User talk:GentlemanGhost/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, GentlemanGhost, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! gidonb 00:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

24/24 World Concert

Dear GentlemanGhost, in the past you have shown interest in the article 24/24 World Concert. I have listed it for deletion since I believe that it is too early to establish its notability. I would appreciate if you can take a look at the AfD and add your opinion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24/24 World Concert. Best regards, gidonb 13:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Vanity page?

Please see my answer to your comments at User_talk:Gidonb#Vanity_page.3F. My excuses for the impersonal language of the message above, especially after you referred me to a related article. In order not to lobby one outcome or another, I added this standard message to the talk pages of all those who participated at some stage in editing the page, including its creator. It is always advisable to be consistent in these matters. Best regards and keep up the good work! Regards, gidonb 01:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken at the impersonal nature of the post. Moreover, I appreciate the kudos and the interest. It's good to know it's not for naught. GentlemanGhost 03:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mrozinski

Please leave the deletion notices for my article (Mrozinski). No disrespect intended but my personal info has been edited repeatedly and erroneously, and I want the article deleted. Please comply with my wishes. Mrozinski 14:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Gidonb has made a final edit and hopefully you all will leave this page for deletion. It seems to have been the target of interest for people with no stake in its content. Now they can move on to objects of more legitimate concern and leave me alone. I do not know why everyone insisted on editing a page which is about me, but I guess I should be flattered. I hope they are happy to find someone else to harrass. Mrozinski 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you do me a favor and STOP FUCKING WITH MY INFORMATION. I don't know what your problem with me is, I am not a therapist, but I really think you need to take care of your own control issues. By the way you are neither a gentleman or a ghost. Take care of your own life and back off. Let this page be deleted and concentrate on your own excuse for existence. Mrozinski 02:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you check the history page for Mrozinski, you will notice that I have not made any changes to it since May 31. I have only contributed to the discussion regarding it. GentlemanGhost 02:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD Mrozinski

In the past you have shown some interest in the Mrozinski article. I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrozinski. Regards, gidonb 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Public Image Ltd.

Howdy, as you may have suspected, earlier versions of the Public Image Ltd. were written in a way that compared the band's history to the plot of Spinal Tap. While this was funny, it wasn't very encyclopedic and so most of the references were removed, but not all of them as you've discovered. Just FYI/FWIW. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

James Randi

I saw the improvement you made to the article about James Randi. Would you look at the article Philip J. Klass, and see if it needs similar improvements? Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 00:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks pretty dense. It may take a while to sort through. I did remove one item, though. In fact, it looks like it was one that you added. Sorry about that. --GentlemanGhost 02:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Greyhawk article targeted for deletion

Baklunish Basin has been proposed for deletion. If possible, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baklunish Basin. Thanks. --Robbstrd 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit warriors

