with better ones." Right, that's my point. The quality of the images. Not whether the change is unilateral, which is irrelevant. And since PermanentVacay is apparently a newbie, by admonishing him with unilateralism as the criterion in question, I believe you run the risk of driving away a potential good editor, who may come away from this thinking thinking that any edit, good or bad, requires a consensus discussion. In any event, I left a message on PermanentVacay's clarifying this. Nightscream (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But why you shift between one criterion and another when speaking of how to do enact such an edit? First you talk about quality ("the editor who placed the inferior image believes it's not inferior"), but then you say it requires discussion. Which is it? Is it both? Is discussion required when the new photo is better? Was I required to start a discussion every time I replaced a photo? If not, then the fact that PV replaced the photo unilaterally isn't the point. The point is that it wasn't a better image. Nightscream (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Aw, thanks, it's nice to be appreciated. Though I think someone has since re-added the cosmic cube link, I'll go remove it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comic-related improvements
I invite you to take a look here because I am sure you can help out as well. :)  Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to apologize
I really want to apologize for what happened at the autobio discussion. Some of my comments were worded in such a way that I think they may have come across as an intended offense towards you, but I want you to know that they were not intended that way. If you were not offended by them, I still want to apologize for wasting so much time and space on the project talk page.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Graphic ARtists Guild Edit
Hi I was not aware I was contacted for my edits since I am unfamiliar with this process so I am trying to send it to the appropriate section.

I ask that you reinstate the edit using the exact same link that GAG used in announcing this lawsuit. Let me know what you need from me but I included the website with the new announcement

If you have any questions or need to contact me I will try and sign in to see what you still need. Thanks kendub New Link for Edit http://www.ami.org/2011/decision-vindicates-artists-validates-american-illustrators-collecting-society.html

Initial GAG used link in making announcement http://www.ami.org/2008/graphic-artists-guild-sues-artists-for-forming-asip.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendub (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Alchemy
As you can see we have lists for minor Marvel and DC characters. While I applaud the idea for that. With my sometimes bullheaded inclusionist attitude I don't believe this character on the section header deserves to be in the minor leagues. Since I know you are good at finding sources ;) I ask you to help dig up sources for this character. When it comes to books this is the only source that I noticed so far that would help if I only knew what the book said. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Did something happen?
I'm not sure if this is why Doczilla still thinks things are continuing, or if something's been happening off of my watchlist, but TJ Black did respond (politely and in an attempt to help) to my Cerebus proposal. I had taken it as a sign that we'd "made up".

Looking at Doczilla's talk page, TJ Black still continues to slander me, so I don't think I'm comfortable pointing this out myself there. Do you think you could?  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 04:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stepping in and helping out, but I'd actually hoped you'd post a note to DocZilla. I think he (Doczilla) may have mistaken TJ Black's response to my Cerebus proposal for TJ Black continuing the squabble.  In which case, TJ Black would be justified in being a little miffed.   C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 22:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Toe stepping
sorry if i stepped on your toes at the Jeff Conaway article. i was wondering why the article seemed a little different between my edits, and thought my memory was faulty. im surprised i havent encountered this issue more often. good work, pretty much what i was about to do.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Sienkiewicz
Hi. Sorry you don't like the new pic, but Sienkiewicz said that he didn't like the old one. I happen to agree with him, since that old photos is one of the photos in which I kinda messed up the pupils in trying to fix the red eye. As for his complexion, well, that's really what he looked like. If I reduce the saturation in his skin, and crop out his hand in the foreground, would you be okay with putting the newer pic back in there? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really a taxi fan. I |do a lot of work on reality TV articles. Pawn Stars, The Real World, Celebrity Rehab, etc. Most of the info in those articles is my work. Nightscream (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You had no idea I was an admin????? Dude, I've been one since November 2007! :-) Nightscream (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sometimes happens when uploading new versions of images. Sometimes it takes time for it to show up. Nightscream (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Dave Sim lead
I'm not the one who wrote the "and featured Sim's increasingly sophisticated and experimental art" part of the Dave Sim lead, although I've been doing a lot of Sim-related editing lately. Is that the "hype-y" thing you were objecting to? I think something in the lead needs to be said about Sim's artwork, as Sim is best known (outside of his political writing) for his formal experimentation.

