User talk:Emperor/Archive 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] English as a 2nd language

Hello Emperor, I desire your input. How do you deal with editors who edit the English-language Wikipedia but apparently do not speak English natively? Obviously, it's important to live by WP:BITE, but I'm wondering how I would even bring it up without potentially being insulting. Certainly, it is possible to make valuable additions to the English Wikipedia even if you don't speak the language particularly well. But, I'm wondering if it might be more profitable for 68.151.70.78 (talk · contribs) to edit Wikipedia in his or her native language. I know I'm making an assumption, but to my mind, the edit summaries seem to indicate someone who speaks a fundamentally different idiom as opposed to a native speaker who merely has poor grammar. Although on the one hand, it would probably be a great way to further one's understanding of English to have one's contributions finessed by other editors, on the other, it would probably be a less frustrating experience to edit articles in one's native tongue. And, given the paucity of articles in some languages, it could also fill a need. But, I am at a loss as to how to suggest this without being offensive. For the time being, I have started a dialog with the editor regarding one edit that I find particularly confusing. Your thoughts on the matter are appreciated. Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: it might be good to respond here instead of on my talk page as that is where I am currently corresponding with this editor. :) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lobster random 1349.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lobster random 1349.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mønobi 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Ha. Already caught it myself. I have included only ongoing comic series. I'm checking on whether I've ommited some current series, otherwise I figured I'd model this off the Marvel equivalent page. Feel free to dive into this one if you have the interest/time as I wont be editing it too frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awayman1 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DDP Publishing

Should be set not. Only minor changes from here on out. Edit as you see fit. I'll implement some links as I find time.

Awayman1 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Indigoprime.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Indigoprime.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) 07:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Notice Board thing

Hi, Emperor. Happy New Year!

Since I'm the first to post at [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Requests_for_comment/Users/2008]] and WPC members might not yet be in the habit of regularly checking that page, I wanted to alert a few longstanding editors to a posting there that I think will be of interest. Thanks and best wishes for WPC in 2008, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tein cover2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tein cover2.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) 07:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Colm Kelleher

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Colm Kelleher, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Colm Kelleher seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Colm Kelleher, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dropping by #2

Hey, i hope everything's OK, you haven't been around for ages. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, seconded. We went and made you an admin and this is how you repay us! :) All the best, Hiding T 14:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll third that! Where ya been? :) BOZ (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'm afraid I've been battling health issues. After my last hospital appointment I am feeling more positive that this can now be resolved but it has meant a lot of the aspects of my online (and real-life) life faded away.

Of course, in the end all the information I had accumulating and running across pages that needed editing meant I couldn't keep away forever ;) So, while I will be largely tinkering and tidying things up (and trying to avoid getting involved in heated discussions), as well trying to catch up on developments, if there is anything you feel needs my attention then drop me a note and I'll seem what I can do (so I'll take a look at the Hulk debate and see if there is anything I can offer). (Emperor (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Welcome back!

How did I not notice you there!  :) Thanks for your support on fixing up Plunderer... unless a flock of deletionists shows up, this one won't be going away any time soon.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Mr. New Administrator, since Hiding seemed to disappear when you came back (is he Clark Kent to your Superman?), there seems to be a huge dispute at the Hulk (comics) talk page. BOZ (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the Hulk situation is kind of getting worse. :\ BOZ (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
OK I'll have a read through and see how the land lies. (Emperor (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
LOL - OK, sorry for getting you involved in all of that. I had no idea how he would take it; I figured you'd be able to calm things down, and I don't know why that didn't work. BOZ (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
See, that's why I came to you. :) I would have gone to Hiding first because he has more experience, but in the end you're more moderate in tone so it's probably better I got you instead. BOZ (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And thanks for your support on Melter too - now the Ringer is up as well - all the minor bad guys are coming under attack. :) BOZ (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vernian Process Reboot

Hey man, as you have noticed, someone (I have no idea who) created a new page for Vernian Process, so I fgured I might as well copy my sandbox content into the article to clean it up. So should I officially resubmit it, or can I just leave it, and see if anyone tries to flag it now? Thanks! FACT50 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future Shock

Thanks! It started out more Sci-Fi-ish, with a research group contacting Roberta after the NY incident and telling her what they knew about The Rapture and without the vaguely Von Danikinesque backstory - instead it was vaguely implied that they were responsible for luring the Rapture here by accident, and they give some kind of EMP weapon to Roberta who is the only one that can use it, which she does. Shock twist: She saves everyone, but the masses turn on her and stone her to death.

