User talk:Tenebrae/Nonconfirmed

Due to harassment by an IP-hopping individual, this is a talk page for legitimate comment by nonconfirmed IP editors.

Marvel Zombies
72.177.134.47 seems to edit the Marvel Zombies sections of articles almost exclusively. I often have to revert them for a number of reasons: sometimes they remove valid citations which they replace with more in-universe overdetail, plus they seem to suffer from either a lack of writing skills and/or English not as a primary language because of really unusual phrasing choices. Additionally, I do not believe they ever actually add citations. I have seen other editors reverting this IP's changes to articles and suggesting that the information was inaccurate or misleading (see Ultron for example), so I really have no idea where this person is coming from. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bree Sharp page
Hello, sorry if I tried to do anything wrong by editing Bree Sharp's page, at first I linked it to her kickstarter page as a source, I didn't have the intention to promote it or make money with it. After seeing you edited it taking that part away, I thought that by putting the paragraph back again without linking it to the kickstarter campaign would be ok because I would be just citing the fact that the launched one. But you removed it once again and I would be glad if you helped me to edit that paragraph, adding the information that she has new projects and without violating any rule. Thank you. 201.37.37.65 (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for answering and trying to help, I tried to put the information without citing the campaign, hopefully it's ok now. Thanks for your help. 201.37.37.65 (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm afraid I can't link it to Bree's tweet because she announced it along with the kickstarter campaign. If I link it to the tweet, I will be indirectly linking it to her campaign, which is something I can't do. But thanks for your help :) 201.37.37.65 (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I found a brief mention on her website, though she doesn't really specify what the projects are, so I left that part as lacking citation. I also had to change the announcement date so that it wouldn't contradict the source. But I think that's fine for now, thanks for your help. 201.37.37.65 (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

details re: Kirby's workload
By deleting my edit re: Kirby's workload in August of 1966 because "pencils" were already referenced in the current entry, you are impeding the flow of useful information. History is an accretion of details. Generalizations are useful, but they must be supported. Future biographers will be grateful if you are less aggressive with your edits.

Peterjhobbs (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tenebrae!
I apologize, I am still attempting to understand the configuration of wikipedia. I will replace even though with despite or can form an additional sentence if that would satisfy you. Thank for your help! And have a good evening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignoranceisnotbliss19 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey --

You once gave me one of the best compliments I've ever received: My very sincere compliments on a job well-done! In all my years here, I don't know that I've ever seen such a quick transformation from a newcomer to a such a professional-quality contributor. I'm kind of bowled over and very impressed. I urge you to contribute to many more articles — quite seriously, we could use an editor capable of this caliber of work. With great regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I <3 Wikipedia. I just posted an article (though it still needs some more Wiki links embedded). Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Phil_Clark_(Author,_Athletic_Footwear_Specialist)

It's the one at the bottom, with the picture. The guy, besides being a world-class athlete, has made some huge contributions to the community. He has chosen to be a shoe salesman -- and basically made me able to run again (6 doctors couldn't). So I thought it was a disservice not to "legitimize" him Wiki-style.

I was wondering if you could take a look at it and tell me what you think. And maybe I'll submit some more!

Thanks!

itsashaunparty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsashaunparty (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Zooey Deschanel's conversion to Judaism
I wasn't edit warring - I undid your change but then went and deleted my own words again myself. So unless I am edit warring against myself, I don't think that was the right description to use.

The reason I thought it should be undone was because the story of her converting to Judaism was picked up by many newspapers, including serious ones like Haaretz. However I then saw your point that perhaps it all stemmed from one unconfirmed rumour and needed more solid evidence than that. I can respect that Wiki has to be careful what it publishes about living people. I'm not an experienced Wiki editor, I've only changed three or four things in my life so don't know all the rules.