If it's the lack of citation that's the problem, citations would be easy to find. If it's the wording, then it could easily be reworded. If it's something else, please let me know.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, it seems you were objecting to the "6000-page" bit. Actually, the fact that it was intended as a 6000-page book is well-documented, and it was promoted as such by Sim since quite early on (issue #12, was it?).  There really is no comparison to Fantastic Four.  Cerebus was designed to be collected and read in collected form.  It was serialized monthly.  A more apt comparison would be to serialized 19th Century novels.  You can check out a list of refs here.  If you don't object, I'll put it back in with refs in a less "hype-y" manner.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While you would expect any artist to become more sophisticated, experimental is a different thing.
 * Both Daniel Clowes and Chris Ware have done experiments with the form, but with Ware, the experimentation is pervasive to the point of being a defining characteristic of his work. It wouldn't necessarily be right to talk about Clowes' experimentation in the lead to his article, but it would be missing fundamental information to skip that in Ware's. (I'm assuming you're familiar with the two).
 * Similarly, Sim's experimentation is considered one of the defining features of his art. For instance, Douglas Wolk in the book Reading Comics says "he routinely pulls off technical feats that no other cartoonist would dare."  If you haven't read it since the 1980s, then maybe it's not quite as obvious to youbut then, much of Sim's reputation (most notably his misogyny, which I'm sure you must be aware of) has come since the 1980s.
 * As for the 6000-page story, please look at the quotes here. Sim promoted it as such, and it was accepted as such by the community, in books, magazines and blogs.  Nobody has ever made such a claim about Fantastic Four, nor would one be expected to.  Please note that one of the citations even has "6000-page graphic novel" in the title.   C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 22:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. To be honest, even though I intend to do a lot of work on Cerebus-related articles, I don't really want to work on Sim's article itself (he's not a pleasant man, so it's not a pleasant task).  I guess that now the work's done, I'll add those citations, but other than that I don't want to touch Sim's article more than seems absolutely necessary to me.
 * As for the images, thanks for the offer to help, but I don't intend to do anything about them. I was still learning the bounds for the inclusion of images, and crossed them without realizing it (for example, I put Cerebus and Chester Brown images in their navboxes...It hadn't occurred to me that that might be out of line.  Now I know better, and why, so I won't try that again).  The images I thought were important to include are all still there.   C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 00:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I didn't realized you were a published writer (I'm definitely not! I just got sick of the how poor so many important articles on alternative comics/cartoonists were, and finally decided to do something about it after five years or so of griping).  Is your (pen?) name a secret?  C üRly T üRkey  <sup style="margin-left:1.5ex;">Talk <sub style="margin-left:-5ex;">Contribs 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Websites as sources
Hey I just wanted to get your opinion on this, according to Industrial Light & Magic's official webpage they are working on The Avengers. I have not found any reliable media outlets reporting it. So my questions is should we wait until one picks it up or try to use the website itself as a source. The problem is websites often change and the site itself is based on javascript so it cannot be archived. What do you think we should do?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am going to let Tenebrae decide if we should wait or not since you asked but if I may say something I am sure if it's true we are definitely going to know about it in the future. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Spider-Man a FA?
Hey you wouldn't mind helping out with a FA push with the Spider-Man article, do you? If so you can investigate the article see if there is anything that's worth staying and not staying and make sure everything's reliable, I appreciate your work, keep it up. ;) Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey three paragraphs at the end of the commercial success are uncited. Can you fix that? Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here Is Your Required Warning
It would appear from the Revision History of Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa that you engaged in vandalism of that page, that is, making edits based on personal animosity or viewpoint rather than the page content, resulting in a less useful page and deliberately restoring factual errors which had been corrected. Although you may have originally had a stylistic difference, you made edits after your requested changes had been implemented that it would seem you had no valid basis to make. With regard to your experience, you should not need reminding of subst:uw-agfl and subst:uw-npa1.Boringbob4wk (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My response to this new user's intemperate and inaccurate remarks appear on his talk page and, since he has been deleting it, also at Talk:Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa. From all indications, I believe the editor above is a meat puppet of the anonymous IP who was blocked from the semi-protected page. I'll be pursuing this claim with evidence after work today.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. I'm only see one edit by Boringbob4wk on his talk page history ] and it was an addition, not a removal. Even he had removed the text, that's fine per WP:TPG. In any event, the discussion about his behavior does not belong on the article talk page, and I'm requesting you remove it from there. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As JGreb also noted, you're absolutely correct about my misreading Boringbob4wk's talk page. When I went to add a post the first time, it looked as if my first post had disappeared, and so I re-added it. There may have been an "Edit conflict" page in between that confused me. I do take back that assertion. I appreciate that you did note Boring4wk's attacks on me were unwarranted. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Boringbob4wk, accusing an editor of vandalism because you disagree with the content is a personal attack and not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, so please stop. Gerardw (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LukeCage5.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:LukeCage5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of the the Technicolor article
Quite a while ago you put a neutrality tag on the Technicolor page. Please expand on the reasoning at Talk:Technicolor. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL!
Y'know, I was going to fix that little snafu you did with that last part of that message about the orphaned image on my talk page, but then I got another edit conflict note, because you were already in the process of doing so yourself! Even on MY TALK PAGE we were in conflict! It's like two people who start to interrupt one another, and both say, "No, you go." "No, you go."... LOL.

Happy Memorial Day to you too.

How about "retrospective" for the adjective on that special? I think it's better than both non-fiction or documentary. Nightscream (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for cleaning up ! It had been bothering me for a while. Active Banana    (bananaphone  21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Dick Dillin
I don't want to go to an edit war with you, but your edits and some comments are unnecessary. "Extra characteres are not needed", you say? Remember that you reverted most of my changes. And about this edit: you commented "That was addition of amazing information by the previous editor. Bravo..." after altering my edit (again unnecessary from my point of view). Please avoid ironic comments like "bravo", mainly because that information about pages previously penciled by Rosenberger had been ME, but a long time before and probably you didn`t even know it.

If you don`t want an edit war, you should respect the way other users add information to Wikipedia. Fma12 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Fma12. I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I wasn't being ironic or sarcastic in any way. I was genuinely complimenting you for the Rosenberger information.