Tharg wasn;t so keen on thast one, and suggested that the electromagnetic pulse allows everyone to see The Rapture, but tehn it just turns out to be a nightmarish farming operation, humanity has been bred for this cull for centuries. I wasn;t duper keen on that at first, but then I had the idea of using the Gabriel character, and his Daniken-via-Kirby backstory, whicj was an idea I'd had for a while but not found a home for. After that it all clicked into place. Artw (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cover fq06.jpeg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Cover fq06.jpeg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome aboard

Glad to see that you joined the Anthroponomy wiki project. We need all the help we can get. Feel free to focus on the anything you want since we need help in all areas. Any help you could give in standardizing the disambiguation pages from the name pages would be most appreciated. Once again, thanks for joining. Remember (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pike etc

Thanks for your help. I think the fictional characters came back when User:Marchije and I were near-simultaneously cleaning up Pike; I suspect he hadn't seen your edit. Good faith work all around, I believe. --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comics-awb edits to workgroups

There will be some snags based on the intersections. I am currently running through the comic strip categories and because of the way the strips in British comics have been categorised, stuff like Billy's Boots is going to end up wrongly tagged. That would imply that the category structure needs tweaking somehow, with the category Category:British comic strips being used only for strips which run in newspapers, not comics. Comics-awb (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

Reverting original research articles about the paranormal as you are doing looks superficially like POV-pushing. You may wish to alter your tactics. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded to my arguments on the talk pages, the redirects stand. Make a reasonable argument and I'm more than willing to reconsider. Dragging your feet in hopes of keeping articles about Fortean neologisms on Wikipedia is unacceptable. Accept your conflict of interest and stick to writing about comic books. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you can't handle the speed, buster, then get out of the way! The argument was made, you failed to respond to it. I see no reason for us to continue this conversation. If you can find a set of independent sources that establish the non-originality of those articles, then by all means make your case on the talkpages and I'll restore it for you. I have other things to do too. So let's just keep them as redirects and allow us to go on our merry way. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Do not misunderstand me: you are free to respond at your own pace. But do not use your slow response time as an excuse to drag your feet and keep an article that is essentially entirely original research on Wikipedia. Also, I did not know exactly how to handle your report to Paranormal WikiProject which read to me like an invitation to meatpuppetry. I tried to reword your report in a more neutral way as asking for comments. Please reinstate your post if you think that I've violated your voice. I really did, however, think that your report to the Paranormal WikiProject was written inappropriately in both tone, content, and in light of the audience of that WikiProject and past issues. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have "other things to do" then you shouldn't be demanding discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you need to work and cannot discuss right away then don't revert right away. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict with FeatsOfFact

Thanks for keeping a level head throughout. Rest assured that if this issue gets escalated to the point of being reported somewhere, I'll back you up (and as you pointed out, you don't even need back-up, as a comparison of Contribs speaks for itself). I have been on the fence as to whether I believe FoF is a good faith editor with a bad case stubbornness, or a spammer/pov-pusher who needs to be dealt with -- and in the spirit of WP:AGF, I've tried to assume the former and done my best to reach a compromise. It won't take much to push me in the other direction, though, so hopefully FoF has got the message and will let the issue die. Thanks again for staying calm throughout! --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The self-published source thing concerns me as well. And as you pointed out elsewhere, there is a risk of setting a precedent that people can just link to any old blog that has something to say about the genre.
At this point, my feeling is that the compromise version of the quote at least does no direct harm, and if tolerating this quote for a few weeks or a couple months will stop FeatsOfFact from making a federal case out of it, then I think the project is better off all things considered.
If other people start vanispamicrufting the Criticisms section with links to a bazillion blogs, I'll blow all the non-notable quotes away, including the one in question. If FoF starts stirring up trouble elsewhere, I'm ready to come down hard on him (and I can WikiLawyer with the best of them when I have to ;) ) What I hope the likely result will be is that the quote will sit for a few months, and then some vigilant editor will come along and say, "Hey, this is from a blog!" and take it out, and by that time FoF won't be paying attention anymore.  :D --Jaysweet (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanispamcrufting

Unfortunately, I cannot take credit for inventing the term ;) See WP:VSCA (oops, I forgot the "tisement" on the end, hahaha) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for "Thanks"

Thanks for your thanks, and if you have a spare few minutes to pass briefly by the "LXG" lawsuit, for any feedback you might feel necessary, I'd appreciate it. :o) ntnon (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Appreciated. ntnon (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comics Talk

For what it's worth, some comments on your Comics comments -

  • I think Future Comics is reasonable un-merged (and I'll try to get round to looking at it... later)
  • A comics terminology page is an excellent idea - and would hopefully serve as a decent place to comment upon various creators'/other people's debates regarding the whole "comics"/"pamphlets"/"monthlies"/"examples of the ninth art"/"sequential art" "graphic novel"/"TPB"/"collection" terminology debates, differentiation and that general side of things.
  • I think Marry Me (comic) is worthy of sticking around. ntnon (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
After you pointed me to Comics vocabulary (and I looked at it), I thought it really ought to be a bit more comprehensive... so I dug a book out and am in the midst of setting about providing a much fuller glossary/terminology/vocabulary list. After which I'll try and add in those minor pages that need merging; link out to those pages (e.g. Penciller) that deserve a longer definition-page, etc. Any thoughts, comments, complaints, etc. - let me know. :o) ntnon (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
(P.S. I've just noticed your - and Mr Dash's - kind offers at Fortean Times, which I will get back to... at some point! Thanks for that, could be handy.) ntnon (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SA

Please don't goad SA further. I think there's a good chance I'll get him to settle down, but it's not going to done with confrontation or aggressiveness. — Coren (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He is difficult, but he's got a lot to contribute. I think it's worth the effort. — Coren (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSI episodes

It's done, someone had already redirected the first seasons and I just did those that were missing. That naming convention has been around for some time now, maybe we should add a note on the project so everybody knows. PS: don't stress yourself :) ---Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 07:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate WP:CSI's layout, it's impossible to keep things in order. How do you feel about borrowing WP:ZELDA or WP:LOST's layouts? I'm seeing a mix of the two in CSI's future...--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Presidency of the Philippines

The picture of the week thing has a redlink instead of a picture. --Lenticel (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I think you want User:Emperork. I grant it isn't always easy to tell them apart, though. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry The link in the portal lead me here. --Lenticel (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm looks like I have another "false emperor" for the books. How very confusing. (Emperor (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Harrison

Hello. I was surprised to see Harrison removed from the project page section "articles that could be split". I normally do that once I've finished all the editing for a name, and then add the name to the "new splits". Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 23 (numerology)

I have been doing some work on this article, and want to run an idea past you, since you did some work on the article previously. I was thinking of moving the article to better title, perhaps 23 enigma in numerology. What do you think? I think the current title is not very helpful. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your response. I think that the first thing I will do is to copy-and-paste the old lede into the current article. Then, I will move the article to 23 Enigma, and make 23 (numerology) a redirect. From there, I am going to start adding some of the other information from your old(er) version, especially the Grant Morrison information, about which I was not previously aware. Given that the Burroughs-RAW-Morrison material is all linked, this should be the (black?) meat, so to speak, of article. Some other, more tangential, information can be left---for example, the entry made today to the Black Magic comic book is very intriguing, though the reference is neither adequate nor helpful. I do not even remember how I came to be involved with this article, but I am deep into it now... no point in turning back. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I was working on some things earlier, and lost my internet connection. I am not even sure what I was doing, either. At any rate, I will get back to it eventually. As for the site where the comic book is available for download, they have some strange rules for signing up, i.e., no anonymity, so they will not accept an e-mail address from google, yahoo, etc. I would have to sign up using my credit card, which I am loathe to do. But, I may change my mind. Either way, I will be in touch. Enjoy your sojourn away. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If you find someone, let me know. I may join, though I generally do not trust any website that says their service is free, but still demands my credit card number, w/ the promise that they will never use it. I may be suspicious, but sometimes it's justified. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dieselpunk

