User talk:Tenebrae/Archive 7

Wayne Howard
Tenebrae, please contact me via email at your earliest convenience. datherton at gmail dot com. Thanks.

Baastuul (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

what is civility?
Personally, I would have link the forgive and forget article from my user talk page. Anyways, I though I was being kind. Mind you, I was not the one who put the Enforcers there in the first place, so it wasn't my job to put the link there. I simply took it upon myself to do what the other person chose not to. I thought I was as kind as I could possibly be in that situation. To each his own I guess. --Vinnyvinny2 19:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

re: Admin?
You can determine check admin status in several ways: 1) List of administrators; 2) Special:Listusers/sysop; or 3) simply go to their "User contributions" page and click the "Logs" button at the top. If their log includes page deletions, they are an admin.

However, admin status is not that relevant in this case. Per WP:CSD, "Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it." If a user in good standing removes a CSD tag, the article should be sent to a different deletion venue. CSD is designed for clearcut cases and if there is disagreement on the applicability of the criteria, then CSD is not an appropriate venue.

Let me know if you have any more questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, could you please tell me what was wrong with my addition to the Liberty Belle page on 9/15/07. I added/edited only a small portion of material (as the autobot advised), yet you erased it. - Yfiles07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yfiles07 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:3-D Comics n2 Nov53.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:3-D Comics n2 Nov53.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Phil Sandifer 04:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Fantastic vol3num3.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fantastic vol3num3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tor
Sure - I'm just not convinced the picture illustrates much of anything related to Tor, simply because the Tor content is so hard to make out. And that's a problem under WP:FU. Still, I won't revert the removal of the dispute tag. Phil Sandifer 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your request for informal help
Hi, Neil. If you have a second, we could really use your help. If you go to Talk:Hulk (comics), you'll see several editors who together have tried to reason with a single overzealous fan. He's exhibiting the kind of single-minded POV that I'm sure you've seen with some editors, and completely disregarding at least four other editors' consensus. I'm afraid things might be getting heated, on my part as much as anyone's, and I'm hoping a calm head will help. Thank you for stopping by if you can. --Tenebrae 17:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As best I can tell Tenebrae, this dispute is over a few minor edits from David A. He seems willing to compromise - I note his last edit did not have the parts you were particularly against.  Are you equally willing?  Given I don't know much about any Marvel comics other than the awesome Great Lakes Avengers, I can only assume you want me to either mediate or take some kind of admin action.  There's nothing to mediate unless you or David appear unable to work together, and there's definitely no admin action required at this point (he has done nothing to be blocked for, and there's no call for protection).  Neil   ム  18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hulk
This is starting to get a bit ridiculous. I'm not personally attacking him and a big part of me applauds his vigilance. However, his devotion to the character is bordering on some type of obsession. Valid points have been raised regarding some of his edits as being POV and personal interpretation yet he turns around and accuses other editors of the ones with "censorship" agendas and all this. It's like trying to reason with a fanatic.Odin&#39;s Beard 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CelebrityMag-LyndaCarter.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:CelebrityMag-LyndaCarter.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SupermanvsSpider-Man1976.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SupermanvsSpider-Man1976.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Inferior5 n10.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Inferior5 n10.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Male vol26n3-1976.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Male vol26n3-1976.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulk vs. Superman
Hey whats up? I am just asking around and would like to know who you think would win in a battle between the Hulk and Superman and why you think that person would win if you can answer soon that would be great but no rush.--The K.O. King 01:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Strange
I disagree when you say the Earth number is jargon, and unimportant to the Doctor Strange main page. FYI. Legobrickmaster 23:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since Legobrickmaster decided to remove from his/her talk page a remark I made supporting your position, I'll just put it here:
 * The Earth number is not specific to Dr. Strange. It adds nothing whatsoever to anyone's understanding of the character. That number is covered in the alternate universe article, but in Dr. Strange's article, it is indeed jargon which means nothing to other Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia discourages that. original post: Doczilla 02:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC) this post: Doczilla 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * RE: "Thanks, Doc. You speak straight and clear as always. Let's keep an eye out for Jargonmaster ... er. Legobrickmaster!" Thanks for that remark. The timing feels ironic because I bumped heads today with somebody who sure doesn't think so. I even landed myself the subject of my first AN/I complaint, although I'm certainly in good company considering who else got tattled on. We can spend a year fighting over one person's edit wars, and then somebody doesn't think even a whole day is long enough to try to work things out among ourselves. Sheesh. (I like to think the edit history and talk page entries speak for themselves.) Doczilla 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulk comments
First, thanks ofr the support. Second, I've begun, slowly, to rewrite the Hulk article in my sandbox. Here's a link, please take a look...User:ThuranX/Sandbox. The characters section that leads off is meant to replace the incarnations, I'm going through the publication history, pulling out the valid cahracter info, leaving the true publication data, and then the refs. My publication revisions end around the peter david era subsection. I have the old 'incarnations' stuff there for stripmining into the Hulk. If you have any comments, please share them on my regular talk page, and I'd appreciate the feedback. I've got a few more sources and citations, and have to follow up on a hint from AlienTraveller. ThuranX 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, and as it's more important in light of David A's recent diatribe, please review and leave comments on my talk? thanks. ThuranX 05:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. This might help. It's the version I cut n pasted to work from, and where I am now. I still have personality sections to incorporate, but I'm closing in. ALl the 'old' stuff is after my refs list. I used that to differentiate. ThuranX 06:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What? it's got paragraphs all over the place. what's the problem? ThuranX 16:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL ok, that makes FAR more sense. Thanks. Yeah, those were long paragraphs. Eh, I'm long-winded at times. ThuranX 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

