User talk:Tenebrae/Archive 2

Gorilla

I've never done anything on the article except to revert vandalism. Did I revert someone's fixing of the images by mistake? If so I apologise, but I don't recall doing so. --Malthusian (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Malthusian (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurm

There doesn't seem to be actual policy concerning italicization in section headings. I do prefer no italics, as the actual title cannot be italicized, but there seems to be no actual policy for it. Apologies. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggested a Third Opinion re. Brooklyn Technical High School to Re:Becos

FYI: Just to let you know, because he threatened to invite friends to force a consensus on the matter and then deleted a part of my user tlak page. In the meantime keep eye out on the page. Dr Debug (Talk) 01:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you wanted to start dicussing more about the Tech page. I feel it is wrong to suggest what has happened with McCaskill as Tech in the 21st Century. I want to make that section called McCaskill as Principal and then the next secion be about the Mack library, the computerization of Tech, and Randy Asher becoming principal under the section title of Tech in the 21st Century. Nothing will be deleted, just that the information will be rearranged to not only show what destructive behavior McCaskill had, but at the same time what the school has to offer and that it is moving on. Tell me what you think. I also want to add sections on academics and sports, considering the fact Tech was a powerhouse under Cirillo (aka Mr. Tech) in football during the 60s and 70s.

Also I want to erase our bickering, I feel that we have settled our ridiculous dispute and the discussion page should be about Tech and not us going at it back-and-forth. I would be more than happy to copy and paste it under my profile just to keep a record of it alive. Tell me what you think.Becos 21:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that I extremely envy the neatness of the Stuyvesant and Bronx Science articles. If there was some way to make the reference and footnote section cleaner like separate between news articles and regular websites. I just feel the lengthy titles to the references makes the section look cluttered.Becos 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Harassment Warning

CC of post to Talk:Daredevil, as required by Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines for harrassment:

I will gladly take this to an admin. Every time I make a change you threaten some sort of sanction on me and Im tired of it.

Secondly, an example: if Kobe Bryant wins league MVP, does that make the Lakers "award winning"? Absolutely not. The only way for them to be called that is if they win an award as a group, like the NBA championship. I'm resorting to sports metaphors in the hope that you can understand me this time. Saying the creative team of Nocenti, Romita and Williamson is "award winning" is disingenuous. Nocenti and Romita did not win any awards for it. You are implying they did.

As far as my Chuck Austen argument, I am trying very hard to give you examples that you might understand. Longevity does not imply "well received". Well received, by definition, means that people liked something. I suggest you look up the dictionary definitions of "well" and "good" and see that they are closely related.

You seem to keep mentioning my "hatred" of Ann Nocenti, which I regard as a personal attack. Review my contributions to the article and you will note that I said she was "polarizing" which is an opinion Ive developed from conversations other comic readers. This was POV, as you and others pointed out, and I agree, which is why I did not argue its deletion. I may personally dislike her writing, but you would be hard pressed to say that has come through in the content of the article, which makes me curious as to why you keep bringing it up.

Moreover, saying something is "stable" is absolutely subjective. Again, you seem to have missed the point of my metaphor, so I will provide you another example in the hopes that you can understand. If two people are married for 20 years, is anyone outside that marriage in a position to say it is "stable"? No, because that implies intimate knowledge of the marriage, which any outsider would not have. Maybe the married couple is perfectly in love, maybe they have been seperated. My point is that you do not have the requisite insight to suggest that something is stable. Even saying it is long is subjective (how do you define long?) but is obviously, despite being POV, an idea that most people would not argue. But even this, you are making the jump from a discrete quantity of time - 4 1/4 years - to a relative quantity of time - long. Which begs the question, relative to what?

I thought you would understand the concept of POV vs NPOV better, so I apologize for making an assumption. I am trying very hard to apply the same principles you have brought to this page - making things less subjective, etc - but you seem to be contradicting yourself in constantly fighting me on this one.

I invite you to take this to an admin because I am tired of you constantly dragging this down into childish "if you dont stop changing my edits Im going to tell on you" nonsense. Please let me know when you have begun the procedure so that I can say my piece to the relative admin. GodzillaWax 17:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I noticed that you recently filed a request for mediation on WP:RFM. As the new chairman of the committee, I've been busily trying to streamline the process to make it easier for users to request mediation, and easier to provide exactly the information the Committee needs to accept or reject cases. In doing so, I have developed a new format for RfM that mirrors closely the format used at WP:RFAR. Although the new format was implemented shortly after filed your request, I'd like to ask that you reformat it to the new format to make the RfM process easier on the committee members and yourself. You can find instructions for the new process at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide. I, and the rest of the Committee, appreciate your help greatly.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation involving you has been accepted by the Mediation Committee; more information can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Daredevil. Please monitor that page (adding it to your watchlist would be helpful) as further communication from the Mediation Committe will talk place on that page.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Herculaneum

I noticed that you and User:Herculaneum have on at least three occasions contributed commentary on the same pages. I would request that if you are indeed friendly that perhaps you could extend to her the same warnings you are wont to extend my way. Surely you would agree, using your and wikipedia's standards of etiquette, that she has been grossly out of line in her name-calling. Thank you GodzillaWax 19:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Apology?