You have an "etc." after the three articles you name as having edit wars going on.[1] You might want to list those articles so people can check them out. Getting dragged into an edit war over a newcomer's insistence on adding a "Batman as villain" section to the Batman article is driving me nuts. I've found that strength in numbers can help resolve these things without any one person wearing him/herself to death over it. I'd like to offer my two cents on these edit wars, to lend a hand to whoever is trying to bring them to an appropriate conclusion. Hopefully I won't get drawn into the whole-scale battle, but like I said, just showing strength in numbers, bringing in a variety of perspectives, can really help. Doczilla 07:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I didn't list more articles because I'm not sure how many articles this edit war spreads across. Although I have become involved, I suppose I should have mentioned that I am not one of the primary combatants. I decided not to name names on the notice board because I didn't want to make it too personal. Besides, looking at the article histories, it's farily obvious who I'm talking about. But, I see your point. I, too, have leapt into the fray to add my two cents and show strength in numbers. I didn't want to check all of this new user's contributions, because I didn't want to pick on the new guy. But now that I think about it, if there are edit wars occurring on multiple other articles, he probably already feels picked on, so it won't really make it that much worse. I'll do some research and add to the list. Thanks again! --GentlemanGhost 16:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's Asgardian's justification for ignoring everything we're telling him about his edit warring: [[2]] Doczilla 02:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. He reverted Man Beast three times today. He can hit his fourth revision if he goes back before 10 a.m. his time tomorrow. Doczilla 02:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you saw, he has now reverted it four times in 24 hours. I'm not sure to whom this should be reported. I've never done that before. (And, yes, Asgardian, I know you'll see this. I don't know what else to do when you refuse to listen to so many people. Yes, tattling is childish. Do you really not see where your behavior is childish?) Thanks for bringing this mess to our attention, Ghost. Doczilla 16:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I was surprised to find that CovenantD hadn't reported the edit war. It looks like there was some administrator mediation early on, but the war was pretty much going on unabated when I stumbled on to it. As of now, Asgardian has been blocked for 24 hours, so I assume that you figured out how to report the 3RR violation. In case you didn't, all the info about it is here. Thanks for your help! --GentlemanGhost 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: You might want to weigh in on to Admin Noticeboard entry. It's December and this stuff is still going on. Doczilla 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen this thread, so I hope you don't mind if I comment. When User:Asgardian first appeared and started editing comics-related articles, I attempted to dialogue with him and explain why many of his edits weren't appropriate and refered him to the guidelines and policies that covered those edits. He became very combative, essentially dismissing anything that didn't meet his standards and would simply revert to his preferred version. I attempted to get a couple of admins involved in the discussion without any success. After weeks or months, I gave up trying to explain why his edits were being reverted and just did it. Others have occasionally become involved on a specific article or type of edit, and more often than not my interpretation has been supported by others. CovenantD 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. You're welcome to comment. I share your frustration. It's tough to maintain civility and assume good faith sometimes, but I have tried to do so. It does appear that some admins are taking an interest, at least. For the moment, it seems like things have calmed down a bit. I'm hoping that it will all work out without any drastic measures being taken. --GentlemanGhost 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive238#User:Asgardian

Coxsone

Good work! SqueakBox 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The person that made that edit appears to be a new user, so I left the "nothanks" template on his talk page. Hopefully, it won't scare him off. --GentlemanGhost 01:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

POV tag for Wiccan (comics)

Hi CovenantD. What did you find objectionable within the Civil War section of Wiccan (comics)? It wasn't immediately apparent to me. --GentlemanGhost 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of it starts in the middle of the third paragraph, with the sentence "The young heroes become the prisoners and victims of the sadistic Warden." It gets worse from there, with lots of subjective adjectives like atrocity, fortunately, abominable and daring. And the entire turn to the Dark Side phrasing, complete with wikilink, is OR at best. Basically, the entire tone way too subjective and assumes too much about the motivations and feelings of the characters involved. Hope that helps. CovenantD 20:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday and Today

You know, you kinda did that page move in the wrong way. By merely copying and pasting the contents, you lose the edit history of the article. There are other methods of moving articles that are more effective. See WP:MOVE. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that after I moved it, but I don't know if there's a way to fix it now. --GentlemanGhost 04:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating of Aquaman

Just a question, but what was the reasoning for bumping the rating?

I had noted that I may have low-balled it in the "rating comments' when taking it down from "Top". It maybe worthwhile for the project as a whole for the reasoning for the bump be noted in the same section so that others can apply the same standards across the project.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 15:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I responded here. --GentlemanGhost 15:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mjolnir (comics)

1. Cited examples [3] are from more than 24 hrs.

2. It is not for you to judge.

Asgardian 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Look closer. They are within the same 24 hour period. And that's why I took it to the appropriate venue. --GentlemanGhost 22:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, if the edit warring continues, you can always try WP:RPP. At least we now know who is who. ;-) Khoi khoi 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Galactus

