This is an archive of past discussions with User:Tenebrae. 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.
I've had a bash at the inkpots, good work there, keep it up! However, if you've ever though about adminship I recommend you use edit summaries more, there are many people who will oppose you simply if you don't use them.
Thank you for the compliments about my work on the Ectokid article. Its always nice to know that what you are doing is being noticed :-) Stephen Day03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Paul Reinman
Do you have confirmed information on whether Paul Reinman. born in 1910, is still alive? Many comics creators who died prior to the current mainstream interest in comic books passed away with, tragically, little notice. Without this confirmed information, it remains uncertain as of 2006, and therefore he should be included in the category of living people. -- Tenebrae22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I don't have any information. I added the category simply because the article refers to him in the present tense. Anyway, I think that when in doubt, it's best to have the category. After all, for any biography, you can never be sure that the person is still alive right now. So the category really just means, "last we heard, he was still alive". dbenbenn | talk22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Tom Sutton
Hi Tenbrae, thanks for bringing that to my attention, a small thing, but important. Rich Farmbrough 23:41 27 March2006 (UTC).
I've made a change to the way that link looks, since the editorial square brackets shouldn't really be in blue. Hope you think it's good. Rich Farmbrough 23:47 26 March2006 (UTC).
I reverted a couple of changes you made at Ally Sloper's Half Holiday, I explained my reasons on the talk page, I think some of it may be to do with the American/British terminology. Anyway, don't think it's a blind revert and as ever I'm looking forward to discussing it with you and improving the articles. Steve blocktalk09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I hadn't created a bot - the overlinkage must have been human error on my part. My mistake, though; thanks for pointing it out! Bodil21:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I was made an admin, gosh, it feels like ages ago, maybe November last year? It seems like Wikipedia has changed a lot since then and I'm slowly managing to draw myself back to comics related stuff. I've contacted someone about getting a Will Eisner picture released into a license we can use for the Will Eisner page you've worked so hard on, and I've nominated that and Graphic Novel for the cd-rom, although I'm not sure if they will pass muster. I do owe you a reply on the inkpots and something else too, um, Ally Sloper, I haven't checked that as yet, but it'll probably be fine. I think you put the word magazine in, which sounds off to my ear but I figure I'll let another Brit eventually make the decision, or not, if you will. :) If the Eisner image doesn't pan out I'll keep looking for suitable pictures to ask copyright holders to license under CC or GFDL. Hope things are going well with you. By the way, have you seen Portal:Comics? There's a news section there, so anything you reckon should be on there, feel free to add. Steve blockThe wikipedian meme13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MrMuscles22.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.
If you have uploaded other fair use 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yikes! As far as I was (and am) aware, "different from" and "different to" are good English, while "different than" is incorrect. I was under the impression that "different from/to" were used worldwide (including stateside) and that "different than" was just an Americanism that had appeared recently. If that's not the case, I'd better stop making those changes! Thanks for the heads-up. Waggers14:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research. After making some of the changes I was thinking "that doesn't look right" - now I know why! Oh well, redoing some of those won't harm my edit count one bit! Thanks again. Waggers14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Footnotes in Iron Man
Hi, Tenebrae. My apologies if I didn't make the reasoning behind my edit clear. It isn't due to any wikipolicy or anything, but ultimately a stylistic choice. The quote from Heck is indeed important, but it contains firstly slightly redundant information (like Kirby doing the covers) and secondly it breaks up the prose by inserting a verbatim quote. Ultimately, what is more important in the paragraph, the fact that Heck designed the characters' look while Kirby did the suit, or Heck's verbatim recollections? So I reduced it down to the bare facts, and if people are interested, they can look at the footnote and see the quote in its full glory. If not, they get the factual information and can move on. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Brooklyn Tech
As a current student, I do care about that article in particular; unfortunately, it's very hard to find citable information to add to it at this point. I've noticed all the work you've put into the article over the last few months, and I thank you for that. - JPM | 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to personally thank you for furthering the Missouri Project by pointing out the Missouri Roy Thomas. If you have any other articles within the Comic Project, which is a project I did not know about until your atricle, please notify me. Also, if you are interest in the Missouri Project please follow the link above and read about it. I would also like to invite you to particpate in the Missouri project if you are interested. Thanks again! God Bless! (Steve02:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC))
X-Men 3 Page
Where did you find out that Ken Leung is playing Kid Omega instead of Quill? Because in the Trailer and I think a TV spot is shows him with Quill's power.--Dil15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume you were referring to the "Critical Reaction" section that was inserted into the article. I think that most critical reaction sections should be removed anyway, or limited to a a few lines. Placing detailed analysis of what someone "thought" about a movie is so obviously POV, but, yet seems to make it's way into a lot of film pages. I think those sections can be summoned up with simple statements on whether the majority of critics like it, hated it, or were mixed about it. Bignole16:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrae. Can you tell me which Wikipedia Guideline you were referring to with regard to the domestic sheep article changes? I'm sure what you did was well intended, but unfortunately in the case of the sheep article it stuffed it up, because the footnotes are all references (possibly, we've been referencing incorrectly or something). And all the external links (which you called references) are not cited in the article so are not true references. If we change the names of the headings we need to go through the article and fix all the citations too I think. What do you think? — Donama02:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Three-Revert Rule
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." [1]NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
Please point out to me one instance where I have inserted NPPOV. Making unfounded accusations is regarded as inciviliity, if we're talking blockable offenses.
The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, and whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced. … Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count).
Adding critics' verbatim quotes is not NPOV. It follows WikiProject Films guidelines. If you'd like to take this to mediation, please do me the courtesy of telling me now. I;d be happy to-- Tenebrae 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Number of FAC's
I just wanted to let you know that it is suggested that you only have one article on FAC at a time. From the FAC page: "Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice." Good luck with the articles anyway, just keep this in mind for the future. Thanks - The Catfish 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Three-Revert Rule (from archive)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." [2]NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
Do not violate NPOV on X-Men: The Last Stand.
Facto 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Please point out to me one instance where I have inserted NPPOV(sic). Making unfounded accusations is regarded as inciviliity, if we're talking blockable offenses. I would ask that you read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body:
The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, and whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced. … Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count).