 * As to my edits: Titles of features are in quote marks. That's simply standard grammar: "Iron Man" in Tales of Suspense. Regarding parentheses, we already use them to set off years in this section. Having additional parens doesn't add anything &mdash; they're not necessary here for clarity &mdash; and it seems like overuse. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tenebrae, Sorry for having mistunderstood you. Well, you've been editing comics articles for a long time (much more than me) and I don´t want to deviate from Wikipedia standards, it's allright.
 * About comics companies, I do not have any tendence to be colloquial (at least, this is not my intention), just didn´t want to be redundant: when the article starts with: "Comics work includes....", I thought that listing "DC Comics", "Marvel Comics", etc, could sound redundant because this is implicit. Fma12 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your words. I will keep in mind your experience in comics articles for future consultations . Thanks again. Fma12 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity Rehab
Hey. Thanks for pointing out that that first paragraph of the Reception section of the Celebrity Rehab article had no cite. I have no idea how that occurred, since I'm fairly sure that I'm the one who added it, or that I edited it at some point. However, the cite for the comment in which Mike Starr's band mate called the show "disgusting" was already present, at the end of that paragraph. Thanks again! Nightscream (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FILM
Tenebrae, I disagree with you about an explicit order in the guidelines because I have been involved with many discussions to write them. For example, here is one discussion before the primary and secondary groupings. Here, I did the grouping. Here is another discussion about the release-related information, which was a matter of properly dividing and discussing elements within the guidelines. The only discussions of section ordering I could find at WT:MOSFILM were whether or not plot summaries should come first, which is why I mentioned the rough consensus in favor of first. I see that you just commented on the talk page, and I apologize for my overreaction. Having worked a lot with MOS:FILM and seeing the sectioning, I was thinking, "Dammit, that's not true, I've seen most of the discussions about the guidelines!" We'll continue talking on the talk page, but I wanted to clarify where I was coming from in terms of collaboration for the guidelines. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, I know... I'm coming on strong about an article about a topic featuring a fighting panda. Whatever disagreements I have, I try to make them solely about the content (but even that can get out of hand). I have nothing against you, of course, I just took issue with the ordering. I actually would prefer little to no guidelines on ordering because while I've enjoyed collaborating on guidelines, films vary too much in coverage to have guidelines on ordering. I see MOS:FILM as more of a lookup of a given element. If you think that the ordering should be recognized more explicitly, I started a discussion at WT:MOSFILM, though it may be a little off-track. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

List of characters in The Batman
Mind taking a quick skim of this to see if it's headed in the right direction?

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please give your opinion if you are interested...
Hi, I have been away again but I am very upset. Would you mind looking at this and letting me know if I am over reacting on my talk page? There are two sections on my talk page about this which should be easy to find. I am very angry right now so if you need more info about what I am talking about please feel free to contact me via my talk page or email. Thanks, I'm done now, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  22:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thor
Didn't mean to revert your edits, I hit the rollback button by mistake. That's the trouble with editing Wikipedia with an IPad.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is pretty cool but the touch navigation can be a bit troublesome as you can see.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"isn't a word"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prevised -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Allison Kugel entry
Hi Tenebrae, thanks for your edits on the Allison Kugel page; now that I step back and look at my contributions there, having the massive section on the interviews was probably serious overkill, so you were spot on. I read it a few times, and think the way you shortened it down has taken away any of the "resume"-like aspects of the page, and I've made sure that none of the remaining text sounds puffed up. Would you agree it now fits the criteria to remove the maintenance tag at the top? I don't feel it's my place to remove the tag myself, since it's a largely critique of my contributions, but I'm not a fan of leaving them floating around either, once the changes are up. Cheers, and happy editing Charitard (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Tenebrae, thanks for getting back to me so promptly, and yes, it is a small wikiworld :). I agree with removing the blurbs about the PR company on the Allison Kugel entry, so you were right again there. However, looking at the page, I think there were a small handful of interviews (not the massive list that was there before) that were notable and would appropriate to briefly mention on the page (largely an interview with Jenna Jameson and a few interviews with political figures). Mainly the Wiki precedent I'm using is the David Frost, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, and Tom Brokaw pages, which briefly mention their key celebrity interviews in the text (not the intros though). I created a small paragraph, would you mind glancing it over and letting me know if you agree it's appropriate or not? Thanks again, Charitard (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right on, thanks for the feedback! Charitard (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:X-Men First Class credits.png
 Thanks for uploading File:X-Men First Class credits.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Scope for Spider-Man: Big Time
For the new article I created we need to have a discussion about how big the scope of the article is going to be. I started the article trying to mimic the Spider-Man: Brand New Day article, but recent edits by other uses are changing the article away from that. We need to establish a consensus for the scope of this article so there are no edit wars and so the article can be concise and a quality article. Please post an opinion to the article's talk page where I have further elaborated on my point of view. Thank you. Spidey 104  15:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:X-Men First Class credits.png
 Thanks for uploading File:X-Men First Class credits.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 orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
Hi. Did you know that admins could not only be blocked after one warning, but following private chat discussions that the blocked is not notified about, and cannot participate in, and which the rest of the community gas no way of monitoring or exercising any transparency over? See the discussion titled "Blocked" near the bottom of my talk page. Nightscream. 6.24.11 12:51pm EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.138.90 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:JimmyWoo ST.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JimmyWoo ST.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Green Lantern
Your recent change to the GL article about comparing it to other films. I haven't seen any comparisons to Xmen but a lot of outlets have been comparing its performance to that of Thor which is the only other big super hero original film (not a sequel or prequel) this year. So I think the comparison is pretty useful since a lot of professionals are making it. Or as you mention, a direct comparison to a competing film. I did the same with Fast Five and Thor which were released at the same time in the same areas effectively in direct competition worldwide for the number one spot, again a comparison a lot of the analysis sites made. Just my 2 cents. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Was it a personal comparison? Maybe I misread it, I thought it was comparing box office performance.  Like I wouldn't compare Fast Five to the Hangover Part II.  I kept the comparison to Thor because that was what a lot of the sources I was using were including and it made sense for the time as they were the only two big films out released in direct competition, weekend to weekend with marginally overlapping audiences.  I'd only do it with Thor in the sense that a good comparison is being made, not just week by week numbers but if there was a significant difference between opening weekend numbers between the two, each being a first film for each superhero from competing agencies, I think that would be an interesting note.  I can't make a comment on it vs. Super 8 as I haven't followed that film and do not know what kind of competition, if any, they had and I don't think any articles I've read have made that comparison either.  I'm fairly sure no one has made comparisons to X-Men either, just Thor, so you're probably right not to mention X-Men in the article (again unless a noteworthy comparison comes up.  I unfortunately cannot get involved in the article at the moment as I'm on a tight deadline for a project.  If I remember when I am done, I will try to add something significant to the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not fond of the wording on that excerpt anyway as it makes it sound like it opened directly against Thor and X-Men. I think a comparison should be made as it helps give an indication of how it performed against other fare.  Was it a bad week or was it just a badly performing film?  But you're right, perhaps it is a discussion that should b e made in the article talk page for more input. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Further discussion, I just noticed this on Box Office Mojo. Compares the comic-based films of the year, so films in the same genre basically.  Don't know if any of that is of interest to you.  http://boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=summer11comicvs.htm Probably be more interesting when the last of hte films has come out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