I've protected Galactus. I'm not sure if the other pages need it though. If the edit wars continue once the page is unprotected, it's time to start blocking the edit warriors instead. I've seen sevral admins use this method instead of protecting pages. Khoi khoi 03:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on how Asgardian got blocked. I still say Steel needed to cross t's and dot i's more carefully when posting the block notice, and sure shouldn't have deleted a comment of Asgardian's from Steel's talk page. I'm amazed that these edit wars over Thor-related and cosmic Marvel pages have gone on for such a long, long time, which is all the more reason for admins to make damn sure they handle these things carefully if they really mean to bring the edit wars to a reasonable end. Regardless of whether Steel aimed to improve Asgardian's performance or drive him away, sloppy work like Steel's won't do nearly enough to resolve anything, which leaves everyone involved with one headache after another -- and by everyone, I mean all of the considerable number of people banging their heads in frustration regardless of which position they take. Steel didn't exactly impress me as the kind of "cooler head" you needed. Doczilla 08:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. It doesn't sound like it, but I haven't followed all the links to judge for myself yet. All I asked for was page protection, as suggested above by Khoikhoi, which would force both parties to cool off and concentrate on other things. However, if punishment was to be applied, I feel it should have been applied to DCincarnate as well. --GentlemanGhost 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, these were the charming edit summaries which spurred me to request page protection. [4] --GentlemanGhost 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Doczilla 10:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

AN/I notice

To follow up on previous discussions, I've posted a few potential solutions there. - jc37 23:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks well-thought out. I am fine with whatever decision is made, including no action. --GentlemanGhost 00:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There's been a Request for Comment initiated at Talk:Whizzer#Request for comment over style and content issues between two versions of Whizzer, one by Tenebrae, the other by Asgardian.

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics and to the Whizzer article, and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 13:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

Thanks for your support for the image, I just want to tell you the issue has been resolved on User:Veinors talk page because he realized I wasn't trying to replace the original comic book image, but to illustrate its specialty by showing it in its packaging and its quality rating, but again thanks. Rodrigue 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --GentlemanGhost 23:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed

True, but he jumped in on a completely unrelated article to try and get a rise out of me. Happens a lot.

Asgardian 02:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vision (Marvel, Timely, et. al.)

Hi JC, any chance you'd like to step in at Vision (Marvel Comics)? There was some dialogue going on and there has been some compromise (I think the move issue has been settled), but it seems like an impasse has been reached. Currently, the discussion is taking place via edit summaries on reverts, which is not exactly ideal. --GentlemanGhost 09:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain what I should be looking for? - jc37 09:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't specify. The page has been moved back and forth several times this month due to a dispute over whether or not Vision (Timely Comics) should be merged with Vision (Marvel Comics) to create Vision (comics). It appears that the consensus is that they should not be merged and the primary advocate of the move has accepted this. So, currently, the sticking point is whose version is better, User:DrBat or User:Asgardian? I tried to set up a point-by-point discussion of what needs to be cleaned up, much like what occurred with Whizzer. So far, neither editor has replied, although others have. One editor has made a revert since then. Should I give it more time? --GentlemanGhost 09:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably. A note at the WikiProject talk page wouldn't hurt either. Things seem calm atm, or perhaps I am missing something? Also, it took me a bit to determine that the split was agreed upon, so perhaps that should be clearer on the talk page as well? - jc37 09:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did put a note up about it at WikiProject Comics. I put one on the Notice Board first. Then, when the cut-and-paste moves were causing edit histories to be lost, I put one on the main talk page for the project. That has helped somewhat. As far as the split being agreed upon, it isn't very clear. But Asgardian does seem to consent to it in one of his talk page comments. I will seek clarification, just to make sure.