any luck with some time to review that Hulk rewrite? you're busy making more work for me there, citingg all the pop-culture... I'd like to get the other thing moving, so I can move forwards. thanks man. ThuranX 20:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As always, your opinion is valued, and I see some of the logic in streamlining. I was trying to avoid being too 'research paper'ish in my writing, because if you think my talk page arguments are verbose, you should've seen my post-grad writings. I'll strip it down more, but I'm not dropping a single citation, because I think it's one of the things that can get the article to A or GA eventually. As for your examples, I'm going to incorporate a bunch of your stuff verbatim, if I may? ThuranX 21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I responded at my sandbox about some of your assessments, and a defense of the citation heavy paragraph. thanks for listening, and please keep commenting, I do need it. ThuranX 21:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * that's the newest version. It's got all the info, all the cites, more active voice, less verbosity (I deleted a whole bunch of hte incidental stuff about the artist' careers which had been in there, that was carry-over from the old version I started from, but that belongs on their pages), and I re-read it for clarity. I think it reads far smoother and more encyclopedically than the current version. Please give me feedback, if only a pat on the back.(As to the size and edit summary for that version, I stripped out all other projects, so it's ONLY the new Hulk article.) ThuranX 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've placed a link in the Hulk talk; tomorrow night I expect to put it up, unless there's major objection. ThuranX 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Iv'e addressed and made almost every change you suggested, and explained the one I did not. think it's ready to go up? ThuranX 22:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Co-operative Commission, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't know how that mistake happened. I just looked at /Next Update, and it said you authored the article. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. I have credited Terrypin. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you very much. I really appreciate that barnstar. Doczilla 06:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Very cool of you! Greatly appreciated, it's nice to be noticed! ThuranX 11:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

yay!
thanks much ten! really deeply appreciate it! hope to see you more often ;) †B lo o d p ac k†  15:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks from me too. (Emperor 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

And from here also.
Thanks. - J Greb 23:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To you and all: I'm glad to have extended my appreciation and respect, and am aonly apprehensive that I might have inadvertently missed one of my regular peers and colleagues. If so and they're reading this, please know it's only my battered brain that's at fault.... --Tenebrae 02:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Aushenker
I noticed you pointing User talk:MalibuComics to the conflict of interest guidelines and a lot of the suspect edits revolve around Michael Aushenker which has an odd history - with quite a few of the editors having little or no history of editing other than on that article (or related ones). Obviously you may have spotted it but I thought it was suspicious enough to flag as you seem to be on point on this one ;).

Also as they don't actually seem to be from Malibu Comics could this count as violating the inappropriate username guideline. (Emperor 19:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC))


 * To be honest WP:IU was a new one for me but came up recently in something unrelated so it stuck in my mind as one to keep an eye out for (along with people using the names of comics creators) and when I saw MalibuComics appear and say COI interests flagged it fitted (after my initial confusion as I obviously assumed it was COI in relation to Malibu Comics). Not a major policy infringement but anything that can help reduce my levels of confusion is always handy. ;) (Emperor 00:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Thank you, Tenebrae, for properly footnoting for me. No harm intended, sorry to set off some red flags. I'm relatively new to the Wiki and I'm learning as I go along. And I am not Michael Aushenker but a fan of Aushenker's comic book work and his related writings. (MalibuComics, 15 October 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MalibuComics (talk • contribs)

Other version question
I've noticed on some of the comic book character related pages such as Black Panther or Plastic Man have mentioned their appearances in comic book based cartoons in Other Media. And I know you deleted them because they didn't qualify as other media (tv/movie/video games), understandable.

But why didn't you simply move them to the sections titled Other Versions? While the ones submitting the info should have done so themselves, the purpose of editing on wikipedia is to provide information, not to put down someone because of a mistake.

If I see a trivia section for instance, I actually try to integrate it in the articles. It's not your or my job to fix someones mistake true, but it is our job to provide information. And part of civility is being the bigger person and helping to make the info more appropriate.

I sure hope you don't think that a person is the spawn of Satan because the make mistakes. 71.115.192.199 06:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:DaringMystery8new.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:DaringMystery8.jpg. The copy called Image:DaringMystery8.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 16:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Daring Mystery Comics
I had a crack at Image:DaringMystery8.jpg following your request on the notice board. Not sure what the issue was (the "resolution" field should be "low_resolution" and I added a hard return at the end of the last line, before the end template tags) and I think that has worked as I did a test preview and it looked OK. I'll let you add it to the article. (Emperor 16:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC))


 * No worries. I'm also not sure what I did but it worked which is the important bit.


 * And yes I saw the reply - we have to assume good faith, of course, but there have been some suspicious editing patterns from other editors (including a number of single issue ones) and it is one I'll be keeping an eye on. (Emperor 17:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Anytime, ten! Just doing/trying the best i can †B lo o d p ac k†  18:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:LoisLane79.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:LoisLane79.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Greb 23:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop contacting me
I was angry at the ongoing situation of the article, not at you. Please leave me alone now. Thank you.Rglong 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RockwellRunaway.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RockwellRunaway.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wizardman 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

John Severin
Next time, you should have the article semi-protected. There was no way we'd be able to continually block him so why not prevent him from editing the article instead? =) Looks like User:Satori Son got there first anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Speed demon
I see my contributions to this article have been reverted. I would contest it except I see there's an edit war going on in there. Too bad. Well, at least you appreciated my efforts. Thank You. Oh, and the revert contains an error, The Squadron Sinister are not from alternate Earth, the Squadron Supreme are. -Wilfredo Martinez 04:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question About You-Know-Who
Is there still a discussion page concerning Asgardian? He's back to his old editing ways again, see 'Wrecking Crew'. Lots42 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only fair to say he seems to be cooperating with others now. Lots42 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