84.228.28.10 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Yael

CinemaNow
Hi T:

I'm fully aware of the conflict of interest instructions. The changes I added to the CinamaNow cite were intended to remove inaccurate/aged data that can no longer be attributable to this company. For example, Disney is no longer a client. I resent that you had painstakingly detailed data removed without allowing for us to challenge your position. Your actions created legal jeopardy for the company. Perhaps we can speak? I am truly well intended and appreciate your oversight efforts however misguided as they seem at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanerenstoft (talk • contribs) 20:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

More on Raggedy Ann
I want to elucidate further how the previous revisions of this article violated Wikipedia's neutrality policy on several points. This is important to explain because the previous revisions of the Raggedy Ann article created a historical error of omission at the expense of the reader and to the benefit of a bias:

Inaccurate Citations The previous revisionist wrote the Origins sections of Raggedy Ann to exclusively address the "myths" surrounding the doll, and to end this argument as describing various uncited myths around the anti-vaccine movement. The first sentence of the revisionist's paragraph read: "Additionally, Hall notes, Marcella died at age 13 from an infected vaccination, not from the side effects of the vaccination itself, and Gruelle did not then create the limp Raggedy Ann doll as a tribute to his lifeless daughter, as another myth states." This is an inaccurate citation, ascribing the dispelling of the myth to Patricia Hall ("Hall notes"). Hall did not note this "myth" nor tied in any political myths with the myths of the dolls origin. When going to the source, Hall simply disclosed that Marcella died of an infected vaccine. I have replaced this sentence by a statement of fact, that the girl died of the vaccine.

The previous revisionist added on to this by stating in the second sentence: "Gruelle's patent application for the Raggedy Ann doll was already in progress, and the artist received final approval by the U.S. Patent office the same month as Marcella's death." This instead is what the cited source actually said regarding the patent application: "When the real-life Marcella Gruelle died, at age 13, from the ravages of an infected vaccination, her parents were, understandably devastated. Under different circumstances, this would have been a time of great rejoicing for Gruelle and his family. He was connecting with juvenile publishers, and was working on several sets of illustrated fairy stories. In November (the same month of Marcella's death) Gruelle had been granted final approval by the U.S. Patent office for his doll called "Raggedy Ann." But all was overshadowed by the death of his beloved daughter." I revised the revisionist's bias to summarize and reflect the actual source. It would be reasonable to add the revisionist's information regarding "patent pending" if it serves the reader--but not at the expense of the factual history of events regarding the death and the affect it had on the Gruelle family.

Lack of Evidence for Widespread Belief The third and last sentences the revisionists wrote indicated: "Regardless, some journalistic sources repeat the myth. For example, {2015 internet journal article} Indeed, [the anti-vaccination movement's] most visible symbol was the smiling but entirely limp Raggedy Ann doll created by a popular cartoonist for his daughter, who had fallen ill and would later die, he believed, from a smallpox shot she received without his permission." This presents several problems violating Wikipedia policy. First, these sentences describe hearsay (example, "someone said that someone else said this"). As Wikipedia states, this does not belong in encyclopedic literature unless it rises to a commonly held opinion by a wide range of people. When following the cited source, the source requires the reader to register in order to access and verify the information. Once you do this, however, the cited source does not back up the claim with evidence or demonstration that people are in fact perpetuating the myth--nor that this stance is widely held. Therefore this is a false hearsay statement. If revisionist feels readers should know of this "myth," they must qualify the myth to be a substantial viewpoint and that it rises to the level of importance for a reader, as Wikipedia's neutrality policy indicates. Further, according to policy, this myth must be evidenced with a verifiable source.

Error of Omission Further, by deleting my additions, the revisionist has created their own person bias in the article by providing their view (again unevidenced) AT THE EXCLUSION of providing readers with the link between the anti-vaccine movement of the 1930s to J Gruelle--which is real and factual (note that Gruelle's own words in his own handwriting are found on Page 89 of the historian's published book as cited). This exclusion is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Should the revisionist like to include details regarding the "myth" they must meet the test of evidence, and allow the factual history of event to also be presented by its side. This serves the reader well, as it will clarify why two opinions might be held.