As far as things being calm, in the last 24 hours, both DrBat and Asgardian have reverted to their previous version of the article [5] [6], although DrBat made some changes to it afterwards. No one is in violation of 3RR and both people have made comments on the talk page recently, but I am interpreting the uncompromising reverts as a bad sign. If I am overreacting, let me know. --GentlemanGhost 10:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All things considered, caution would seem to be a "good thing". For now, let's see if they "come back to the table" and discuss. - jc37 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, see User_talk:J_Greb#Moving_forward_on_Whizzer_and_Absorbing_Man. I'm about to go through and see about closing the discussions. Any insight you might have on the discussions before that would obviously be welcome : ) - jc37 10:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jc, just as someone watching from the sidelines, and mostly reading the edit sums and not going through the edits themselves, I second GG's request. The "snark" content, for lack of a better, printable, term, is rising fast as per this (bulk revert after multiple incremental edits by DrBat, this (another near total revert of other editor's contribs, whit an inappropriate ES comment), and this (another blanket revert). The last one is really troubling since it reads as condescending and makes the editor's immediately preceding ES read as an insult by sarcasm. - J Greb 08:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree. I've reverted the page to before the first "page refactor", and left a note at the talk page. I sincerely hope that this sort of disruption is discontinued. - jc37 18:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the disruption continues, but I have reverted the article back to the point that you chose. That seems most fair. As far as Whizzer and Absorbing Man, I'd say to go ahead and close the discussion. It would be nice to have some forward progress somewhere. : ) --GentlemanGhost 06:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, closed several sections of the Talk:Whizzer discussion. - jc37 09:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And protected Vision (Marvel Comics). Noted on its talk page. - jc37 11:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Marioman22

Marioman22 is acting as a sockpuppeteer to continue to edit Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus against the consensus that was already built. I have posted the sockpuppet template in both of their talk pages, but I don't know what else to do. I figure you would be able to help since you have much more experience than I do. Thanks!! --Freak104 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If he's using it to get around the 3 revert rule, then you should report it at WP:AN3. You can also report the suspected sock puppet to WP:SSP. However, I would also consider discussing the issue on the talk page(s). Unless I am missing something, there has not been prior discussion there regarding the "archenemy" issue. While it's true that there is a de facto consensus in that no one else changed the phrasing prior to this point, that's not the same as having a prior discussion about it. People may have changed their minds, new editors may agree with Marioman22, or perhaps no one really thought about it before. It might be worth raising the issue to see what people think about it now. Taking it to the talk page is the appropriate first step when resolving controversial edits.

Speaking specifically to the case at hand, a problem that I have with the term "archenemy" is that it implies that the character is the "most important" enemy. How do you decide which enemy is the most important? While it's uncontroversial to say that Moriarty is Sherlock Holmes' archenemy, in the case of serial fiction, where there has been a long accumulation of recurring foes, it's not so simple to pick which villain is the most important. To that end, it would be useful to cite sources — either from the comics themselves, where Spider-Man refers to the Green Goblin as an "archenemy", or from secondary sources, such as news media, where a creator makes a reference to an "archenemy". Without this kind of sourcing, it boils down to opinion, which is original research and is forbidden on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if that's too much trouble and you'd rather avoid controversy, I think most people would agree that both the Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus can accurately be described as "an archenemy of Spider-Man".

As an aside, the template which you put on Marioman2's talk page is something which admins put on people's talk pages after a request for check user has been processed. Since that hasn't happened yet, I highly recommend removing it, in particular because it says that he has been blocked, which isn't true. --GentlemanGhost 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wrong Version

Ah thanks... I couldn't find the link. I still find it funny when I get messages telling me that it was good that I protected a page but I made a mistake and protected the wrong version :)--Isotope23 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I thought you might be amused. --GentlemanGhost 17:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The first time I saw that page was during an editing conflict at Talk:Sweetest Day, when JzG (talk · contribs) referenced it on the talkpage. I laughed when I read it. The person I was edit warring with seemed to have missed the irony though as they immediately edited the version of the page that they disputed. It's still one of the funniest things I've seen happen here.--Isotope23 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Understand