Adding critics' verbatim quotes is not NPOV. It follows WikiProject Films guidelines. If you'd like to take this to mediation, please do me the courtesy of telling me now. I;d be happy to-- Tenebrae 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Your biased additions
You know exactly where you inserted POV. You keep adding this biased paragraph back into the last stand article.
Variety said the film is "a wham-bam sequel noticeably lacking in the pop gravitas, moody atmospherics and emotional weight that made the first two Marvel comicbook [sic] adaptations so rousingly successful". [1] The Hollywood Reporter stated, "Though the picture is not without its wow-inducing, SFX-driven moments, that potent X-factor is considerably diminished in Singer's absence". [2]. Rich Cline of the British movie e-zine Shadows on the Wall said, "At least Ratner knows how to handle both action and drama on screen, even if subtlety and substance fall by the wayside". [3]. Critic and former comic-book writer Frank Lovece of Film Journal International said, "A risk-taking script with genuine consequences elevates this ... above the lackluster direction of Brett Ratner, whose competent mechanics move the story efficiently but with very little soul" [4].
I suggest you read the NPOV article (which supersedes WikiProject Films guidelines). Specifically the WP:NPOV#Undue_weight section, the Fairness and sympathetic tone section, and the Characterizing opinions of people's work section.
[2] [3] and [4] are all biased against Director Ratner. [1] also implies X1 and X2 were better movies and that is arguable. Stop inserting (re-inserting) bias into the article.
(note: above [sic]; I returned and corrected it to "mediation")
I'm sorry you feel that respected reviewers including Variety and the Hollywood reporter, along with a British critic and a critic who was also a comics writer, constitutes bias. I'm requesting arbitration and reporting your incivility. -- Tenebrae 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that a threat? Your arbitration request would be silly and most likely rejected. Especially because you are the one inserting bias into an article. Facto 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected.
Last Stand Talk Page
You're right, I didn't do it maliciously. I was simply trying to keep them together so that they made a bit of sense when you were reading. Bignole 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, ok, even that was a little childish (with the come vote my way please, because of these Xmen crazed fans)Bignole 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, depending on how you word it I think that a review section can cause problems, like the ones we are having. It's hard to take in everyone's opinion. There are too many critics out there to accurately take care of that, and you are always left with an unneutral bias (and I am using that in a light term). By incorporating selective quotes from reviewers, especially those directed specifically at people instead of at the film as a whole, you create bias; I don't care if that is in a positive light or a negative light. You can have a review section as long as you keep it clean and selective quotes is not going to help that situation. Bignole 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That is why I said that unless it is clear, which it is not for this particular movie, then it should be limited. In the case of F13th, that is clear that is was panned almost completely (though I tend to enjoy it, just because I like that particular take on the way Jason looks, but I don't think that the review section for that should be removed). I think that a review section is important if there is something that surrounds it that should be noted. F13th series has a cult following but the VIII movie is noted as one of the worst in the series. The Last Stand has been criticized ruthlessly when refering to Ratner, and those it is of no surprise that those opinions would stay the same when the film came out. You can't tell me that there isn't a bias in reviews when there is constant apprehension for a filmmaker, a distaste at the fact that the previous director left on such a high note, and are dislike for the new one's previous films. People cannot help their own biasis, it's natural to always think about those things. That is why I think that this particular movie article does not fair better with a review section, because there will be too much bias, no matter what the direction (Ratner haters, or die hard Ratner lovers). Bignole 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Horror
I know of Argento...."Suspiria" is what he's really noted for. Bignole 22:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
HAHA...well, as soon as I get the chance I'll be sure to watch it. I have a rather large collection, so I'm always looking for an excuse to add to it. I still haven't finished the Universal Collection. I get sidetracked and watch other movies that I buy. Oh, btw, I apologize for any offense that I may have caused with any sarcastic remark that I made. I also apologize for that other user spouting off, he was a little out of line. I just never really understood the point of a "review section" because we are adding a section that consists of opinions, when we go about the rest of the article trying to remove them. I don't think that just because someone is paid to voice their opinion that we should feel compelled to include it in the article. An opinion is an opinion whether you get paid for it or not. It's a little bit of hypocracy to include an opinion section (knowing you can't include every opinion to get an accurate reading) into an article where you fight to remove POV from the rest of it. Bignole 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Just kidding...
I hope you know that I was just kidding over at Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand#"References" vs. "External links". I thought I was being obvious in my facetiousness, but given the later topic on the talk page, I just wanted to be absolutely sure you knew I was not being serious in any way, shape, or form. EVula 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Punisher in Riverdale
The real question is, who's talking about the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth? I think it might be Clea, but I don't know for sure.--Mike Selinker 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've had a look and the discussion seems to have settled down somewhat in the last 24 hours so I'm not sure a note from me is needed. I'm also away over the weekend so if you do need an admin your best bet is to try the admin's noticeboard. Yeah, I heard about Toth, it's sad, but kinda on the vards. Shame The Journal fell out with him, I would have liked to see an interview with him. Steve blockTalk 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:AN/3RR
Is there any particular reason you removed my report from WP:AN/3RR?
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
You removed administrator (Humus sapiens) comments . I am reverting. Facto 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Avengers United They Stand
Why do you keep erasing The Black Panther's appearances in The Avengers United They Stand. He really does appear in them, and it's part of the animated continuity (hence other media). I'm wondering if you're jealous, that I contributed the information and not you. If so, get over yourself and try to be a little more trusting.
Sorry, that wasn't me. I didn't do anything to Avengers United We Stand. Aloso, please sign your posts. It's a dash, followed by 4 tildes (the ~ symbol). Thanks. --Tenebrae 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Then why is the erasing in your contribution list?
But the person erasing them is named Tenebrae, how else could that be happening? 71.115.236.171 (Yes it is me 71.115.212.229)
Re: 71.115.236.171 - You're welcome
S/he responded on my talk page, and I left a follow up on hir talk page on how it could have been handled differently. There's a bit there for you too. Just trying to keep us playing nice. CovenantD 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Glad it was helpful. It's a lot easier to be calm and evenhanded when I'm not involved in the edits :-) If you need assistance in the future, just let me know. CovenantD 15:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Citations for X-Men 3
So from what I understand of the above, sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. I'll hold off on changing things back to the above policy for a day or so till I hear from you. Thanks, — Tenebrae 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you are correct in your interpretation of the policy. However, I'm not 100% sure what issue you are refering to. Would it be possible to clarify? Thanks dude. --P-Chan 01:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
My earlier comment was about you erasing info from the Black Panther (comics) page, relating to The Avengers: United They Stand. Also I apologize if my "jealous" was uncivil, but you could have also handled things better. By that I mean helping me to transfer my info to a more appropriate spot as opposed to just dismissing it. --71.115.236.171 03:39, 5 June 2006
Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.