Summary If you are truly concerned about readers getting confused by a "widespread myth," you would want these readers to be able to surface the accurate information on wikipedia. The accurate information would explain in an unbiased way, the entire story of this "myth"--not the half truths. It seems the revisionists are withholding from the reader John Gruelle's actual stance on vaccine and the factual history surrounding the Raggedy Ann doll. This information is important to be able continue the article describing how the doll was used by various hospitals and medical organizations following the events of J Gruelle's life. 2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Name Calling and Abuse by Editor
Now you are name-calling and blaming an editor for information you do not want readers to know. Yes, please advise an admin as you are violating policies by rewriting the history of John Gruelle. Many people on the internet are trying to understand whether Gruelle consented to the vaccine or not. By omitting his own words, you are censoring the public from finding out through a viable source such as Wikipeida.

By the way, I am not an "anti-vaxxer" I hope you can substantiate that claim.

I have just opened a dispute on this with Wikipedia. You cannot continue to militantly protect this page without allowing others to provide historical facts to elaborate on the story of Raggedy Ann. This page belongs to readers, not to you, and we should be providing readers a place to obtain good information. I am not able to add further information on the story of the doll between 1940 and 1960 with you continuing to keep this page as a means to promote your viewpoint on being--I'm assuming--in support of vaccination.

2601:285:203:EDF0:380E:BB7D:FE56:C76 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite voice credits
Here's an album of collected screens from release copies of the game that have emerged over the last few days, including a listing of the voice actors for every playable character and major NPC. The game itself will be out in less than a week, and multiple individuals have started streaming from review copies (the current official embargo limits them to Versus and Training modes, so we won't get anything beyond that officially until the 19th), so I have no reason to doubt the veracity of these images, especially when they're consistent with leaked footage that has similarly surfaced, such as the Ultron Omega boss fight. At the very least, on the 1% chance they ARE fake, it'll only be a couple of days before we know for sure. I'd appreciate if you could undo your reversions; thanks much. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Winter Soldier powers history
In Fear Itself Vol 1 7.1, the story of Barnes gain his powers is from the Infinity serum. If you read it and look to the volume issue for Winter Soldier, it will tell you how he gain his other powers.Toby Richards (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Toby. That wasn't the issue so much, as it was the plot overdetail. This seems like a one-sentence addition — something (not necessarily exactly) like, "As of result of being injected with the Infinity Formula, Barnes' body is at the peak of human potential, similar to that of Captain America." (footnote) --Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Vincent Colletta
Hi Tenebrae, Although I do not possess my father's birth certificate, I can truthfully state that his given name was Vincenzo. Best wishes, Franklin222 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Franklin222


 * Thank you, Franklin! I want very much to change that at Vince Colletta. Under Wikipedia rules I can't unless this is in a published source. Have you given any interviews where you say this? If so, we can use that as a citation! Let me know if you can, and I'm glad to see you're staying safe during this pandemic.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A paragraph from my book, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN COMICS - VINCE COLLETTA - LIFE AND ART https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VKFRYFH ISBN-13: 978-0-9982278-1-8 Copyright info: Colletta, Franklin, 1950- TXu001816260 2012 which was written by my father. It is an account from his boyhood in Sicily.

"They knew I loved pasta with marinara sauce. They always set a dish aside for little Vincenzo. My mother could not have endured those years without their love. There was my uncle Vince, my mother’s brother. He was my idol. How strong he was. I never knew the reason why but one day I saw him wrestle a donkey to the ground. I heard a lot of wonderful stories about him. The one that will always stay with me is the time the police accused him of helping my father escape. They put him in jail. They tried everything to make him tell where my father was. He wouldn’t so as a last resort they spoon fed him his own shit, and still he wouldn’t tell. When his day’s work was done on his little farm, our house was his first stop before going home. The first figs of the season were for my mother." Franklin222 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Franklin222