Graphic Novels is a proper noun and part of Warhammer 40,000. The article isn't about comic books, but only about the plot that is companion to Warhammer, i.e. the fluff, and how that ties in with miniatures. The page was intended as that, hence Graphic Novels (the publishing project) followed by disamb (Warhammer 40,000) to keep it from being confused with a page on graphic novels in general. The user, someguy, is currently wikistalking me. He moved it in order to try and cause me distress. Hence, if you look, he moved it just five hours after the page was created, and he is not a member of either project, nor has he ever edited pages on Warhammer before. SanchiTachi 18:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you regarding the proper noun. Please see the article's talk page. --GentlemanGhost 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it should be dealt with people who have experience with Warhammer and with their graphic novel production line. Yes, the information will be sourced. However, there is a lot of information to put in and it needs time. However, certain users seem wanting to fight over something that was just created and demand standards that are just not right. There are already pages on the individual graphic novels. If people want to talk about them as comics, thats what they are there for. SanchiTachi 23:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed Emperor's request for sources backing up your claim that this involves more than mere graphic novels. If you will put some sources on the article's talk page, I will be happy to discuss it. --GentlemanGhost 23:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So you think that images and citations of rules and pictures of miniatures doesn't lend any credence to what I say? User:SanchiTachi/Graphic Novels Current go here if you want to edit the page. That is the version without the problems that Someguy kept verting back. [7] that is from the Witch Hunters miniatures army page. As you can see, they are tying in the main miniature army with the special model and the book. There is plenty of more information like this, but it needs time to be put forth. SanchiTachi 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Watch my user page entry. Then comment on my talk page as it progresses. I do want comments and help, but I do not want people complaining about the subject when the subject hasn't even been put in and some of the lines were just filler. SanchiTachi 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted previous to return to current: I have updated User:SanchiTachi/Graphic Novels Current. Please look it over and see which areas need more added (limit to only a few that I can manage on my own and tonight). It is a slow process trying to create a whole page when people from the project are on break for Memorial Day. SanchiTachi 01:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated even more. Added more resources. Far from finished. SanchiTachi 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear GentlemanGhost.

Dear GentlemanGhost. Please forgive my editing on Wikipedia. I'm very new, and only 14. I thought that editing the page would ONLY effect my view of it. I'm sorry, and I've learned better. I hope that this message goes to you, and if it doesn't please tell me how to message you or contact you!

-James.

No problem. And welcome to Wikipedia! I'm sure you'll get the hang of it before long. --GentlemanGhost 11:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi

Thanks - although I don't think it did much good in the long run. I suppose the only thing is that there were enough people involved that he wasn't able to intimidate us off. If it'd been just me and him I'd have just walked away. The sad thing is that at least 3 people have said they've left the Warhamer 40k Project because of him which is a bad state of affairs. I see at least one has signed back up so perhaps the loss of an informed editor (even if he seemed to miss the point of teamwork) will be balanced by more people feeling they can contribute. I stumbled across him on another Warhammer 40k wiki and as he has learned precisely nothing from this I fear he might poison their project. He isn't my problem anymore though so that is the important thing.

The sad thing is he was wrong on so many things but refused to even take on board the idea he might have been. For example the above issue he mentions. There is no Graphic Novel project. The Black Library page on the trade paperbacks calls them Graphic Novels and they print GRAPHIC NOVEL on the cover. However, they call the novels, Novels and print NOVELS on the front. I suspect this is to help people avoid confusion about what is what. It certainly isn't indicative of some wider plan. As mentioned he utterly failed to provide a reference for it and was trying to prove it existed by juxtaposing the two sets of information which isn't on. Ironically the new entry he started made no such claims and had a much better range and scope.

Anyway thanks for the help too - the more level heads involved the better (granted it got messy but it could have been worse). (Emperor 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Heh. As I tried to point to him, they also capitalized Baseball Cap, but I wouldn't therefore call that a proper noun. And I certainly wouldn't take it as evidence of a "Baseball Cap Project". I think it primarily got messy because he attacked anyone who got involved, no matter if they were trying to resolve the situation. And he complained everywhere he could: the Village Pump, AN/I, 3RR, and the WikiProject Comics talk page. If he hadn't been so strident on the latter, I doubt I would have gotten involved. In any case, I'm glad it's over (barring sock puppets or overturning of the block). Thanks again! --GentlemanGhost 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for cleaning up my user page! --GentlemanGhost 11:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome : ) - jc37 22:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Small thing with the ... Comics images/comic book covers cats...