I am actually 24 yrs old. If I came off immature, it's because I usually don't end up in little debates like our. So, it's less to do with age, but more of being out of practice.
Also, are there any short ways to fully sign any discussions I leave? and what is (UTC)? :71.115.236.171/71.115.212.229 7:08 PM, 5 June 2006
Mort Leav
As you created and have edited Mort Leav, I thought you would be interested in this comment I spotted at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Mort_Leav. To confirm what the poster said, this might help. Carcharoth 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading your help desk comment, I'm totally confused now. Was it 2005 or 2006? Carcharoth 13:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
X3
I refer you to his talk page, where we have discussed it. I would have refered you to the X3 Talk page, but someone erased most of it.
User: ChrisGriswold's Talk Page
Please stop ignoring the TALK page just so that you can revert edits of grammar and punctuation. I have supplied many justifications for those edits, if you do not agree please use the TALK page. Bignole 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
What grammar edits? I haven't ignored the talk page. I have kept your semicolon. I have also made the case for my placement of the word "reluctantly." Wolverine is reluctant to kill Jean Grey. We don't disagree on that. But I don't comprehend why you want to put the emphasis on his stabbing her, when it's the killing that upsets him more. To stab someone is one thing. To kill someone is another. He kills her reluctantly. It's incidental that he uses his claws. I would ask that you make this compromise, just as I accepted your choice of semicolon. --Chris Griswold 12:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no "acceptance of the semicolon", that is the proper punctuation for that sentence. What you are doing is diliberately undermining my edit because you don't like someone correcting you. The 'relunctantly" is placed with the stabbing because that is what is relunctant. She has to die, there is no other option, the only part that bothers him is that he has to do it. He can't use the cure, for one he doesn't even know if it ould work on her being as she is so powerful, and two he can't get to the cure. Killing her is the only option, thus, he "relunctantly stabs her with his claws" because he doesn't want to have to kill her himself. He loves her and it pains him to have to stab her. When he stabs he is going for the kill. He has 6 claws all of which are the size of butcher knives, I don't think there is a lot of dilly dally when it comes to being stabbed by all of them. Hence why he is relunctant to stab her. Just because you place the "relunctant to end her life" in the front doesn't change the meaning of relunctance in that section. Her death was inevitable, there was no relunctance to it, the only relunctance was in who would have to kill her, and that resided with Wolverine. Saying "relunctantly stabbing her with his claws, ending her life". Ending her life was going to happen either way. Bignole 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
As you can see this isn't about preference for what to say, it's is wrong. When you analyze the scene and take that into consideration when you are writing, then you cannot say "relunctantly ending her life" because that isn't describing the scene accurately. Her death is inevitable, the reluctance is in the stabbing. Chris is spitefully editing that because I corrected him on his use of a comma in place of a semicolon. The two sentences shouldn't be separated because they are share a relationship, and the appropriate punctuation for that is a semicolon. He didn't like that so now he is purposefully editing the sentence, which changes the meaning. When you place "relunctantly" with "ending her life" it doesn't create the same meaning as placing it with "stabbing her with his claws". The from the film is about his relunctance to kill her himself, not with her having to die. If it was something else then it would be a preference, but when you have to take into consideration the actual scene from the movie, his wording is incorrect. Bignole 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That's just it. Relunctantly isn't describing the stabbing, relunctantly is describing the emotion as he stabs. Her death is going to happen regardless, unless he would rather the whole world end. But, if you place relunctantly with "ending her life" then you are missing the meaning behind him killing her. With that version you are saying that she relunctantly has to die, which isn't true, because there is no relunctance about it...she has killed Scott, the Prof, and countless others, so there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it she has to die. So, we are left with who has to do it, and Wolverine seems to be the best candidate, but, he loves Jean, thus his emotions tell him that even though she has to die he would rather die in her place; hence, we have "relunctantly stabs her...., ending her life."Bignole 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The dispute isn't about whether or not to use "reluctantly" or "stabbing", the dispute is to where "reluctantly" goes. I'm not sure what compromise you are proposing, you will have to illustrate a sentence yourself for it to be clear. Bignole 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Bignole, The only time I used a semicolon was when I had originally joined the two sentences as one, useing ", and" to join them. Later, I made them into two sentences using a period. You may have my edits confused with someone else's. This isn't about correction. I had two sentences, you wanted to join them using a semicolon, which, while I will concede it is grammatically correct, I feel it is also a weak usage of a semicolon and in no way better than what was there previously. Additionally, despite it's being obvious, you felt "reluctantly" needed to be there, as well as "stabbed", and then you felt that the emphasisis needed to be on "stabbed" vs. "killed". I disagree with these things, but that's just a matter of preference, not a right vs. wrong. The thing is, although I have given you leeway, you have not shown me the same courtesy. This is one sentence, but you refuse to accept that there might be more than one right to phrase it or structure it. Her death was not inevitable at all; I don't understand that perspective. Either way, however, he didn't want to kill her, did he?