TMZ
Hey, I saw this report from TMZ about a stuntman being injured on the set of The Avengers and was wondering if you thought it was reliable to be included in the article.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, Jeremy Fitzgerald according to IMDB is a credited stuntman on the film. There are several other outlets reporting this incident but they are all just regurgitating the TMZ story.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That too, I think I might add it but just indicate the info came from TMZ.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:Lost-and-Found-cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lost-and-Found-cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

DC films navbox
This is a invitation to join here if you don't mind. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I had linked it wrong. I mean will you please join the discussion page with the latest discussion. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protection
Hello Tenebrae, since we have agreed to place a semi protection lock on Kung Fu Panda 2, could you possibly explain to me how this is done, because I have no idea how to do it. Thanks Monkeys 9711 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay thank you for all your help I will follow the directions you gave me :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, hate to bother you again, but you seem to know a lot about this particular category, and may I just ask if I have done this correctly.. again? haha.. see the requests for semi protection page (you probably already know that) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Albert Pyun page
Hello. You recently placed a NPOV tag on the Albert Pyun page. Might you go to the Pyun talk page and start a discussion about what section you find is in dispute so a consensus might be reached and the tag removed. Thank you. Readyforanderson (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

205.209.83.211
I see you're having difficulties with User:205.209.83.211 on Masterchef. I've been dealing with him/her on an assortment of similar articles, largely related to his/her refusal to use edit summaries, and his/her "my way or the highway" approach to editing. Do you think a referral to AN:I is in order? He/she seems to skate just this side of a block for 3RR or other edit warring, but never makes an effort to change his/her behavior. You got them to reply on a talk page, and I think that's a first. Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply! Great working with you, too.  This editor has been working my last nerve for the last few months, and I'm ready make a move to get him/her to knock it off.  Part of the problem seems to be his/her English, but I have limited sympathy at best for that when he/she refuses to do anything to improve his/her editing (my kingdom for a gender-neutral pronoun!)  What's our first move?  Drmargi (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, we're on the same page. I've gone around with this editor several times, and do find when they're on notice, they do pull back, albeit temporarily (and with a bit of attitude), but as soon as we're not watching, old habits pop up.  I find keeping an eye on him/her is the best way to go.  Assuming good faith can be tricky with editors such as these, I will admit.  Drmargi (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

He/she just did that weird edit on Just Desserts again. I tagged his/her talk page with a Level 3 vandalism warning, and I'm going to check to see if we have a 3RR violation. Drmargi (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And a fourth time this morning! I called his/her bluff, and have posted a notice on the vandalism noticeboard. Let's see what they do. Drmargi (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, buddy! The editor seemed to be daring us with that latest group of edits, so there was no choice but to make the report.  Drmargi (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor has a 31 hour block for vandalism. Let's see what effect that might have. Fingers crossed, and we'll keep an eye on him/her, yes? Drmargi (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, buddy. Go have a look at User:Worstcook who suddenly went active today. Sock puppet? Drmargi (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for it with the sock report. I think it's best coming from both an experienced editor and another voice.Thanks! Drmargi (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Cirt seems to be one of the more diligent admins.  Hopefully that will take care of the sock.  Check out List of The Great Food Truck Race episodes if you have any lingering doubt about this being a sock.  Drmargi (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MoPixFunWkly1 backcover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MoPixFunWkly1 backcover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Help...haha
Hello, Tenebrae, since you are a long term contributor to Wikipedia, I assume that you know what your doing. May I just ask you to take a took at this below, and tell me who you think is right in this situaton between me and this other user? If you could, I would be so greatful. :) The problem is, that I have added 3 images to the plot section in a movie. And this user thinks that only 1 image should be in the entire article... yikes! Here is the current argument:


 * Please stop edit-warring over those images. They do not fulfill the requirements of WP:NFCC. We don't need visual "identifications" of all the "protagonists" of that movie. We don't do that for normal movies either; much less here, where the protagonists aren't even people, but owls (which all look pretty much the same). Certainly not with as many as four non-free images. You already have one, in the infobox, which I suppose shows several of these characters, and also shows quite enough about their overall visual style. You could perhaps have a need for one or two more images if the article contained some substantial, sourced discussion about the style, technique and effects of the movie, but as it is now it's just an overblown plot renarration. And of course, you won't keep any image as long as you can't be bothered to spell out your reasons of why you think you need them in a reasonable, correct rationale. Not the kind of patently false pseudo-boilerplate junk you placed there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will refuse to be rude here, as Wikipedia encourages all users to be polite when dealing with a situation. So, my solution is, to be fair here, I strongly suggest, to keep the plot from becoming "over crowded" with images, that we choose one image to stay there, so you have your way, and I have my way, and lastly, it still meets the requirements. Do you agree? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't. The current infobox image is more than enough for this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are simply just being incooperative now. Images are what make up articles on Wikipedia! Don't you agree? And I can't believe that you think there should only be one image for this large article. Many, many other articles on Wikipedia have images in their plot, and anywhere else on their article. Here is just one example, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas (film only) has an image in the infobox, and also has an image in it's plot. I'll even throw in another example, Popular Mechanics for Kids. On Wikipedia, you are not allowed to give your opinion in an article. That is what you are doing. You don't want an image elsewhere in the article, because you don't like the way it looks. Since there are hundreds of images on Wikipedia that have more than one image in an article. So one image is far too less. I remember reading a page on Wikipedia, and it stated that users are encouraged to add images to an article to "Put the finishing touches on it". Lastly, I am only talking about what is to be fair here, and what I said before is fair. I would appreciate your cooaperation. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hope you can help Monkeys 9711 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Tenebrae, you help was really appreciated, and I will continue to sort things out. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Sally-Cruikshank-1970s.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sally-Cruikshank-1970s.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This was already reviewed by admin User:Diannaa, who wrote on 22:00, 14 March 2011 "photo should be kept". --Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:MarvelMysteryComics44 indicia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MarvelMysteryComics44 indicia.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This image was removed summarily within minutes or at most hours after this notice was posted. This certainly did not provide enough time to go to the page and address whatever deficiencies there might have been, which would seem contrary to the process that we have in place specifically to address such things. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CSDa, "images with a clearly invalid fair-use tag". Those get deleted immediately, without a waiting period, that's what the rules say. This image had a tag that said it was an illustration of a comic, which it wasn't. It was a piece of text. Since, being a piece of text, it was also obviously replaceable – i.e. with a textual paraphrase and/or a citation or quote – there was no use in waiting for any potential formal fixes to the tag. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Without having had a chance to see it &mdash; I don't remember what this was or what article it appeared in &mdash; but just offhand I must wonder if what you consider text may be have been a graphical element, a trademarked logo, etc. Without knowing what the item was, I can't say whether it was a piece of text or one of these other possibilities. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was just a copyright notice, pure text. Here's the full extent of what it contained: "MARVEL MYSTERY COMICS is published monthly at Meriden, Conn., by Marvel Comics, Inc. Entered as second class matter at the post office at Meriden, Conn., under Act of March, 1879. Contents copyright 1944 by Marvel Comics, Inc., 350 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y., Martin Goodman, Pres. Vol. 1, No. 55, may, 1944 issue. Yearly subscription $1.00 in the U.S.A. Art and editorial by Funnies, Inc. No similarity between any of the names, characters, persons and/or institutions appearing in this magazine with those of any living or dead person or institution is intended, and that any such similarity which may exist is purely coincidental. Printed in the U.S.A." The context of use was here: . Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I appreciate your taking the time to clarify. Again, my memory is dim, but if I recall correctly, that image illustrated that the well-known company name Marvel Comics was in use to a limited extent decades earlier, a historically significant point. I'm in no way arguing for its reinsertion; I've found this day's overall exchanges to be disheartening and I'm content at this point to withdraw from interaction --Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:R.-O.-Blechman.gif
Thanks for uploading File:R.-O.-Blechman.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Opened an SPI case for Albert Pyun
due to tonight's edit from 75.160.53.246 (which are in the same exact nature of the advertising/spam edits of editor 70.189.192.168, I have opened a SPI case. I predict that more IP edits will occur rving edits back to spam and bare URL's advertising Pyun's upcoming film showings, originating from the west (Texas) and midwest (Indiana and Kentucky) as Pyun has an upcoming shows there. Readyforanderson (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Follow-up
Since the AN thread you opened has been closed, I wanted to follow up here and second SPhilbrick's recommendation that you not give up on trying to help forge compromises between editors. I think you ran into a bit of a culture clash on this one: NFCC issues are a bit different than standard content disputes, and NFCC workers tend to be a bit, well, grumpy at times. I'm not saying that's desirable or even acceptable, just that that's the reality, and if you try to step in between an editor enforcing NFCC policies and an editor whose talk page is almost completely full of image warnings, you're probably going to run into that. Hopefully your next attempt at mediation will be more welcomed; I know I'm always appreciative of editors who try to help bring disputing editors to an agreement. 28bytes (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazon Links
On 15 July 2011 I left a message for you on my talk page. I am looking forward to your response. Thank you. --Mimiken (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimiken (talk • contribs)

Regarding your comments left on my talk page, the site I referenced is that of D. B. Guidinger (http://dbguidinger.com/?p=495), the editor/co-writer of the book SKYSCRAPERMAN. Mr. Guidinger is shown in the book as a copyright holder. With that in mind, and considering the files at skyscraperman.com were changed in June 2011 and no longer fully support that which is shown on the Wikipedia pages, Dan Goodwin, Stan Lee, and Skyscraperman, is it appropriate to change the reference to http://dbguidinger.com/?p=495? You assistance is appreciated. Thank you.Mimiken (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

writer of Rango
Hello,

Regarding your reversion of my edit adding scriptwriter (according to the Infobox, anyway) John Logan to the opening sentence, you gave your reason as: "Unless we're adding "based on a story by Logan, Gore Verbinski and James Ward Byrkit," that good-faith edit is misleading". Does this mean that John Logan isn't straight-forwardly the scriptwriter? If that's the case, shouldn't the writer credit in the Infobox be edited accordingly?