Just something I've been deliberately trying to do with them...

I've been trying to keep the cover cats strictly limited to scans of the covers as published, with logos, titles, prices, etc included. Everything else is essentially just images, even it it is the art that eventually winds up on the on the cover.

- J Greb 07:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Makes sense. Technically, without the logo, price, etc. it is really "promotional art". I'll try to stay within the bounds. --GentlemanGhost 12:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Strawberry and the Wikiproject

Hi! I noticed you added the template for the Food and Drink Wikiproject on the Strawberry article talk page. You may want to include Garden strawberry either in addition to or instead of the Strawberry article, as that is the article that discusses the use of the strawberry as food (including nutrition information). It seems like that would be a better candidate for the Wikiproject. HeirloomGardener 01:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. --GentlemanGhost 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Incredible-hulk-20060221015639117.jpg

I've restored the image and added a rationale. Have a look and see if there's anything else needs adding or expanding. Steve block Talk 17:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! I adjusted the summary to remove the part about the image being public domain. I'm going to thrown in a Marvel Comics copyright, too. Thanks again! --GentlemanGhost 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for Image:10000Days.jpg

Which usage of Image:10000Days.jpg were you writing a rationale for? It is used in 3 places, but you have only added one rationale. ~ Bigr Tex 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now specified my rationale to apply to the album 10,000 Days. I'm not sure if it still counts as fair use when the image used for the album's singles. --GentlemanGhost 15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure if it counts on the singles pages or not. ~ Bigr Tex 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Leiutenent George.jpg

Hi GentlemanGhost.

Thanks for letting me know about the Blackadder image. As you surmised however, I only edited the file, it was originally uploaded by User:Crestville. I get a lot of notifications about images I have edited, mainly because the bot reads the last user name on the image page. I'm not really bothered what happens to the image, but thanks for the thought anyway. Regards, Ian Dunster 09:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Marvel and Quality comic book cover cats...

I think I understand why you added "|*" to the cat listing. It brings the two up to the first page. But it does make the others look a bit odd (M, Q, B?)... Should the others be similarly treated?

- J Greb 18:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You understand precisely! I agree that it makes the others look odd. I was intending to fix that, but I got sidetracked. I'll take care of that now. If you want to help out, feel free! Cheers, GentlemanGhost 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Video games

Hey, I've been following your thread regarding Asgardian (talk · contribs). For once, I have something to say in his defense. The video game information that he excises from the comics articles falls under the category "Wikipedia is not a game guide". Although WikiProject Comics's exemplars are not very specific, the "in other media" section does say that this information should emphasize differences in the characterization, if any. The stuff that he takes out is never about that, it's usually "so-and-so appears as a boss on this level" or sometimes it's a summary of game plot. In my opinion, this kind of thing belongs in the game's article, not the character's article. However, since the exemplars aren't specific, I brought it up on the project's talk page. It was a valuable discussion and the general feeling was that the "in other media" section should be concise unless the other media contributed greatly to the understanding of the character. Consequently, I'd say that Asgardian's deletions are in keeping with the community consensus, at least in this area. There are plenty of other reasons to mediate or arbitrate, but I don't think this is a strong one. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification. I was under the apparent misapprehension that "in other media" sections should fully explain the eponymic character. (And if the section was complete enough, it could then be split into its own article.) Games have fictional plots and stories, just as comics and film and TV shows do. I would presume a "Game guide" entry would be rather to explain the game as a "Walkthrough". (So in essence I think I'm in agreement with your comments about what should and shouldn't be included.)