Finally, why won't you respond to me? I have written to you several times on your user page, and you only seem to want to talka round me to Tenebrae. I'mm not sure how I was supposed to know you were writing to me on another editor's talk page. --Chris Griswold 17:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
When you emphasis one word over the other you change the meaning. Emphasizing "relunctantly ending her life" is not accurate to the scene, because she has to die. But, when you emphasize "relunctantly stabs her" you are emphasizing his relunctance to do it. That was what the scene in the movie was conveying. The only way for that meaning to be conveyed, and still have relunctance with "ending her life" would be if the sentence was worded as such
"Momentarily gaining control, Jean begs Wolverine to save her; Wolverine, reluctant to end Jean's life himself, tell her he loves her and stabs her with his claws. " Now, the reluctance is with "ending Jean's life", but, it still conveys the message the Wolverine is relunctant to kill her, not that there is some relunctance in her life ending. That was what was not being grasped. You are saying there is some reluctance in her life ending, but, I think you mean to say that there is reluctance in him killing her. Notice the word usage in your version and mine. You were not emphasizing that anyone was reluctant to kill her, you were emphasizing that she was reluctant to die. Bignole 20:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The way I used "reluctantly" never modified Jean Grey. And I'm not sure how you can say that Wolverine wasn't reluctant for Jean to die. The facts that he stabs her is less important than that he kills her. --Chris Griswold 21:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Her death is not reluctant. To be reluctant it has to be unwilling. How can her death be unwilling? The point is to emphasize the fact that Wolverine, himself, is reluctant to kill her. It isn't her death that is reluctant, it is the fact that he is doing it. You are seeing the fact that the word is with "stabbing her" and assuming that he is reluctant to stab her. He is reluctant to stab her, but it isn't the stabbing that he cares about, it's her death. She has to die, but he doesn't want to have to kill her. That is why he is reluctant to stab her. You wouldn't be reluctant to die, you would be reluctant to be killed. Better yet, you wouldn't be reluctant to extinguish life that needs to be extinguished, you would be reluctant to do it yourself. There was no question to the fact that she has to die, the question was in whether or not he wants to do it. You are either missing the point or completely ignoring it. You keep modifying her life, but, you should be modifying his action. What is in question is whether he wants to do it or not, not whether she deserves it. That is why I worded as such originally. Then, so that you can have your reluctant with Jean, I worded it so that it made sense that way... "Wolverine, reluctant to end Jean's life himself...." The reason this isn't a preference is because you are ignoring the actual scene in the film and creating your own meaning. In the film, they hinted at the fact that she would need to die almost from the start. Then, right before they left for Alcatraz Island, Storm talked with Logan about whether he is prepared to do what needs to be done. HELLO, that is her telling him that Jean needs to be killed. That is why, when you say reluctantly you would need to modify Logan's emotions, not Jean's death. If you don't specify that in the sentence then you can't assume that. Your original sentence structure creating the meaning that her death was reluctant, not that Wolverine was reluctant to kill her. (p.s. please respond to my talk page)Bignole 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but not really. You still don't seem to relaize that the way it is now, reluctantly is modifying Jean's death, and not Wolverine killing her. There is nothing in the sentence right now that specifies that he is reluctant to kill her. It says "relunctantly ending Jean's life"....that creates the question "what was reluctant to end Jean's life?". Just because you already know the answer the question doesn't mean that what is written there actually provides that answer. It's clear that he doesn't want to kill Jean, but she must die so he reluctantly does so. Unfortunately, the sentence creates an ambiguity because it doesn't actually say that, it just says "reluctantly ending Jean's life, Wolverine tells Jean he loves her and stabs her." All three of us already know that Wolverine is reluctant to kill her, and not that she is reluctant to die. But, that isn't what the sentence says. You have to look beyond hindsight and actually read the sentence. The way it is written, it creates a new question of "reluctantly what?". Chris and I both want the same meaning, to show that he reluctantly kills her. First, it wouldn't sound right if it was about her relunctantly dying, that's like saying she was standing there thinking it over before she decided to just keel over; so that is how I know we must be looking for the same answer. The problem is that when you know what you want, you don't see what the problem is. You can't understand how 4+4=8 if you already know that 8 is the answer. You will just always say 8 is the answer without actually understanding why. That is the problem with the sentence. You know the answer but the question is wrong. That was why i rewrote it (see the above post for revamped sentence) so that it asked the right question, which was "was Wolverine killing her in cold blood or for some other reason?" Also, I just noticed it says "kills her with his claws"...that is a bit redundant if you are already saying that he ends her life. That was the reason we used "stabbed" before, because you already acknowledged the fact that he is ending her life. So, if you say he kills her, then there is no point to say "ending her life" because you are just overflowing the gas tank. Maybe, if Chris wants "killed" it should be more like "Wolverine, telling Jean he loves her, relunctantly kills her with his claws". Bignole 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Was P-Chan reading your talk page, or do we just think alike? Bignole 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
That's sad, but unfortunately we don't talk in person and it's hard to explain things in 3 lines. Otherwise we just have a prepetual cycle of misunderstanding. Bignole 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Eisner/Kane
I don't need you to read back my edit summaries to me. I know what I wrote. Just because you didn't understand it doesn't mean it was nonsensical. —Chowbok 17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Your accusations are false and completely inappropriate. You are flying off the handle on one edit I made. I don't appreciate your rudeness and unwarranted attack. I don't know what edit war I just stumbled into, but I was just reading Men of Tomorrow when I noticed your revert so I thought I'd pipe up. You can't start threatening to block people just because they make edits you don't like. I suggest you find something else to do until you can calm down. And try to think a little about my edit summary. It was absolutely appropriate, if a bit oblique. You'll get the point eventually. —Chowbok 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I really shouldn't give this the dignity of a response, but I will point out that 68.198.52.124 is in Hicksville, New York, and I'm in Chicago, as you can tell if you look at my homepage. —Chowbok 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia also recognizes there are such things as meat puppets.
The same, highly controversial edit, without citation, that was never made on the page before, was suddenly made three times in 24 hours by three users, including two new users. -- Tenebrae 21:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not "highly controversial", you just disagree with it. Look, here's what happened, I think. User:68.198.52.124 came in and made that edit that's got your panties in a bunch. You went and beat him up for not having an account, so he created User:Mtn and made the edit again. You reverted, then I noticed it because I'm watching Will Eisner (as you can see, I've made several edits to that article). I decided your change was inappropriate, so I reverted. I don't see what's so suspicious about this chain of events. Just because I agree with somebody and disagree with you doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. Jesus. —Chowbok 21:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Chowbok is right; my Bill Finger citations (signed)
I am telling the truth. I am not a dummy identity of anyone else. If you don't believe me, please e-mail me; I've just added my e-mail address to my file, whereas I see that you have not or else I would've done that first. I have made probably two or three other grammatical changes but only registered today, upon your prompting, so those don't show up.