Thanks. --  TyrS  chatties  14:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Zero tolerance
Hi. Thanks for your supporting comment at Wikipedia talk:Wikiquette alerts. I'm thinking of creating a new Category, something like, "Wikipedians with zero tolerance for incivility and disrespect"... What do you think? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Grant Morrison photo
Hi. I recently photographed Grant Morrison, and while I generally prefer the main Infobox photo to be a portrait shot of the subject facing the camera, I'm not sure now if everyone agrees. Do you think I should start a discussion on this? The first one above is the current Infobox photo. The other two are among those I snapped yesterday. Let me know. Nightscream 14:33, July 20, 2011


 * Thanks for pointing out the lack of sig. I can try and reduce the reddishness, but the reason I redden my pics slightly is because they'll look yellow otherwise. So do you think I should start a discussion? Nightscream (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I desaturated it just a bit. What do you think of it now? Nightscream (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If the thumbnail gallery I put on your tp isn't big enough for a side-by-side, you can just download them and open them up next to each other. You can also click on one of the earlier versions at the bottom of the photo's page, and open it in a new tab or new window.


 * And thank you for the compliment. Nightscream (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, the discussion is here. Please voice (or cut and paste) your thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Howling Commandos in CA:TFA
Without giving anything away, is this name used in the film?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, never mind :). --TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Righetti in the Avengers
Just wanted to get your opinion regarding the discussion I started at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film). An editor seems to be forcing it in. Also can you confirm that actress appeared in CA:TFA and if so who was she?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

CA:TFA Plot
Do you think you can keep an eye on the plot section. There seem to have been some expansions. I'd do it myself but I haven't seen the film yet and I don't want to spoil it for myself. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Action Comics
I will follow your advise, mainly because that user, Maddox, is acting impolitely. I don´t understand his procedures and I´m really tired tired of seing my edits deleted by this guy time after time. That´s what I think and express a personal opinion about his peculiar behaviour. I´m going through Action's talk page. Thanks again Fma12 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your incorrect accusations against me
How did you come to the impression that I was threatening more than one wikipedia editor, more than once?PeterHarlington (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Bravo
Thank you. I try. --Boycool (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rango
There's a behind the scenes special where they show an animal expert. He explicitly calls Priscilla an aye-aye, and so does Gore Verbinski. I would think that if the producer says she's an aye-aye, then she is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thor scene in Iron Man 2
I'll see what I can do, but I'm not sure where my DVD of IM2 is. If you have it, the exact comment is in the commentary track at the start of the post-credits scene, with him mentioning that it's actually a scene from Thor. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MarvelTales93.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:MarvelTales93.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: My fault; made fix
Sorry, I didn't realize the the same ref was used elsewhere. I do think in terms of verifiability that the citation should be made clearer, although I don't know whats the best way to go about it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cap
Have you seen this edit? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MrMuscles22.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MrMuscles22.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MrMiracle3.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MrMiracle3.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MiltonTheMonster.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MiltonTheMonster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MillieTheModel40.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MillieTheModel40.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MillieTheModel151.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MillieTheModel151.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MidnightTales6.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MidnightTales6.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MendyGolem.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MendyGolem.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Mendy1980s.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Mendy1980s.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MarvelTales pulp RedCircle May 1940.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MarvelTales pulp RedCircle May 1940.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MarvelPreview17 Blackmark.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MarvelPreview17 Blackmark.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MarvelComicsArtOfWallyWood.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:MarvelComicsArtOfWallyWood.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:ManyGhostsOfDrGraves n1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ManyGhostsOfDrGraves n1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:ManyGhostsGraves29.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ManyGhostsGraves29.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Cadence Industries/Farpointer
Farpointer has failed to colaborate and continue disruptive editing the Cadence Industries, by introducing errors as pointed out on her talk page. Introducing Pocket Books into the article which has nothing to do with Cadence Industries. From the first edit summary to every response on my talk page she has been insulting me. If she just advoided the reintroducing the errors, she can edit what ever she wants. Since, you put the 3RR notice on my page, I was force to place it on her talk page.Spshu (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
This is a neutral request for comments concerning List of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes episodes. The micro-series was recently changed from this to this. I would like your opinion on what is best presentation of this information as well if the episodes should be listed by the order they were aired or by the order they were produced. An ongoing discussion on the subject can be found here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a follow-up question for you, regarding the format of the Micro-series section in the discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

African American vs. African-American
Hi. It may interest you to know that User:Johnpacklambert is nominating a boat-load of categories titled "African-American xxx" to be renamed "African American xxx". See Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 15. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ProfessorKilroy & Psion20
If you really feel those two are connected, you may want to pursue an SPI with CU. Given the "tag team" you feel is happening at List of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes episodes, the CU might have some traction.