But this is off the topic, of course. When I wrote my post, I was/am questioning what the best plan would be, since I'm not certain. The user has always been abrasive, but from what I've seen, he tends to tone down, at least, the incivility, when asked. (Of course, there shouldn't be incivility in the first place...) Your thoughts, of course, would be welcome. Thanks again. - jc37 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking back into the issue, it appears that it started to head into edit war territory on Fin Fang Foom and perhaps other articles. Asgardian showed bad form at least once by reverting without an edit summary and marking his revert as minor. [8] That's not a huge violation, but it is kind of lame. Fortunately, Freak104 (talk · contribs) was wise enough to compromise and diminish the conflict. Preventing an edit war is what I hoped to do when I asked about video games on the project talk page. Initially, I had been planning to cite the exemplars to Freak104 as to why game detail was not needed, only to discover that I really couldn't make that case. Hence, I sought broader input.

You're correct that this is off topic, though, which is why I didn't append it to the main discussion. I'm not sure what the best course of action is either. He has toned down since I brought the issue up at WP:ANI. I realize now that AN/I was the wrong forum to take it to, but since it barely elicited a response, I decided not to pursue it further. The RfCs seem to be generally effective but it would be tiresome to do that with every single article. I guess that I would take it to mediation or arbitration or a user conduct review if he doesn't (continues not to?) abide by the agreements of the RfCs. --GentlemanGhost 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The more I'm reading, the more I think that we need to get all those "concerned" editing on a single page. The talk page threads are becoming a network of threads, and difficult to follow. Perhaps start an RfC on a sub-page of the WikiProject's talk page, with a link on the talk page? - jc37 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. --GentlemanGhost 17:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(Cross-posting) - I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. Please add your statement/comments there. References/diffs with explanations of why they are notable are most welcome. (I also cross-posted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Comics content related RfC for User:Asgardian, et al.) - jc37 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And months later, we have this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Comic_book_characters Doczilla 08:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2007

Prod prod

Well, it is indeed based on Prod, but it works fundamentally different. The idea of Prod is to remove articles if nobody objects, so any objection counters the Prod. The idea of this DFU template is to remove images lacking a fair use rationale, and this may be countered only by adding such a rationale. So to avoid confusing people, I'd say the two templates should not look the same. >Radiant< 07:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up! (Someone else recently changed it to a third color scheme, BTW.) --GentlemanGhost 07:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad girls

They must be the best kind of bad girl I'd imagine. ;)

In some ways it is true - it might sell a lot due to the sex angle but the reviews all give it a lot of praise for story and art. I might not give Lady Death and the like house room but I might be interested checking out the big fat collected volume (if it had wider availability).

So from what I've read of other people's opinions I'm afraid I'd need a lot of convincing that she doesn't count and it seems she is a major example so I think it needs mentioning on her entry. Anyway we'll see how it works out. (Emperor 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Tagging WikiProject Food and Drink article

I see no problem with the continued heavy tagging. It is better to have tagged articles that are unassessed than to not have them part of the project at all. Some guys like myself will just have to put a bit more time into assessment, you've doubled our articles for the project and I am very happy to see that. People seeing those tags as well will invite people to join the project. Perhaps I will think of editing the tag to have an invitation to join the project as Warfreak had suggested to get more people involved. Any word on that tagging bot?--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! No, no word on the tagging bot yet. So, I left another message on Snowolf's talk page. If he's not available, I'll look through the bot list for another bot which does the same. --

Mjolnir?

GG, any idea about this? It took a lot of work to source all those users. I think the Exceptions section has merit. A blind wipe seems a tad much.

Asgardian 05:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Eliminating all that text does not make the article better. In particular, erasing the references seems particularly perverse. Fortunately, it appears that other editors feel the same way and they have already reversed these changes. The user did add some commentary on the talk page and I have responded to some of his points. --GentlemanGhost 21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia tag

Well, thanks for bringing that to my attention. Now I have discovered that a handful of people just decided to rewrite the trivia tag. This is going to create a huge mess. I just told them so, but I'm just one voice.[9] Doczilla 05:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No problem. I wondered what exactly you meant. I was thinking "If he thinks the whole article is trivial, why doesn't he put it up for AfD?" I'll check out the link. Thanks! --GentlemanGhost 05:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Tagging

Is really starting to annoy me, because for every tag you place, its another one I have to judge. I hope there will be a finite supply to stop you. -- Warfreak 10:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