References and External links
You're welcome, and thanks. However, I don't recall ever designating the External links sections for references, rather than further reading. As to the inclusion of both References and External links sections, thanks for the heads-up. However, shouldn't all references be cited in the article? Thanks. Nightscream 03:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring retracted
I'm sure you are well aware of our guidance on edit warring, but I feel I have to point you towards it with regards your edits at Speed Demon (Marvel Comics). Always seek to discuss controversial edits and build a consensus, and always assume good faith in every editor's actions. Wikipedia is not a battleground, so please attempt to refrain from engaging in battles over the text of articles. I'm sure you are aware that behaviour which violates our behavioral policies can lead to blocks being issued. Please do not interpret this message as a threat, but rather as advice as to the behaviour all Wikipedians are expected to adhere to as best they can. Steve block Talk 11:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I retract this statement, further investigation shows discussion on all sides regarding the issues. My apologies. Steve block Talk 12:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

GCD
Yes I was going to make it earlier but the site was down so I've only just got back to it. The site is a pain (using various different forms of querystring) and hopefully this should make it easier to use a valuable resource (as so many comics articles are woefully under-referenced). I have seen a few articles (in addition to Steve Ditko) which only provide a general link to the site which does mean people have to do more digging which, while better than no link, isn't as helpful as working out the direct link which wasn't easy.

I can't see any easy way to make it all work from one template so I've made two and it may need another if we want to do specific issues (although it might be possible to work something out - if anyone wants it I can do a bit of research and ask a few questions).

Also ultimately I'd like to move the usage out from the talk page onto the main one if that seems a good idea (I've seen it done both ways) so if you (or anyone) think of ways to improve/clarify it then feel free to edit what I've written - everything is up for grabs. (Emperor 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

User:Asgardian
''I'm sorry to bother you with this. It's the same thing once more here at Speed Demon (Marvel Comics), where no matter how many other editors disagree with him, he just keeps coming back and reverting in order to, I believe, just wear us out.''

''He has promised in the past not to edit war, and he never lives up to his promise. I don't know what to do anymore.''

I suggest you and the other editors instigate a Request for comment, if you can demonstrate attempts to discuss the issue on the talk page, or alternatively file an arbitration case. That's teh best I can offer, I'm afraid. Let me know what you decide to do. Steve block Talk 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The community sanction failed to gain consensus so is a dead duck and can't be enforced. I strongly recommend you consider one of the two options above as they are to my mind the ones most likely to achieve something. Steve block Talk 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Further, the rfc at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian is not a community wide one. If you wish to gain wider input, I suggest you instigate one using WP:RFC, although note you need another user involved in the dispute who is willing to certify. Those are the two options I recommend you to take.  You could also consider formal mediation or other dispute resolution steps, unless you believe they have all been exhausted. Steve block Talk 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not you that is the bother, it is the processes. I think we've all escalated this issue as best we can, and I really think the two steps I've outlined above are the only two left.  Steve block Talk 20:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

October, 2007
Thank you for making a report on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Timely Comics characters
Tenebrae, you changed the "importance" of this category from No to Mid. As far as I have understood it, all categories are ranked as no importance since the importance is only used for articles. This is also what is said on WikiProject Comics/Assessment. This is no indcation of the importance of articles on Timely Comics characters, of course, something like Category talk:Tintin has the same rating. I will set it back to "None", although of course if you oppose this and change it back, I'll not revert war for something this minor. Fram 14:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SuperMysteryComics v1n5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:SuperMysteryComics v1n5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Atlas interior logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Atlas interior logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 12:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex Nino
No problem - it was all pretty minor compared to the impressive article you dropped in.

If you have any problems with the template drop me a note and I'll see what I can do. (Emperor 02:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllWinners1-1948.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AllWinners1-1948.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply from T-borg
Ok, thanks for alerting me. I have practically zero understanding on the subject, I just picked Vertigo (comics) out of the list at Disambiguation pages with links, because it seemed simple enough. I'm glad that the subject came under attention. Thanks again. I'll hold off disambiguation for now, when the dillema is solved, drop me a line, ok? — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 16:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't really say the country's all that it's cracket up to be, but, it's still home. :) And yes, it's good people from around the world are putting time and efforts into a project such as this. Very good sign of things to come. — May the Edit be with you, always. ( T | C ) 16:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On the Vertigo talk page I suggested a move to "Vertigo (imprint)" could fix things. I think the main problem was that as it stood the link through to the comics was broken. A move now would at least keep the link fixed.


 * Also I hear Bulgaria is lovely ;) (Emperor 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC))


 * It might be uncontroversial but it might be worth raising on the project (or at least on the Vertigo talk page) to make sure we get it right as I'd rather not end up moving it again. There is also the option of moving it back to "Vertigo (comics)" and then hatnoting Vertigo (Marvel Comics) but if we did that and other Vertigos emerged then we would need to move it again and that would put us right back here, so moving it on to a new location is future proofing us (and it makes sense) and (imprint) seems obvious (and leaves the door open for a DC Comics superhero called Vertigo at "Vertigo (DC Comics)" - again covering ourselves). Also in the past imprints have moved publisher - won't happen here but it might be worth keeping an eye on for precedent. So (imprint) seems the best option but it'd be worth leaving it open for consultation for a few days on the talk page.


