→User:Asgardian: strike through |
→Awesome Android: notify as to arbitration request filed |
||
Line 312: | Line 312: | ||
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? [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]] </small> 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
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? [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]] </small> 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Arbitration case opened== |
|||
I have made a request for arbitration which lists you as an involved party. Please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Comic book characters]], and make a statement if you desire. [[User:Steve block|Steve block]] <small>[[User talk:Steve block|Talk]] </small> 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:19, 31 October 2007
Archives |
---|
Please note
Postings that end with unsigned comments will be deleted. Wikipedia policy is to sign all comments.
For the most recent postings, through Sept. 15, 2007, please see Archive 6 (at right).
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) Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)#Destruction debate, 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'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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
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#Hulk_rewrite. 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)
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)
- [1] 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)
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)
Did you know
--Allen3 talk 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
yay!
thanks much ten! really deeply appreciate it! hope to see you more often ;) †Bloodpack† 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)
Ziggy Pig and Silly Seal
--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:57, 14 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)
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 †Bloodpack† 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)
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#Request_comment_on_users, 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 Wikipedia: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. Thank you! 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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))
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
Arbitration case opened
I have made a request for arbitration which lists you as an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Comic book characters, and make a statement if you desire. Steve block Talk 16:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)