↑That is one strange message. Warfreak's beef isn't that you're posting tags incorrectly, just that you do a lot of it? It's certainly not "another one I have to judge" if he doesn't want to edit around here, and tags on articles certainly aren't aimed at any individual contributors (well, unless that contributor is the one making the errors that necessitate the tag). You're doing fine. Doczilla 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Warfreak is a member of WikiProject Food and drink, a project which I joined recently specifically to help add the project's banners to the talk pages of articles which are of interest to the project. I don't usually rate the articles when I add the banner, so there is a backlog of unrated articles. It's nowhere near as big as the WikiProject Comics backlog, but it is a backlog nonetheless. I tag the articles a fast clip, as fast as a non-bot can do, anyhow. (Just be glad Snowolf didn't read his messages; I wanted to use Snowbot to tag the articles automatically.) So, I can understand why Warfreak is annoyed. I've replied on his talk page. --GentlemanGhost 22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, just kidding. Just dealing with someone who seems to make tagging an infinite task. Anyway, with you gone, there won't be any articles left to tag for me. Anyway, good work on the tagging, you just seem overzealous. -- Warfreak 05:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Overzealous seems a bit non intentionally insulting to say though Warfreak. I particularly appreciate that the project has someone tagging so many articles for the project. It is better to have numerous articles tagged for the project unassessed than not at all. As I had mentioned on the project page I will add a comment on getting other members to help in the next newsletter. With GentlemanGhost's assistance we have been able to finally get our number above our smaller off shoot projects, which seemed before that point slightly embarrassing to have them garnering more articles to work on than us. I think we should be thanking him over chastising him.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 06:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter July 2007--Christopher Tanner, CCC 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mexican Radio.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mexican Radio.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. BetacommandBot 04:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It was orphaned by someone kludging a template. It isn't orphaned anymore. --GentlemanGhost 10:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:U1ModuleCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:U1ModuleCover.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 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 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. ShakespeareFan00 19:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --GentlemanGhost 10:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hardy Boys book covers

Hi, Would it be possible for your to review your image uploads to [10], adding sourcing information (noted some already have this) and a DETAILED fair use rationale? If possible it would be much appreciated if you could do the same for other uploads in the same category. :) ShakespeareFan00 10:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, someone has spared me this task by doing this already. --GentlemanGhost 10:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter August 2007

--Christopher Tanner, CCC 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter September 2007
--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's Who Image

Image:Teneyedman.jpg

Yes, I recognise it from Who's Who. (I own every issue : ) - I'm not well-versed in the IfD process, you may want to drop J Greb a note, as he seems to be. - jc37 04:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've orphaned it for now. I am sure that a bot will come along and delete it before long. For once, I'm creating work for them instead of vice versa. --GentlemanGhost 10:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Just popped it into the IFD... Wither that or the orphaning should pull it. - J Greb 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For anyone reading this (you know who you are), I understand that the bot doesn't actually do the deletion. I was expecting OrphanBot to catch it and a "rogue" admin to delete it. It looks like it took the IFD to jump start the process, though. I guess these bots aren't as quick as I thought. :) --GentlemanGhost 10:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Teneyedman.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Teneyedman.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 17:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Mummy Case.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Mummy Case.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 22:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter November 2007
--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal

Actually, the legal thing came up at least once months ago.[11] Doczilla 08:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am amused by his civility complaint, though. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. --GentlemanGhost 08:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, is referring to an "odious" editing history civil? Or claiming that a user is a "thorn in the side of other users"?

Asgardian 03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparatively, yes. --GentlemanGhost 19:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quicksilver

Thanks for the assess! I'm trying to get a little project going at the Marvel Comics workgroup page for better-than-stub articles which have yet to be assessed, if you'd like to contribute some help there. BOZ 14:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Big-wheel-rocket-racer.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Big-wheel-rocket-racer.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 (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brothers-Grimm-Marvel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brothers-Grimm-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 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 (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Swarm (comics).gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Swarm (comics).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 (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→