 * And there are hundreds of us Brits (OK about a dozen). (Emperor 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC))


 * OK. Done (Emperor 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Deadjournalist
Alas, the DeadJournalist has struck again, and in full force! He's over-spammed his site. Should we get it listed as a banned link? I was agnostic on it, originally. I was just trying to clean up every minor interview that was on the page, but now that he's on Wikipedia self-promoting, I think it was a good call. What do you think? -- David  Shankbone  02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's see if he does it one more time... If you know of any famous comic book writers or artists who are based here in NYC, somebody kind of big, I'd like to do an interview with them (I tend to look for themes more than names, though names too).  "Comics" is a theme I'd like to do - if you have a name, I'll try and do it.  -- David  Shankbone  03:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talk • contribs)
 * It would be for Wikinews and Wikipedia. If you look at my User page, you can get a sense of what I do.  It would be in-person.  No worries if you don't know of anyone off-hand.  -- David  Shankbone  03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talk • contribs)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BlackKnightTobyPress.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BlackKnightTobyPress.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cat-Man4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Cat-Man4.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Asgardian
Have you decided on a course of action regarding how to proceed, either RFC or Arbitration? Steve block Talk 14:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Superseded by below message. Steve block Talk 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome Android
I'm looking through the edit history of the above article and I'm seeing the same two names reverting each other over the last couple of days. That's an edit war, and that's damaging to Wikipedia as our page on edit wars makes plain. Specifically:

''Most users consider sustained episodes of unproductive but animated cut-and-thrust editing to be undesirable. If objectively-minded users observe such an ongoing exchange and cannot "talk down" the involved parties, or encourage them to enter the dispute resolution process, users may request protection of the disputed article to enforce a cool down period. In severe cases of abuse, warring parties who persist in punitive editing may be subject to arbitration.''

Now I'm looking around and I can see two pages protected already, this would be a third. So I'm asking myself, are we in a severe case of abuse? There needs to be some thinking about how we all approach Wikipedia. Are we here to collaborate for the benefit of the encyclopedia, or enforce our own opinion? Steve block Talk 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope the same doesn't happen with Henry Pym now. 24.148.15.188 04:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And now, Hawkeye (comics). 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
I have made a request for arbitration which lists you as an involved party. Please see Requests for arbitration, and make a statement if you desire. Steve block Talk 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been watching that arbitration case. I'm not sure what I can add this time that I haven't said several times before in discussions already linked to the case. I'm skeptical as to what this particular arbitration case will accomplish, given the history of how difficult it is to get outsiders to see the pattern of what's been going on, and I'm inclined to think we're going to have to rethink our whole approach to this business. Realistically, what do you expect will have to happen to make real progress in changing the nature of these edit wars? Doczilla 17:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're both getting this message, so neither of you should feel singled out.


 * So when asked what needs to happen, Tenebrae says more people need to step up and comment whereas Asgardian says he needs more civility from others.


 * Re: People stepping up and commenting. Actually, so many comments have been made at so many times that it would only take one person (or two opposing people for balance) to link to the specific past discussions. I wouldn't mind contributing to the discussion, but I don't really see what I can add right now that I haven't said before. (I notice that a couple of people have agreed to arbitrate. I have no idea how that works.)


 * Re: Civility. After 14 months or so of these recurrent edit wars, so often over the same handful of articles, people will tend to chalk their own and others' less than civil remarks up to prolonged frustration, so it just becomes a case of finger pointing as to who's to blame regardless of who made the uncivil remarks. Yeah, CovenantD can say some unnecessarily obnoxious stuff to people.


 * Asgardian has said numerous times that people hurt their own cases when they side with CovenantD or even quote that person, but consider this: That can actually make outsiders wonder why so many people would side with somebody who can be that obnoxious instead of backing the person striving to use calmer language. Besides, calm is not always good. We need some emotive language at times. Don't let the language someone else uses blind you to that person's message. Expressing your feelings is at least honest.


 * Tenebrae, you know you're ready to see the worst sometimes. Whether you're right to feel that way based on the history is a separate issue, but you can hurt your own case when you use more "emotive language" that might make an outsider ready to dismiss you as overemotional. You could blind arbitrators and other administrators to the point behind your message (see above).


 * Asgardian, after 14 months in which it's been you against a continually growing "anti-Asgardian bandwagon," you're going to have a hard time convincing outsiders that you're right and all those other people are wrong. You've acknowledged that you have ego issues involved in this (and, to be fair, you've said you're working on them).


 * Ah . . . I have no idea if I've accomplished anything with this. Having said that I don't what new remarks I could possibly add to the arbitration discussion, I look this over now and I'm not sure if I've said anything helpful here either.


 * When I asked you both about what needs to happen, you both talked about what other people need to do and not what you personally can do differently in the future. Plus, the things you mentioned that other people need to do are short-term actions, not long-term goals. Without some real changes in behavior, it really looks like these things will end only if someone gets banned. Now, we're not talking about an anti-Tenebrae bandwagon, so banning Tenebrae won't stop this. You know who that leaves. Please do not think I'm advocating for anyone to get banned, but 14 months of feuding make it hard to imagine that these edit wars will end any other way. Is this really how any of you want to spend your time?


 * Anyone who wants things to improve needs to talk about their own behavior and what they're going to do differently. Doczilla 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Vertigo
I think the list of authors can go too ;) (Emperor 03:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC))


 * 3.55am and yes I should be in bed ;)


 * What we were discussing here was moving the big lists off the main articles. Granted it was mainly about publications but that was because the pages being discussed don't have those lists. Moving it to "List of Vertigo creators" would be a decent compromise. It might be with the ideas being discussed on the other page that a more in-depth publications page would include creators and make such a list redundant but moving he list to a separate page could be the way forward for now. The problem is it is "notable authors" except it isn't a list of all notable authors so the inclusion criteria is fishy and lists of notable anything are going to be tricky. Clearly a list of vertigo authors would be too big for the page and it gets into some fishy and unsupportable reasoning. And it is really too late for fishy and unsupportable reasoning - if there is every a good time ;) (Emperor 04:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AstonishingTales1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AstonishingTales1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AstoundingSF-Nov1944.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AstoundingSF-Nov1944.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Heya
Hi Tenebrae, I haven't seen you since I mediated the dispute over the Dare Devil page, has everything been alright since then? (It was a long time ago I know) Anyhow, I saw your report to WP:AIAV, and I just wanted to let you know I gave that user a final warning and I will keep an eye on his contribs. Happy editing. Knowledge Of Self |  talk  22:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's nice to be remembered! Everything's pretty good -- I've written some 80 biographies of comics professionals, including a lot of legendary Golden Age and Silver Age veterans that were missing. (The young whippersnappers don't know Syd Shores or Wayne Boring? Ai-eee!). I hope all is well at your end &mdash; and thanks for your volunteer vigilance!--Tenebrae 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Writing 80 entries is commendable and deserves recognition! Knowledge Of Self  |  talk  23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's impressive, I think i have somewhere around 20 articles I've created, but most are stubs or are far to short to really mean too much to me. My real proud and joys are lacated User:KnowledgeOfSelf here. :)  Knowledge Of Self  |  talk  23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

break
eh, the real world's over-rated, LOL. No, enjoy it, I'm going to drop off once I'm done with this hulk thing. ThuranX 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'm sure we can hold the fort. (Emperor 12:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC))