- J Greb (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

BITE/AGF concerns
I just came across the Morgantown, West Virginia RfC today, and as I've observed in the RfC comments, I'm really not impressed by your handling of User:3TonCatInTheRoom. The WP:BRD process isn't a license for "wait until a newbie posts something, revert it, then be incivil to them on the talk page". The whole reason we have WP:BRD is as a community we expect experienced editors to be calm and civil towards the newbies at least until they go so far as to trip the collective bozo bit and we invoke WP:COMPETENCE. But User:3TonCatInTheRoom is a long way from that, he just seems like an enthusiastic new user, so please try and be civil. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A similar note, in both my capacity as an editor and as an administrator. Comments like "First, I remain curious as to why someone who has never made any edits before to Wikipedia, who has only edited not this article as a whole but just this section of this article, is being so vociferous and going to so much time and trouble about including these and other "awards". I have to wonder if you're genuinely interested in volunteering to help build this encyclopedia, or just want to boost the town where you say you live" are not indicative of assuming good faith; if you think that people who appear interested in editing are a problem, this may be the wrong project for you. As an aside, simply being associated with a subject does not create a conflict of interest by default, and it is improper to give the impression that it does. Ironholds (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Misbehaviour by him does not justify misbehaviour from you, and neither does being an old hand at editing; in fact, being an old hand at editing increases the responsibility you have and the standards your actions are judged by. Regardless of how much time you have put in, if you believe that enthusiasm is suspicious, you need to leave. Wikipedia is struggling to attract new editors, struggling to attract new content, and struggling to even maintain what it has currently. While there are many reasons for these issues, one of them is people who take to treating newbies like something to be scraped off the bottom of their shoe, and when you accuse a new editor of spreading "lies and falsehoods about a veteran editor who has volunteered his time and expertise for years" based on a single set of comments, and criticise him for being too enthusiastic about editing, you're doing precisely that. If you think that newbies are to be treated with condescension and suspicion, leave. If you think that being a long-term editor somehow gets you a get-out-of-jail-free-card, with which no mere newbie can question your abilities or competence, leave faster. Ironholds (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I'm not questioning your dedication, I'm questioning whether the attitude you're taking is one that will help the wiki. If you want to try treating new editors with something other than a game of twenty questions and maybe consider not treating length-of-service as a "mine is bigger than yours" contest, I'll be happy to be proven wrong. If you're going to keep acting as if you get some magical immunity due to "dedication" - which is distinct from competence - then this will inevitably only end one way. Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at just the early messages, he appeared to be contributing perfectly productively - or at least in good faith, with good intentions. Tell me - when you say "Don't you dare presume what another editor knows or believes in order to try to bolster your transparent attempt to be a booster for your hometown. And you have still not retracted your slanderous falsehoods about me, so I guess we know the kind of person you are.", where is the attempt to tone down the hyperbole? When you say "you seem to be here solely to boost for your hometown, and now you post lies and falsehoods about a veteran editor who has volunteered his time and expertise for years" is that not emotional? Better yet; explain why I shouldn't get an uninvolved admin to block you indefinitely for obvious pseudolegal threats? Ironholds (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Awards and medals don't mean jack, and neither does being really useful in the past. You're making pseudolegal threats, you're jumping on a new editor, and you're using ridiculously hyperbolic language while doing so. Calm down in that RfC and learn that Wikipedia is not a court of law; there's no "defence system", there's no "sentencing", and I'm pretty sure that when you're jumping up and down on a new editors head while accusing him repeatedly of slander, I, as an administrator or any other class of editor, can go "in my opinion, you're crossing the line". Ironholds (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Legalisms
I have skimmed - briefly - the discussion on Morgantown. I frankly do not care about Morgantown, nor do I have more than the vaguest notion about the root cause of the dispute. This makes me uninvolved and impartial.

Pilpul and casuistry aside, your statements regarding "libel" and "slander" are not acceptable, and can be considered to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy of no legal threats. You state that you are a journalist; if so, you should know better.

I am hereby giving you the opportunity to remove or strike through those comments. If you do not, then I will regretfully block you until such time as you are willing to retract those statements.