Referring me to the Bob Kane entry on Wikipedia is not confirmation. As I'm sure you know, the fact that DC Comics credits only Bob Kane is not fact, it is not truth; it is simply the result of a legal contract. Among the many primary sources that give Bill Finger equal credit:
Batman and Me, An Autobiography by Bob Kane with Tom Andrae, Eclipse Books, 1989, pages 41-44, is an extensive description by Bob Kane himself of the creation of Batman. Reading this passage alone leaves no doubt that Bill Finger conceived a substantial amount of the characteristics of Batman that we still know today; however, I've cited even more below. Page 41: "At the time, I only had a small domino mask, like the one Robin later wore, on Batman's face. Bill said, 'Why not make him look more like a bat and put a hood on him, and take the eyeballs out and just put slits for eyes to make him look more mysterious?' At this point, the Bat-Man wore a red union suit; the wings, trunks, and mask were black. ... Bill said that the costume was too bright: "Color it dark gray to make it look more ominous." The cape looked like two stiff bat wings attached to the arms. As Bill and I talked, we realized that these wings would get cumbersome when Bat-Man was in action, and changed them into a cape, scalloped to look like bat wings when he was fighting..."; Page 43: "I made Batman a superhero-vigilante when I first created him. Bill turned him into a scientific detective."; Page 44: "Much of the Batman mythos evolved out of our collaboration. Bruce Wayne, for example, was a co-creation. ... The alliteration of the names--Bruce Wayne, Bob Kane--was probably one reason Bill came up with the name."; Page 44, quotation from Bill Finger: "'Originally, I was going to call Gotham City 'Civic City.' Then I tried Capital City, then Coast City. Then, I flipped through the phone book and spotted the name Gotham Jewelers and said, 'That's it,' Gotham City.'"; Page 44: "Now that my long-time friend and collaborator is gone, I must admit that Bill never received the fame and recognition that he deserved. ... Only later, in the seventies, after he was no longer writing the strip and some of his stories were reprinted, did he receive credit. ... I often tell my wife, if I could back fifteen years, before he died, I would like to say, 'I'll put your name on it now. You deserve it.'"
A similar element-by-element breakdown of Batman's creation appears in the DC Comics-copyrighted (i.e. authorized) Batman: The Complete History, by Les Daniels, Chronicle Books, 1999, pages 21-31. It is too long to retype here but contains direct quotations from Finger.
Men of Tomorrow, by Gerard Jones, Basic Books, 2004, 149-155. Page 150: "That night or the next day he got together with his friend Bill Finger and showed him what may have been the last thing created by Bob Kane alone: a red-garbed crime fighter with mechanical wings called 'Bird-Man.' Finger didn't think it was good for a detective comic."; Page 306: "For nearly thirty years he'd been writing comics for a page rate, almost always anonymously, and remaining strangely silent about his COCREATION [emphasis mine] of Batman. ... Much of what made the TV BATMAN successful...came from Finger."; Page 307: "Only after his death would Kane begin to acknowledge what his friend had given him."
The Comics Journal #271, October 2005, page 81, "Look Out, Batman! It's the Jerry Robinson Interview!", by Gary Groth: "Robinson: ...He died broke, never got credit as the co-creator of Batman.; Groth: That's very much what Alvin Schwartz said, possibly even more forcefully. In fact, he actually ascribes much more authorship to Finger than he does to Kane." [As I'm sure you also know, Robinson and Schwartz were contemporaries and co-workers of Kane and Finger. Jerry Robinson mentions this in numerous interviews; I've got all the citations. I've even interviewed both men directly, Schwartz just last night, to hear the same thing.]
The Comics Journal #271, October 2005, page 36, "Bill Finger Award/Jack Kirby Tribute," by Ian Brill: "Finger received no co-creation credit, as Kane’s father locked DC into a contract that would credit Kane as the sole creator of Batman. [Mark] Evanier [longtime comics writer and authority, see www.povonline.com] said that DC’s attitude is that they would like to change things, but can’t because of the agreement with the Kane estate."
Alter Ego--The Comic Book Artist Collection, TwoMorrows Publishing, 2001; several articles throughout. "Yet Another Year of the Bat," by Roy Thomas, page 122: "By almost any sane standard, Bill WAS the Dark Knight's co-creator."; "Interview with Fred Finger [Bill Finger's son]," conducted by Dwight Jon Zimmerman, page 141: "He [Bill] developed the costume, he developed the history of Batman--why he turned to fighting crime; the death of Bruce Wayne's parents; how could somebody do this and not have to work--so they had to make him into a very wealthy man; all of the gimmicks that you think about with Batman--the Batarang, the Batcave, the Batmobile, the Bat Signal--all this stuff came out of my father's little fertile imagination."
Wizard Magazine #135, 12/02, "Unmasking Batman," by Jim McLauchlin, page 85:
"Crack open the cover to any Batman comic--Batman, Detective Comics, World’s Finest, whatever--and you’ll find one commonality: The phrase “Batman created by Bob Kane.”
But many insiders will tell you that this simple statement of seeming fact is every bit as fictional as the Bat-tale it introduces. At the very least, they’ll tell you the statement is incomplete. Oh, they’ll admit, sometimes grudgingly, that Kane should be there. But they’ll also tell you that you wouldn’t be reading the book today--hell, you probably even wouldn’t have heard of Batman--were it not for the contributions of another man.
Bill Finger.
Haven’t heard of him? You’re not alone. Finger’s cautionary tale is not well known, but it’s every bit as compelling as that of Batman himself.
“We’re all attracted to tragedy, and he’s a tragic figure,” says current Detective Comics writer Ed Brubaker. “He did so much so well for so long! He was the most inventive guy on the book, worked on it for decades, and in the end, it got him nothing.”
Just what did Finger do? At the very least, he wrote Batman tales for over 20 years, introducing the character in Detective Comics #27, penning the first Robin story in Detective #38, and introducing the Joker, Penguin, Catwoman, Bat-Mite, and the very Batcave itself. At the most, he may have ensured that Batman existed at all."
That should be enough. If you are kind enough to direct me on how to post citations to the article, I will do so.
"Other users"? I'm glad to see you admitting that you don't actually believe User:Mtn is my sockpuppet. I'm looking forward to your admission of bad faith on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chowbok. —Chowbok 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I should have said "other alleged users". My apologies for lack of clarity. And there is still the meat puppet issue. In any event, you've deleted posts. -- Tenebrae 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Finger
Did you read my citations? Kane himself stated Finger deserves credit. So did Kane's first ghost, Jerry Robinson, who was there from issue #2, I believe. That's why he created the Bill Finger Award, which was first given out last year, to honor writers and publicize Bill's legacy. As I wrote, even DC acknowledges Finger's contribution--one place I didn't mention is Amazing World of DC Comics #1 (1974), page 28, the Bill Finger "In Memoriam." I'm happy to e-mail it to you if you provide your e-mail address.