 * You guys are the best. --Tenebrae 01:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JackFrost Marvel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JackFrost Marvel.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

about Alex Niño
Sup, ten! I see you created this article. I was watching the old cartoon Visionaries: Knights of the Magical Light and saw his name under the closing credits of the cartoon. Dunno if it's actually him working on animation since its related to drawing. Do you have a specific citation for this so we can include it? Thanks! †B lo o d p ac k† 06:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If you want I'll provide a screenshot of the cartoon where his name appears on the closing credits †B lo o d p ac k†  22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! I also saw Floro Dery with him! User talk:Bloodpack 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Tenebrae 22:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MysticComics5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MysticComics5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

 * (Copied from talk:Batman)

Talk pages must adhere to the same policies and guidelines as article pages. The rambling comments above represent disallowed original-research speculation, and are filled with assumptions, leaps of logic based on interpreted "implication" and "evidence", POV "contention"s and other material that belongs on a personal fan page or a forum and not in a concrete discussion of upgrading the article, for which Wikipedia Talk pages are designed. I regret my bluntness, but the above is part of a pattern with this well-meaning but opinionated contributor. It also does not provide the supposed Kane quote to which he'd previously alluded. --Tenebrae 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First, talk pages don't follow article policies and guidelines. Thay're for discussion of the article.
 * Second, if you have concerns about whether the information presented above is original research, simply ask for references, since (per Verifiability), "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
 * I hope this helps. - jc37 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, they do. Please see WP:TALK:
 * "The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies". [Also, with boldface as on the page itself:] "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views."
 * --Tenebrae 18:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll note the "if not to the same extent" comment. (And the very next line on that page clarifies...) But anyway, the inclusion of the statement was because editors were using talk pages as blogs, to discuss something socially, or to present their guesses/theories about something, etc. The very first line of the guideline states clearly that the talk pages are for discussion and as such, don't require references for inclusion (for example).
 * Anyway, let's not use the "rules" to bite the newies. Instead, let's have some tea and sit down and discuss this with the editor in the thread above. - jc37 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Bernard is not a newbie. He and I have worked together on this and other articles since around April or May. In fact, I helped show him how to get registered, and at his request I've often incorporated citations he's supplied. But he does have a tendency to propound his theories here. "[P]resent[ing] their guesses/theories" is exactly what he was doing, and what I said he was doing.


 * Quick side note: I believe it's a breach of Wiki etiquette to have removed my comments from the section in which they were placed, and away from the comment to which I was responding. I've reverted to my original posting and original intent.


 * None of this is meant personally; I've seen your edits for many moons, and I know you're a responsible and meticulous editor. I'm simply responding to questions of fact in your statements. And I wholeheartedly support your larger notion of trying to ensure civility, even while I might be personally perplexed about this particular example. Clearly, I'm a chamomile guy...! --Tenebrae 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My goal in making this a subsection was to allow you two to continue discussing, without this "meta-discussion" thread interfering. And no "breach of Wikiquette" intended, read further down WP:TALK, and note the section on refactoring talk pages : ) - jc37 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Says "fallen into disuse," but that's OK. We're cool. In fact, just by pure coincidence, I posted my complete, supportive agreement to your post on another page about the Amalgam Comics mess. Small world, huh? --Tenebrae 20:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As one of several editors active in the project, probably not so small : ) - jc37 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DYKNom Percy Crosby
Hi. I've nominated Percy Crosby, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know, where you can improve it if you see fit. &mdash; Komusou talk @ 15:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WillieWiseguy1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WillieWiseguy1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hulk page
Thanks for the help, and welcome back. The guy who put the series of tags on the page for a while suggested building up that 80s section as notable. Showing that it affected later writers seems like a legitimate way to show its' notability. I had another citation for it, as it's just an interview, but I didn't have any way to prove that the other sources were reprinting with permission. Had it been a Wizard Review, or a promo peice about upcoming stories, I certainly would've avoided it, but an interview is the usual exception to most sources, so long as they've got enough credibility to assure they don't edit and revise interviews. I think Wizard passes that criterion. ThuranX 03:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming from your reply that you're ok with me using that citation, so I'm going to re-add it. If I misinterpreted, please talk page it before removing? thanks. ThuranX (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks for the hello. :)

I joined the Canadian military, but found it wasn't actually what I wanted to do -- live and learn I guess. I was gone for just about all of October and little bit of November. Once I got back I rediscovered the addiction that is Wikipedia editing. :) -- Stephen Day (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They don't have me doing anything. :)


 * I thought it was what I wanted to do, but soon discovered it wasn't. I asked for and was granted a release. As of the 13th of this month, I was a civilian again.


 * So what happened here in the period I was gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Day (talk • contribs)

Notes From The Batmaniac's Cave
Greetings, fellow Bat-Fan!

Just wanted to thank you for keeping me on the up and up on The Batman discussion page. It is my habit to frame a contention within a historical perspective, perhaps due to years of debates\arguments\discussions or what have you, probably because I don't back down from illogical, passionate assertions which often in Life, have no basis in the reality of given situations but contrarily and usually, have more to do with how one perceives them.