I realized I never got any sort of proper apology with the fact that you were wrong in telling me not to remove the inappropriate tone banner on the Daredevil page. As User:Sango123 pointed out to you, it was well within my right to do such a thing. You were pretty adamant in telling me I could not remove that banner, which seems to be a bit of harassment, in my opinion. If you'd like to leave an apology, please do so on my talk page. Cheers, GodzillaWax 20:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Time Management

Hello. I noticed that you spend up to four hours a time working on wikipedia entries. I was just curious where you find the time? Do you go to school? Do you have a job? I don't know anyone that has that kind of time to devote to wikipedia; that's great, that's dedication. Keep it up! GodzillaWax 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RfM

• Hi Tenebrae, I've been assigned as the mediator for your request for mediation. Please add that page to your watchlist. I have listed a few questions on the case there. Please review it and answer them. KnowledgeOfSelf 00:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto

Your expertise on George Roussos and others is superior! Pepso 23:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bob Powell

I found Wikipedia and knew I could make some quick corrections. I am the youngest son of comic book artisit Bob Powell. So I hope that is credible enough <BG>. I would like to add more content and will do so in the future...maybe with your help? I enjoy the fact you have taken the time do a page like this! Thanks, seth1167

You Pompous, Ignorant Ass

This title from your post entitled "You Pompous, Ignorant Ass" on the Tverbeek page. I would advise you to please leave me out of your hissy fits to other users from now on, please. I would also advise that your language on the page was certainly not in keeping with wiki standards. GodzillaWax 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I took your advice to use the "What Links Here" option to heart. It makes it much easier to see what kind of trash you are talking behind my back. GodzillaWax 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Get On Your Horse, Pepe

Pepe. Good times. Are we at the point where we can laugh about those things? Hurry up and go read the mediation page. I proposed a settlement that doesnt involve sawing our nuts off. GodzillaWax 20:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Busy Arnold

My source was the Social Security Death Index (http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi); type in Arnold in the Last Name field, Everett in the First Name field, and 1899 for Birth Year and you get one result. I know it isn't definitive, because this man could be someone else with the same name, but he is born on May 20, which was listed as his birthdate before I changed the year, and as you say, the college graduation year would also tend to corroborate my theory. Anyway, do you think this source is reliable enough?158.143.162.119 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Geez, sure do! I'll add it to the References list. THANKS for the quick reply ... and what I suspect will be a great reference source in the future! — Tenebrae 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and I also have full access to the New York Times archives from 1857 to today, so if you ever need an article from there I can look it up for you. 158.143.162.119 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Nice to see a fellow aficionado of comics history. Y'know, if you register (little's involved; they don't even ask for an e-mail address), you can add images and do other things. Thanks again! — Tenebrae 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Marvel Super-Heroes (comics)

Thanks for undoing my false moving of this article. Unfortunately I never had an issue of this series nor could I find a cover on the net (probably I didn't searched long enough) ...and also thanks for adding a picture on the article.

Weapon X (de) 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Caveat

One small thing about our agreement not to touch each others sections: some of the info in Publication History is better suited to Character History. If I move something you disagree with, let me know. GodzillaWax 10:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to your response

I think a pretty easy rule is that if its a plot point from the comic, its a part of the Character History. If its got something to do with creators or larger context of the comic, its Publication History. For instance, most of what is talked about in the Bendis/Maleev section is just a recounting of the plot from their arcs. Those are the kind of things I envision streamlining and moving to Character history (without actually mentioning Bendis/Maleev, since that would break the fourth wall, as it were). For your part, Publication History could then discuss Bendis and Maleev and who they were etc etc. GodzillaWax 17:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My Post on KOS's talk page

Im not sure why this isnt something Tenebrae considered - its been discussed for a long time now on the DD discussion page that Pub History is going to be broken into Pub History and Character History. That kind of necessitates that some things from Pub History move. GodzillaWax 17:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing about letting other editors decide is that theres going to be a bunch of repetition then. I mean I guess I can just write my own and if you think its duplicated in yours, you can do with it as you see fit. And cheers on the footnote. GodzillaWax 17:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hey Tenebrae, I just wanted to drop a line to find out if the agreement with regards to the DD page has been working out alright. If so sometime in the next day or two, I'm going to draw up a final resolution section that will need to be signed, by both you and GodzillaWax. Either way, happy editing! KnowledgeOfSelf 11:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae! I'd like to let you know that I have drawn up a final resolution section. Please read it, and if you are uncertian about anything it says please let me know. If you do understand, and agree to it, please sign your name at the bottom where I have indicated. Thanks! KnowledgeOfSelf 12:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise

Thanks for your cooperation in clearing things up. I look forward to seeing what you do with Pub. History. As for Dr Strange - honestly I don't know nearly enough about the character to contribute. I really am overwhemlingly a Daredevil nerd, first and foremost. Though I just got the Golden Age Namor masterworks. Something wonderful about old comics. Especially when theyve got mechanical whales with machine gun turrets hidden inside with which to shoot nazis. GodzillaWax 21:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Good edits

Thanks. --DrBat 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:JoeSinnot_1947yearbook.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JoeSinnot_1947yearbook.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have questions about copyright tagging of images, post on Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags or User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)