Not everything on Wikipedia is universally accepted. Few theories are. There is not a single source in my hundreds of pages of research on the creation of Batman (not to mention the interviews I conducted personally with half a dozen Golden Agers) that gives Kane (or Finger) sole credit. The law (i.e. the contract that Kane signed without Finger's knowledge) does not make something a fact. Everything I've cited does make it a fact. I'd like to add the "co." Will you support it?
I really should stop feeding you, but I have to ask... how can Mtn be my meat puppet if he made that change first? —Chowbok 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[o]possums
Opossums and possums are different and largely unrelated animals. They belong to different orders of Marsupialia. Snottygobble 03:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to respectfully decline the wikihalo, I voted for the award's deleteion so I feel it's bad form to accept one. Also, I've noted you have commented text out of the Graphic novel article. I have to say I find this rather impractical. You're not discussing such commenting out on the talk page or in the edit summary, and thus you're removing info from the article in a manner that isn't easily noticed or addressed. I see you've removed a direct quote of Eddie Campbell's. Whatever problems you have with the quote, you should not remove a directly quoted and cited statement. That's against WP:V. A statement that is cited and can be verified as reading as written should not be removed because one does not agree with it, rather a citable argument that makes your point should be inserted.Steve blockTalk 19:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Apology: your placing of some lines of text in quotation marks led me to believe they were direct quotes. That was not the case, and it was my summarising of the points Campbell made that were at fault. I retract the part about the direct quotation and offer my sincere apologies for jumpijng the gun. The html commenting out confused me somewhat as to what had happened. Steve blockTalk 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
My insertion of template:fact in Jack Kirby was not a challenge to the statement's accuracy, it was exactly what it said it was: a request for a citation. As it stands, we have a vague reference to "an issue of the Fantastic Four", so it's impossible for me to "look at the drawing of the character in that issue," as you suggested, without knowing which issue you're talking about! Please add that information to the article. Thanks, leigh(φθόγγος) 00:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Tenebrae, for the kind words and good work initiating and editing the page about my father. I read it to him over the phone, and I think he took pleasure in the accuracy of your research. Indeed, my father has led what I think is a full and fascinating life.
I could find no mention of the Society, either. Perhaps it now exists under a different name, if at all. My parents created it around 1970, to provide aid, at a time and place where none existed, for families like our own.
Maybe some kind of reference will turn up. In the meantime, thanks again for your consideration. JNW--JNW 03:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Tenebrae! Originally the Yuengling article stated the company was the ONLY brewery in the world which produced porter a few decades ago. As that sounded unlikely, I dug up some links here which indicated that porter practically disappeared in England and the US for much of the 20th century, but that Yuengling was not the only brewery producing porter during that time period (see especially Guinness in Ireland). For your citation requested, would the aforementioned links suffice, or should the text be reworded to "this beer is notable for being one of the few porters commercially available in the United States..."? I have no information about your other citation request. Olessi 15:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Stan Lee
I won't belabor the point (or fight over it, either), but for the better part of his history, Spider-man was credited as "created by Stan Lee" in print and on-screen. The movies credit reads something like "based on the comic by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko", which isn't the same thing.Rhindle The Red 18:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Stan Lee 2
Sorry to butt in. Stan Lee is on record as claiming he created Spider-Man, going through various insects till he came up with a spider. However, when Stan says he writes a book, what he actually does is talks it over with the artist till the story is worked out between them but then again, artists like Kirby have noted that the end product could stray significantly from the original Stan Lee idea. I think Stan Lee had the idea for Spider-Man but Ditko fleshed him out and brought him to life.Neufen01 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
LGBT
Hi Tenebrae, can you do me a favor and vote for this merger here --Basique 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Categories
Sometimes fanboys can just get too enthusiastic :-) I don't remember Fictional mutates being deleted, but I'm all in favor of it going away after this latest round of additions. Everybody who's every undergone a superpowered change qualifies at this point. I do have to disagree with the LGBT comics characters though - I think there's enough entries to justify spliting them. When you add the two there's almost 200 entries, about the point I start thinking about splitting anyway. CovenantD 03:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't listen to this guy: Absorbing Man got his powers from Loki. That should tell you how crazy CovenantD is. Really crazy. --Chris Griswold 04:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Chris, I hope you're kidding about the "crazy" remark. I don't think you'd like people to call you that, would you?--Tenebrae 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: I was being absurd. --Chris Griswold 16:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Punisher merge vote clarification
Hate to bother you Ten, but I think your vote on the Punisher Max\Punisher merge thing [2] is a little ambigous. I think you are voting for Keep (with edits), but as you dont actually write that (you say "not only would I oppose merging..." which I guess is the same thing but it is a little unclear) Im not sure how your vote will be counted. Again my apologies if this seems like hair splitting to you. Hueysheridan 19:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hah! Just realised Oppose merge is more appropriate than keep so your vote was actually clearer than mine after all. No worries. Hueysheridan 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Mad Jack
Hey, not bad. The guy who was the first Jack O'Lantern actually became the second Hobgoblin later on (don't ask). But I'm named for the cooler, second Jack O'Lantern who came around in 1997 (yes, it's as confusing as it sounds). Mad Jack 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. Not an X-Men guy myself, so I don't know. Mad Jack 20:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the comment/compliment. I am very new to this and still have much to learn. (I still don't even know how to "sign" automatically.) I am an OK editor, but don't generally "conform" to "norms." I promised myself to make an exception with the Comic-related articles, and went to Plastino last night to do just that. Buuuut, You beat me to it. You do a lot of good work, so I can't gripe. Heck.
Thanks again.