I do not want to block you. But I will if it is necessary. DS (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. If I may, I never threatened him with any action. I pointed out he was telling falsehoods in a malicious way. I probably should have used that phrase instead, and I regret using the term "slander." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Reductions
I notice your comment "We can go larger than default sized in order to see details." But the current rescaling to reduce full- size Sunday strips is making them illegible with much loss of detail. File:Mamie1213.jpg is only one example. Since I regard these pages as works of art, I am disappointed to see this and am curious re your opinion on this situation. Notice that Scorchy Smith strips will be the next to go. Pepso2 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With a painting, a large resolution is necessary to see the details. The same is true of a Sunday comics page (especially the very large ones from the 1930s). Comics are story-art interlinked, but if a bot reduces a comics page so one can no longer read it, it no longer serves as a valid example of that particular strip. Numerous Sunday pages are being tagged and then reduced by the unseeing bot. Some of these I can no longer read. These pages have valuable information which is now being lost. Thanks for your concern. Pepso2 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's one I can't read. Pepso2 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Important detail of the comics page in first panel is lost because of reduction. File:Thegumps55123.jpg Ironically, this is humor about eyesight. Pepso2 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Fat and Slat page had much lettering which one must strain to read. Pepso2 (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and action. I see "Grandma" was tagged again only minutes after your revert. Pepso2 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I left message re Grandma for User talk:Tim1357. Pepso2 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ella Cinders on the William Conselman page now cannot be read at all. Pepso2 (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Spillane pic was orphan, so I moved it to Hardboiled. Pepso2 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The reductions are being made by Skierdude. I left this comment there. If you scroll up to another post, he explains his logic: that fair use requires 400x400. Challenging this would be futile, even tho 1000x is still low-rez on these strips that once were printed full Sunday newspaper size. Pepso2 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well put! And very diplomatic as per your usual. Pepso2 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note this exchange with Fram at User talk:Fram. Scroll near bottom and see heading "EL". Pepso2 (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments
I invite you to leave your thoughts here. As you know, the discussion became quite messy, so I thought it best to take it from the top, because frankly, at least some of my points need some attention. Also, hope the dot points make it easier for you to get the gist of what I'm saying. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Spurgeon
Thanks for the kind words on Tom's edit. I didn't and wouldn't have added that quote to the article myself. It was taken from an article in an external link by another editor. Generally, I think there's a lot of depth and humanity to Tom's coverage of the industry which is difficult to pick up on in the article, maybe because it's the type of thing few sources write about. But his recent near-death experience and subsequent essay on it did get a couple of notable references. I just added a short paragraph about it, and also re-instated that external link that was removed when the quote from it was added. It may walk a thin line for encyclopedic style. I tried to do it in a way that informs about the subject and his work, without extra emotion or bias. But I'm alright with whatever decision you make on it. Thanks again. MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Tenebrae: Good to hear it works - and you're way too kind. What you've done for Wiki:Comics is just amazing. The more I look around, the more I see your hand in everything. I know we tend to favor the medium, but it seems the WP comics project is one of the more developed there is. Maybe because there's so much material that's encyclopedic game. If I would have described this situation of comics becoming so embedded in future culture, to colleagues back in the 70's, they would have said I'm crazy (I sort of did, and they did :). I'm out of the danger areas of hurricanes and earthquakes for now... much safer in my Israel/West Bank studio. The Kuberts are on a visit here right now and were supposed to be over for dinner but canceled in the last minute due to the recent Eilat attack and subsequent missile barrage from Gaza. Every area has its peculiar dangers. Sometimes I wonder if a hurricane or earthquake wouldn't do this region some good. May thanks again, good sir! MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Turning off DAHSbot is unacceptable
Regarding this edit: please do not do that ever again. You had an issue with one file, and instead of removing the non-free reduce or adding nobots to the page in question, you tuned off the bot, and you told no one about it. If you have to turn off any bot for any reason, you always tell the operator, promptly. Because no one knew what was going on, a completely unnecessary 700 item backlog was generated.

Again, please do not turn DASHbot off ever again, and if you absolutely have to (i.e. it is doing something wrong as opposed to something you dislike but is in fact correct) you must tell its operator.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  09:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question
Hello, if you can remember back to the time we were talking about using a non free image in the plot of a film, then this question will be quite simple to resolve. I recently took a look at the movie page, Ratatouille and noticed that there was a non free image in the plot. Is this acceptable? Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:
Sorry, your Re:s are not making things clear, so I put my replies where they are. Cope, and will try to place them better next time. --OnlyForQuadell (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

STOP responding to OnlyForQuadell! You are continuing the issue when you could have dropped it after TriiipleThreat and I engaged in discussion with him about the content. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you can see, [User:OnlyForQuadell|OnlyForQuadell]] has been making false statements that even an admin has asked him to stop making. As long as he continue to impugn me, and as long as he believes it is OK to insult another editor on Wikipedia, I will respond. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop getting involved. Do you think your presence is going to help matters? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Disengage
Please disengage from OnlyForQuadell: you're not helping matters at this point by showing up on his talkpage and by making insinuations concerning Erik..  Acroterion   (talk)   20:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I will do as you ask. Before seeing this, I responded to Erik's post on your talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Except then he demanded, "Provide difflinks to the insults you are talking about." That was a direct request from him to respond. Also, he keeps calling me "liar" even though I have copy-pasted his insult and given the time stamp for it several times. Is he allowed to keep doing that &mdash; pretending like he never said something he concretely did say, and calling me a liar? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As I noted, I posted the diff that started all this, that OFQ claims is somehow a lie. I'm not doing it again, and I see no reason for you to respond to something that was responded to long ago. It's a continuation of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT business.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your Message
Hi I'm writing with regard to your message. It is in no way my intention to violate any policies or guidelines - but I do want to clear up a few things. Bottlecap20 and Nebuchadnezzer56 are my user names - the most recent one created today only because I forgot my previous account's password. You may notice that my updates have been sourced while the other user's edits have been negative and defamatory in tone (as is the one currently posted) and also uncited. The difference in tone between the various edits, as well as grammatical structure, should make it quite clear that there are two distinct entities making these edits. If you wish to report me to an admin, that is fine as I would actually be happy to speak to someone - the owner of those other account names is an ex-boyfriend of the person in question and has been served a cease and desist letter which he has completely ignored. His ability to continue to abuse the editing process makes me doubt the authority/ability of any admin to actually prevent misuse. (The aggressive nature of your message to me actually made me wonder if you were the same person.) If you have any further questions about the veracity of my edits, don't hesitate. I am happy to answer.

---  Please stop your disruptive editing at Olga Fonda, in which you violate a large number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including those of WP:VERIFY, WP:BLP and WP:TONE. Edits to Wikipedia must be verified by reliable-source citations, which is particularly regulated in cases of biographies of living persons. I would also note that the same unverified claims you and another single-purpose account —User:Truthserum21, both of you newly registered today — make the exact same edits as SPAs User:Nebuchadnezzer56, User:Poopandcarrots and User:Verificationguide. You appear to be sockpuppets of the same person.

Your blatant violations and continued reverting of other editors' removal of your uncited, unverified, promotionally toned claims must stop immediately. If you continue to insert this material, an admin will be asked to to block you from editing. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC) ---

Bottlecap20 (talk)Bottlecap20