Whenever Kane and his Staff are discussed, to say nothing of other cartoonists and creators, I feel pressured to bring people up to date so that I may demonstrate that my arguments don't originate from my posterior but from historical accuracy, to the best of my knowledge. There is very little comic book journalism out there. Other than the Comics Journal and the painfully missed, Dave A. Kraft's Comic Book Interview, other than these, a lot of it is just rumor or worse, immaturity (some from so-called adults!) In short, a lot of Junk and some fans accept it as "fact".

I'll give you two specific examples before I stop talking your ear off:

1. I remember reading numerous columns and books in which the writer contended that Steve Ditko left Spider-Man because he had a disagreement with Stan Lee over the secret I.D. for the Green Goblin. For years we bought this until Mr. Ditko himself wrote(I don't own the book so I don't remember it's title) that Lee had nothing to do with Ditko's decision to leave; he confessed it was a disagreement with publisher Martin Goodman. Over what specifically Steve didn't say, however, Ronin Ro wrote something about it but Ditko hasn't confirmed Ro's assertions.

2. I was reading a biography about Will Eisner and a "well-respected" writer was asked to comment on Eisner's association with Bob Kane. I started to buy the book-- until I came to that section. Eisner's comments on Kane were witty and truthful from his perspective as a master draftsman and as someone who personally knew him. However, the writer who was interviewed went even further and asserted Kane had just been lucky to sell Batman while Robinson and Finger "...did all the work", a statement which he knew wasn't accurate, based on comments he has made on his own website(!) but he took the opportunity to bash Kane instead of just providing information. If the man has a pathological hatred for Kane, for whom he has never worked, perhaps he should seek therapy, but for me, anyone who uses his or her "status" to make mischief instead of providing useful information, severely abuses their right to freedom of speech--and should be challenged.

Thanx for your time. You, "Doczilla" and others seem to be bent on maintaining the accuracy of the Bat-Info so I guess Kane and Finger would be pleased.-Bernard "The Batmaniac" Ferrell


 * Ah, that's why my ears were burning. I sensed that someone, somewhere had mentioned me. Doczilla (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Vertigo
I had actually never heard of Vertigo before the other day so I just assumed the official name was Vertigo Comics since that's where the page was at. At any rate, all the links have already been changed. Sorry about that. - DrWarpMind (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: WWH Aftersmash
Ok, thanks for clearing that up, but I've seen a lot of Comic pages which utilise a lot of material from solit stuff, in particular Secret Invasion. Once Aftersmash starts next month though, it would make sense to have a section round then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.16.33 (talk • contribs)

WWH
Hey, I just logged on and got your message. I've looked over the page this second and I like how it is as of now. It's informitive and the plot synopsis basically gets out the major points that've occurred over the course of the mini-series itself without giving a blow by blow analysis of every single move the characters made. Also, on a related David A note, you wouldn't happen to have a copy of Incredible Hulk #300 would you? Yesterday, I edited a change he'd made to the Powers and abilities of the Hulk article and the Adamantium article. In the Adamantium article, he changed the wording from dented to cracked I believe and made the same changes under the Other Signifigant Feats section of the P&A of the Hulk article. I changed them back and, while it seems like a little thing, he has a tendency to turn little things into fully blown, hair pulling and eye gouging melees. Or, at least it feels that way by the time it's all said and done. He's known for changing info in the articles taken out of various comics for the purpose of making the Hulk even more powerful and formidable than the comics themselves do. Given his little bending of the truth with the incident with Ultron during the Secret Wars crossover, I can't help but be a little suspicious and wonder if the incident in IH #300 is on the up and up.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Just got on and got your message. I like the page for the most part like it is. On the Hulk #300 issue, I believe that David A is right. The Hulk did actually crack the statute of pure adamantium. The event didn't make sense that the Hulk could do it, but oh well... I'll keep a watch on the WWH page, to make sure that it doesn't get "puffed up" again with fan-nonsense. There also needs to be a great deal more out-of-universe on it like maybe a "critical reception" page? Several journalists trashed the series, regardless of it's commercial success. --Kontar (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA
First, your comment to me is loaded with improper language for such a situation, please edit it to reflect the calm which I've seen you display so often elsewhere. Second, I will take a look, but generally, my interactions with Asgardian have been in passing, and while they've always been negative experiences, and I find him to be childish and fannish, I doubt that actually saying so will do much. I can't provide as many diffs and such as others. Still, I'll look into it. ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

arbitration
Hi Ten! Made some comments at the arbitration talkpage †B lo o d p ac k†  06:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I noticed you reverted the quote box on the Alex Niño article. No prob. Although it resulted on ugly image placements, the reason I turned it (Whilce's quote) to a box is because it is a "quote" and not an encyclopedic article entry that has comprehensive info to deserve its own subsection. Same goes to the Frank Herbert article where his quotes goes to a box and not a separate article subsection. Still no biggie there †B lo o d p ac k†  07:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thining ice...
Just adding 2¢ re the arbitration rattling...

Yes, I can see why you're making the rounds, but... Just from what I've seen it can be viewed as both inflammatory, as per ThuranX's comment, and possibly vote stacking. I'm hoping that, language aside, it's a case of you reminding all of the editors who had spoken before th case was opened but not since, and not just a select few.