Hello. Regarding the sockpuppetry case you created: I suggest you create a request for check user at WP:RFCU for the sockpuppet case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chowbok. If you do not know who to, I will do it tomorrow; but I urge you to do so, otherwise this is just going to go on forever! Regards, Iolakana|(talk) 19:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Julie Brown image
I didn't notice that sleeve scan for the "I Like 'em Big and Stupid" EP was also used on the linked page to the EP itself. I thought my addition was redundant. On a related subject, if you've got the time, I am 99.9% sure that the scan used on the Julie Brown EP page was lifted from a web site that I created and used without my permission. I don't really care, and would have given permission gladly to whoever did it if they had bothered to ask. Since it appears you write about comics, I thought you might know about this. I somehow got the impression that using scans without permission was against Wikipedia policy. Should it be reported, and if so, where? Or should I just forget about it (which is what I'm inclined to do). amaygarden 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
My problem with the current Black Panther (comics) article is that too much pedantic information (other black characters, his half-cowl) is included upfront. In this case, most of it belongs in the Publication History, which often tells the “behind the scenes” history of the character. I respect and appreciate your opinion but I see no conflict with the version I have written and the standards of the Comics Project, so I am reverting it. Rorschach567 18:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Black Pather II
Hello, Tenebrae. I appreciate your reply. I strongly disagree with you on many points and hope to sway you to my point of view. From your posts and user page, I can tell you are a thoughtful person and a valuable contributor to Wikipedia’s Comics Policy. So I hope you do not consider this dispute any sign of disrespect.
While the policy on intros is sketchy (“long intros seem to be frowned upon in general, our guidline is…”), my policy is that an intro should provide a short, solid explanation of a character, his or her abilities and significance to comics and outer popular culture, including long-lasting or artistically important series featuring the character. The length will depend on the importance and complexity of the character. A good intro is especially important as Wikipedia grows and articles become more detailed; no one should have to plow through all that information for a basic understanding of a comic book character (or anything for that matter).
I don’t see any policy that an intro is to determine “what [a character] is not, not the deeper detail of why he.” In fact, I’m not sure what you by this. I agree that any inventible confusion should be cleared-up and excessive detail can wait but what do you mean by “deeper?”
I agree that Black Panther’s prominence as the first major Black superhero is important to have upfront. I don’t see how my version ignores that. I don’t know if it qualifies what you mean by “deeper detail” but I think specific examples of almost predecessors (Lobo, Robertson, Jones) is the kind of pedantic information that can wait.
The opening sentence is currently formatted as “{Name of character} ({birth name}) is a {Name of comic book company} {superhero/villain/team}. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year}).”
Example: Daredevil (Matt Murdock) is a Marvel Comics superhero. Created by Stan Lee and Bill Everett, he first appeared in Daredevil #1 (1964).
Yes, {Name of character} ({birth name}) is fictional character, a {superhero/villain/team} in {Name of comic book company} {company‘s universe} is common but I consider it redundant and "fictional" espeacially repugnant. It would require explanation if a superhero owned by a comic book company weren’t fictional and didn’t exist in that company’s shared setting. Those are the norms.
That said, if you strictly want to solve this by WikiProject_Comics guidelines, I believe I’m in the right.
I appreciate your attempt at a compromise but I still see several key points missing and pedantic information included. Therefore, here is my idea. Tell me what you think:
Thank you. He's made many such changes to the intro of many characters, removing the word fictional from every one that I've seen thus far. CovenantD 13:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Exemplar debate
Given that the exemplar page was changes this morning in the midst of this debate, probably with the debate in mind (it'd be a mighty coincidence if it were not), I don’t see how you can argue it is something “on which a a [sic] host of others have reached consensus through weeks or months.” It was changed by a User:Steve_block who I am unfamiliar with, but it was changed pretty quickly with only brief discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars about the term fictional and no recent discussion on the in the {name of the company} {company’s universe} aspect of the change.
My edits to both Black Panther (comics) and Dr. Strange were inline with the comics project standards at the time (which had been pretty consistent for some time). Thus I think it’s unjust to portray me as some headfast dissenter, inconsiderate of rules of consensus and the opinions of the others.
However, I see that this is a point of contention that requires some debate in the Comics Project pages and thus I will accept a cease and desist order for now. I hope we can talk it out. Rorschach567 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
RFCU
Are you not going to create a Request for CheckUser, because if you are not I am just going to close the suspected sock puppet case. Iolakana|T 11:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, I see! OK :-). So I suppose the sock puppet case can be closed now. Thanks, Iolakana|T 12:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Civility?
Greetings Tenebrae, relative to your edit summary here might I suggest a little course in civility? Thanks. Netscott 18:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Michael Dorosh 15:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thor talk signature
Actually it's kind of funny, I didn't realize what you meant on my talk page until I looked at the [talk history]. My add on comment to Soujaboy's comment was because it was blank when I went to edit, and mine was loaded 3 seconds after yours. To be honest, I'm not sure how yours got overwritten. At any rate, no trouble at all setting it back to your formatting, it's better than mine (so much so that I added the "small" script to my 'this unsigned' script at the end of Soujaboy's first comment there. Sorry if it seemed I was changing yours, I was actually just doing the same thing you were...trying to credit Soujaboy's comments back to him. Markeer 04:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted the table I created for Adventure into Fear[3], detailing issue titles and creative teams. You say "table belongs in Morbius article, not in Adventure into Fear article", but I strongly disagree. The issues listed were the only ones I own, or else I would have detailed the entire run (I hoped someone would come along and fill in the missing issues). Can you honestly say the article is better off without this information?--StAkAr Karnak 11:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for writing to me and asking a legitimate question. The series Adventure into Fear ran different features, including Morbius and Man-Thing. If you look at the similar series Strange Tales, which similarly ran Dr. Strange, Nick Fury, Cloak and Dagger, the Human Torch, Brother Voodoo, etc., you'll see that Wikipedia style is to consider this an article about the series, not the characters. While it talks about each character, it doesn't go into great detail about them or give lists for them, since Dr. Strange. Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., etc., each have their own articles.
I hope this helps. Happy Wiki-ing! -- Tenebrae 14:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't feel you've justified reverting my edit.
The issue could be likened to another episodic media: television. There might be an article on a particular television program, say, The Cosby Show. There is a corresponding article called List of The Cosby Show episodes. This is what I would like to see for every comicbook series. Indeed, there is a List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics. While providing a summary of each issue, it would be more useful if there were data on creative teams. Since there are a relatively small number of Fear comics, the information can be integrated into the main Fear article.
When you say Wikipedia style is thus and so, you are pointing to the current state of various articles, not to any policy I am aware of. Besides, my edit was about the series - individual issues, not about Morbius, per se. Lastly, you still haven't answered by question as to how the article benefits from having less detail.--StAkAr Karnak 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Because this article is about the series, and your list is about the characterwho has his own article. I'm not sure why you object to putting the Morbius information in Morbius.