- J Greb (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your post at the Hank Pym talk.
Just thought I would let you know. O and thanks for changing it back to the Yellowjacket image. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly I forgot where I got it from. 8-/, If you find a better image please replace it, honestly I liked the original image but hey w/e. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  16:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I found the URL at least 8-/, hope this helps. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in
Thanks for the note. I am just shaking off a bit of an infection and should probably avoid weighing in anywhere right now but I've put the page on my watchlist and if anything needs doing then I'll see what I can do. I think we all agree that the broader issues need addressing and resolving and the discussion needs to be kept calm and clear. (Emperor (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:DDGoldenAge5.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DDGoldenAge5.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Web H amster 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DaredevilBattlesHitler.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DaredevilBattlesHitler.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Web H amster 01:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MonsterofFrankenstein1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MonsterofFrankenstein1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Web H amster 02:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian?
If we're doing anything at all the same, it's purely unintentional. Please don't catch me up in all of his trials and tribulations. :) 24.148.15.188 (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

More questionable edits
I though those were "External links" to be used "for further reading". The article had both a "Footnotes" and a "References" section. The "Footnotes" section followed the proper format for citations while the "References" section definitely did not. It was just a list.Pmcalduff (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked out the article on citations WP:CITE and I see what you mean. I’m sorry.  I’ve never seen an article with both a "References" section and a "Footnotes" section before.  My mistake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff (talk • contribs) 06:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ST146.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ST146.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheSpirt n6 Feb1975 detail.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:TheSpirt n6 Feb1975 detail.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
A request of arbitration has been made at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration - which lists you as an involved party.

--Skyelarke (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously? People are still fighting over that Buscema article? Well, don't let it bring you down. Just make your case simply with the plain facts. Remember to include more links to back your key points this time around -- my meager, unasked-for advice. Chin up. Doczilla (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok so I think this article has been being disputed for a year now, this is the longest debate I have seen 8-P. Anyway, if you need/are allowed to have any help on this just give me a buzz on my talk, cause I do think that the article that everyone agreed on at the RfC all those months ago, was a good looking one. Phoenix741 (Talk Page)  15:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Expansion
Expanding into other areas is good. Broaden yourself. We can get so caught up in how things are done in the WikiProject we know best that we don't realize that not everyone does some things in ways that we take for granted. Editing in a variety of areas is good also because it can keep us from getting caught up in a grind working and reworking the same articles. Doczilla (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Use only the month and year, i.e.  when citations are needed, otherwise the page does not categorize properly. Thanks – Gurch 12:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thor (Marvel Comics)
Saw you commented about unilateral splits on Thor page. Currently there is a merge discussion specifically in regards to this matter. Thor (Marvel Comics) and Thor in other media. You comment would be appreciated. -66.109.248.114 21:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

stop it.
You're accusing Rtkat3 of doing a LOT of splits and merges which he either did NOT do at all, or did loooong ago. Either way, it's an uncivil way to start discussing merges. As for the merges themselves, some should stand, some should not. ThuranX 21:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded to this at User talk:ThuranX, with History-page copy-pastes to confirm my statements)--Tenebrae 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We are collegial, and I respect you as an editor, but when I read the comments you've made about this subject, they look far too alarmist, and accusatory. His edits come off, to me at least, as instances of WP:BOLD. I don't agree with all of them, but can discuss them rationally without gettign upset that he was bold. He was bold and these look to be good faith edits, not vandalism or POINT violations. Let's approach each one rationally. That's all I'm saying. ThuranX 05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. User:Asgardian is subject to an editing restriction for one year. He is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope the closure of the case will bring closure to the whole situation. Everyone had their chance to air whatever grievances they had, they've all been considered and it is now time to move on. Hiding T 09:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Help
I thought a nuetral mention of 'Fin Fang Flame' appearing in JLX Unleashed was enough of a source for Fin Fang Foom Alternate Version. It got deleted anyway. I am so very confused. It was a one-short, I couldn't add 'volume and issue number'. Is it a matter of adding the month and year the darned issue (it was a good story) came out? I know there was a lot of trouble with the making up of Amalgam entries but I thought actual reality would be enough. I really hope I am making sense. Lots42 06:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit; seems that a bunch of other edtiors decided, for reasons I am having difficulty figuring out; that Amalgam appereances in actual, produced comic books aren't worthy enough for Alternate Versions sections. Something I disagree with. But if you have anything in reply here I'll listen. Lots42 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Torchy5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Torchy5.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Congrats!


 * And RIP Mel Tolkin. :( --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pussycat-BillWard images.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pussycat-BillWard images.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have fixed this one. The bot tags images where the article for which fair use is claimed is not specified, which as far as I can see is all that was wrong with the FUR. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PocketComics 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PocketComics 2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Simple FUR added. Feel free to improve it. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/John Buscema
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TalesToAstonish27.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TalesToAstonish27.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TalesToAstonish47.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TalesToAstonish47.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for a neutral reading
Hey, Tenebrae!

I seem to have backed into an edit-war with a hostile editor over at the Sally Floyd entry. Could I ask that you please review his reversion of my recent edits, and take a look at the discussion at Talk:Sally Floyd with a neutral eye?--Galliaz (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RichardSPrather.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RichardSPrather.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Request re Nighthawk SHB images
Cross-posted to both involved.

Before this escalates with another revert, please take the concerns about the 'box image, and the ancillary image, to the talk page here.

- J Greb (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome Back
Its good to be back in full swing again. :) Stephen Day (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nairobitrio.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nairobitrio.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Midnightdancers.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Midnightdancers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Alice'sRestaurantDVD.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alice'sRestaurantDVD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:RussHeath_RomanSoldiers.jpg
I have tagged Image:RussHeath_RomanSoldiers.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ContractWithGod.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ContractWithGod.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FlyingCadet17.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FlyingCadet17.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllWinners19.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AllWinners19.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllWinners21 detail.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AllWinners21 detail.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AllWinners21.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AllWinners21.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BlackWidow2002No.1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BlackWidow2002No.1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BlackWidow2005No1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BlackWidow2005No1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EricStantonBoundBeauty.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:EricStantonBoundBeauty.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Coronet-Aug65.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Coronet-Aug65.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AlterEgo45.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AlterEgo45.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FantasticFour356.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FantasticFour356.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hulk Special 01.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hulk Special 01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:JusticeLeague42.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JusticeLeague42.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:KidColt92.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:KidColt92.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MissAmericaComics n1 1944.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MissAmericaComics n1 1944.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PatsyAndHedy72.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PatsyAndHedy72.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MysticCrossGen43.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MysticCrossGen43.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MontanaVixen.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MontanaVixen.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:GhostRider western 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:GhostRider western 1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Friedrich
I have "undone" a major edit of yours on the Mike Friedrich page. I would like to address your stylistic and attribution concerns. Please contact me directly at MikeFriedrich99@earthlink.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.50.194 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More Asgardian OWNing
He has moved on to Hawkeye (comics) and Scarlet Witch, FYI. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Community Feedback
Hey TB,

In about a couple weeks time, I'd like to get some community feedback on the two recent versions of the Buscema article - but to avoid controversy and conflict I asked - jc37 to request and moderate the RfC, which he's graciously agreed to do. I was just wondering, do you think that he would be the right person for the job?

Cheers,

--Skyelarke (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. In particular, you and Skyelarke are banned from editing the article John Buscema for a period of three months, and may be further banned from this or related articles if either engages in any form of disruptive editing during or after the three month period.


 * For the Abitration Committee, &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the thanks, but it should really be directed at the Arbitrators and not myself&mdash; I'm just the messenger and the Solomonic virtues would be entirely theirs. :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Did anyone notify you of a report against you? Doczilla (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I never received notification of the case against me. I've asked User_talk:Rlevse to reopen the case in order to have a chance to respond. I find it troubling that the accusation against me was made by an anonymous IP that seems to be a sock-puppet of User:Skyelarke, as evidenced by this sequence:, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP 70.48.122.29 is used by Skyelarke as per this edit summary. However, I don't think that this is a WP:SOCK violation. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 2¢... It may not be, when looking at the article talk. But it is a little dubious when looking at the complaint to ArbCom that generated the warning below. - J Greb (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did consider that Skyelarke anonymously filing an grievance might violate the part about avoiding scrutiny, but I would think it more troublesome if he was anonymously editing the article. I trust the arbitrators to make a fair evaluation of this complaint regardless of the identity of the plaintiff. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

 * 1) User:Tenebrae is warned to remain civil and non-disruptive, see arb enforcement page and . — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If the offending passages mentioned on the enforcement page could be removed from the Buscema talk page, it would be appreciated.

--Skyelarke (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vampirella is agreed under the policy cover
Coward dolt who does not know how to contact me, I will continue fighting against you as you are deaf discrimianting dolt. I checked the policy and it agreed. It stays and i continue. Get lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cculber007 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Tenebrae

--Skyelarke (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in...
WP:ANI regarding.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

New Notice Board thing
Hi, Jc, and Happy New Year!

Since I'm the first to post at WikiProject_Comics/Requests_for_comment/Users/2008 and WPC members might not yet be in the habit of regularly checking that page, I wanted to alert a few longstanding editors to a posting there that I think will be of interest. Thanks and best wishes for WPC in 2008, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. Also, just in case you weren't aware, that page is transcluded onto the noticeboard here.


 * Oh, and happy new year to you too : ) - jc37 10:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits at Vampirella
Tenebrae, I'm looking at the edit history of Vampirella and I've got to point out that you've just been involved in an arbitration and warned not to edit war. If you look at the edit history of the page and your edit history at the same time, nowhere have you attempted to discuss the issue. You've simply engaged in edit waring, which is disruptive. You've also got to consider how you arctions impact on other users. Imagine if it were your edit that had twice been removed, would that frsutrate you? I'm going to point you to WP:BRD, which suggests that users do not revert but discuss after the initial reversion. Our dispute resolution calls for us to discuss issues, and WP:BRD outlines a way of working through that process by adopting a different editing style. If you diagree with an edit, revert it. If that reversion is reverted, then start a discussion, but don't revert the edit. Otherwise you engage in edit warring. If you are right, then other people will make the same edit. If you are wrong, then you have avoided expending energy on an issue. Remember that Wikipedia is a collaboration and that we need to respect other collaborators. Hiding T 20:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about your mother. I'm at a loss of how else to respond. My heart goes out to you, like you say, it's almost the last position any child wants to be in. Take care, and don't let this place add to the stress. Hiding T 21:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. However, taking a turn back to WIkipedia, you've posted messages all over the place regarding this incident, and you've got different people running around trying to fix the issue and it's complicating the issue.  I suggest in the future you stick to one method.  The Wikipedia wide pages such as WP:WQA, which you used here, as well as WP:AN and WP:ANI are the better ones to use. They get quicker responses from people more used to dealing with the issues. Take care, Hiding T 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Terry-Toons61.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Terry-Toons61.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Email address?
Hello Tenebrae, is there a reason you don't have "E-mail this user" enabled? If there is, would you email me with an address I can write to you at? (That link is enabled on my user page.) I have a matter I would like to discuss you off-wiki. -- llywrch (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, is there any chance that you could create a throw-away account at, say, gmail or yahoo? I definitely don't want to infringe on your privacy, regardless of the reason, but I would like to keep this matter off-wiki so both of us can speak privately. -- llywrch (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TalesOfSuspense41.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TalesOfSuspense41.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rog2000.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rog2000.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rog2000CPL11.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rog2000CPL11.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:PoliceComics24.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PoliceComics24.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Superman-spiderman.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Superman-spiderman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Quasar2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Quasar2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WhatIf 11.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WhatIf 11.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:DaringMystery6.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:DaringMystery6.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Greb (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Astonishing5.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Astonishing5.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Greb (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:FantasticFour356.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:FantasticFour356.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Greb (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Quasar2.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Quasar2.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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Greb (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)