The current state of articles is one that's evolved through a lot of dedicated editors over the course of months or years. There's additionally Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Consistency of style is important in an encyclopedia, and rather than re-do the plethora of existing series articles for which characters have their own entries, it makes sense to have newer articles conform to what has worked well and what consensus has created in the past.-- Tenebrae 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
My list, reproduced below, informs the user about creative teams and backup stories in Adventure into Fear. It says nothing about Morbius.
It is evident that we are not going to come to an agreement. I will solicit opinions elsewhere. Thank you for your time.--StAkAr Karnak 01:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: Despite his protestations, the stories in the last are Morbius stories, easily checkable. -- Tenebrae 21:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The difference of opinion is whether descriptions of Adventure into Fear belong in the Adventure into Fear article, regardless of who is depicted in the issues listed so far. This topic is being discussed at length here.--StAkAr Karnak 00:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Captain America
I'm about to go to bed, myself, but if you report him, I'll endorse it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
See discussion page for a compromise solution.
-- ABCxyz 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Coronet
Hey, I experimented with the Coronet images, and can't decide which looks better. Take another look. The text is only one or two lines. Make a decision, I'll go with whichever you choose, of if you find a third way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Disceptation
"Hi, just wanted to let you know that disceptation is in fact a word. [4][5][6] I will not get up in arms about it, just try to do some [near extensive] fact checking next time. Slof 19:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
CC of post on Slof page
My apology. I did, however, try to look it up. It does not appear in my print edition of Merriam-Webster, and through that dictionary company turns out to be only available at the subscription-only Merriam-WebsterUnabridged.com. I think we can agree that such an obscure word may not be the clearest form of expression. -- Tenebrae 19:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for apologizing--I apologize too for using such an obscure word, although that was the first befitting word that came to mind. Slof 19:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oops--sorry for putting my correspondence at the top--I am, quite obviously, new here. Apologies, JNW--JNW 03:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Able to lift 100 tons.
To: Tenebrae
From: Kbmann
Nothing in the guideline pages that you referred me to states that the phrase "able to lift or press in excess of 100 tons" is not allowed in this powers and abilities section. Thor is certainly within the "Class 100" strength level and this phrase applies to him just as it does for the Hulk, Hercules, Gladiator, and others in this strength class. --Kbmann 04:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Kbmann.
able to lift/press 100 tons.
To: Tenebrae
From: Kbmann
Per your request, I will stop in my efforts to include the phrase "able to lift in excess of 100 tons" in the powers and abilities section of Thor. I just thought that it would be appropriate to state this factoid since the very same phrase is included in many of the other Marvel powerhouses articles in Wikipedia, such as the Hulk, Hercules, Gladiator and a few others. If there is a way to include this phrase in some manner into this article, would you consider it? My apologies for any inconvenience. Kbmann--Kbmann 05:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ebony is a sterotypical, racially dehumanized character!
Your section on Ebony White of The Spirit is deeply troubling. It seems to subtly suggest that the Ebony charcter is not racist. This is a point of view, and not factual. The name of the section "Ebony in Perspective" also suggests a point of view, but when I've edited the article to correct it with a more factual perspective you cry POV rule and revert. Why don't you want to present a more informed understanding of Ebony? Why must you present the question of racism in 1940's america as merely a matter personal opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greenkush (talk • contribs) .
cc of response on Greenkush talk page
This is not encyclopedic writing. Really, what kind of encyclopedia uses charged language and uncited opinion this way? Would this appear in Encyclopedia Brittanica?
(a name reminiscent of a minstrel show joke) is an ugly reminder of the dehumanization of African-American's in the popular culture of the time. While "Ebony" certainly does not stand alone as an example of the way American pop culture continued to justify the violent oppression of African-Americans through the grotesque characterization of them as venal, dangerous, and stupid, the terrible strength of Ebony's presence as a kind of “Ur-Nigger” is reinforced by Eisner's considerable talent as a visual story-teller.
You've made over three reversions, in contradiction of WP:3RR, under this and your IP of 166.84.144.29. Two editors have reverted you, and you will not work in a community fashion but simply keep inserting your own personal opinion that this characterization is "venal, dangerous, and stupid". The existing text says clearly it is a racial stereotype of the time an addresses this important issue using neutral language as required by Wikipedia and encyclopedic writing generally.
Ad administrator is being notified, and your account will be blocked. I'm sorry you persisted in this behavior. -- Tenebrae 20:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Punisher Trivia
Can you provide me a link that explains this "material better suited to the separate article about the trivia matter". I thought I had added some good trivia. - Peregrinefisher 15:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
brooklyn tech
feel free to edit what you deem to be problematic, not wholesale reversions or mass deletions. NinjaNubian 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Answer 2nd September
Sorry I'm late replying. The articles took much more time than I expected, and I originally thought if things are waiting 4-6 weeks maybe before anyone can find them with a search engine, I thought I could catch up with them. Hangman will be some time. Neufen01 18:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Answer 7th September
Should I check on what exists before categorising? I checked the five pillars of wisdom and that did not help. I looked at other articles originally and since and could see no difference between mine and them in that some gave indexes too. An index is an important reference work so I would think it has a definite place in any encyclopedia so I don't know how the All Winners Index offends wikipedia tenets? Please explain. I have done most of the clean up work on my articles after the first few. I did not realise that it had to be done immediately. In the UK, copyright on printed material is 28 years and in America, 50 years. It is not practical to write to companies who have gone bust over fifty years ago to ask for copyright. Comic companies now seem to be happy for people to use the covers of their books, which are meant as advertisements anyway, as it gives them free advertising. They are openly used on eBay and any other company or place that sells comic books (all catalogues are full of them). One annoying thing I find is remembering the copyright box at the bottom when preparing to upload an image. It would be better if it were at the top, so the first thing someone fills in. I have enough contributions to keep me going for months.Neufen01 18:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No article
I know that you want an article and not plot summaries with the Indexes but it is not really possible. Take the covers off a groups comics from around that time and there is no difference between them. There is usually no evolution of characters and no depth to stories, just a crime being committed and villains traced to lairs, with maybe a death trap involved. The way I see it is the plot details are as close to an article as I can get and this way, they are correct in a timeline.Neufen01 07:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](https:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/archive/6/65/20060425204704%21Portalcomics.png){kind=link}
){kind=link}