I appreciate your interest, but must correct you that the page Mr Piecraft has saved at his userpage is definitely not the article I wrote most recently. Mr Piecraft's version is a bunch of original research that fails to meet even the minimum of standards. An adaption of the article I wrote initially is available at my own website. Though it's slightly more expanded, it's a fine representation nonetheless of how the article appeared before it was removed. Available here. Ottens (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Followed your advice. See Literary punk genres! Ottens (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia comcis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Notice_board/Requested_moves/2008 did it. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Britain Corp

I was removing the tags and moving discussion while you were commenting on the talk page. New discussion @ the Corps. No response necessary, just FYI. _66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freak (comics)

I saw you added the link back in that I removed. Please see: WP:MOSDAB. Specifically "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. To avoid confusing the reader, do not wikilink any other words in the line." As Freak (Image Comics) is a navigable link there is no need to link Spawm in (as it is linked through from the entry). (Emperor (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

Check the history and the page. I reverted my own edit before you even said anything to me. —Lowellian (reply) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Marry Me (comic)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Marry Me (comic), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marry Me (comic). Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comics years categories

Those seem alright, yes. :o) One point: I noticed that there is something clever that could be done to stop the "main" pages from being listed alphanumerically, so I mini-edited those. I'm assuming that Civil War: Initiatve and Secret Invasion are in both "debuts" and the main category because they are also events occuring during that year...? Might there be enough (and I'm not sure there are) to warrant separate "xxxx comics events" categories..? Also, would/should self-contained mini-series starting and ending within a year (like the events) be in both "debuts" and "main," or is that unnecessary duplication..? I'll try and add the category to some other pages later on (and try to copy it all back to the actual 2007/2008 in comics page, too) including the deaths of comics people. So... book-publication, debuts, events, deaths (and for the earlier years also births), major character debuts - anything else obviously needing to have the category appended that I'm not thinking of? ntnon (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically echoes my own thought exactly, so that's good! ntnon (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teenaged Titans

Appreciate your input (as always), although - as I just wrote on the main project page - I'm unsure about precisely what the objection is..! If it's simply that what I put together for Teen Titan (comics) should be on Teen Titans (and then the individual titles still get their own pages at Teen Titans (comic book), New Teen Titans and The Titans (comic book)), then I'll agree completely - just trying to smooth things over with this faintly bizarre (apparent) suggestion that the TT page not include much information on the comics... Since the TT have been in multiple (well, two, maybe three) mediums, I was thinking that TT could cover everything briefly; TT (comics) cover JUST comics iterations, and then the specifics could go on specific individual pages. And I'm afraid the comparison to the DC Animated Universe passed me by completely! ntnon (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Far enough, I've grasped your mixed media contention now, at least! ;o) I was really hypothesising about making TT a team description page (although I think the Hulk analogy a misnomer - what I halfheartedly propose wouldn't be any different from having a "The Character of the Hulk" page with sections on "Grey"/"Green"/"Intelligent"/"TV"/Marvel-trying-to-retrofit-them-all-together) broading saying: Teen Titans (1966) featured Robin, Tempest, Speedy and Wonder Girl; New Teen Titans ws Nightwing, Kory, Cyborg, Jericho, Raven, et al.; The Cartoon was (as far as I am aware) bastardisations of Changeling, Robin and others. So I don't see it being a problem of mixing media, even as I agree that it is wholly unnecessary.
I do however think that what I wrote at TT (comics) serves a purpose (and I'm not just saying that because it took a long time to hammer out!) but that purpose could be just as well served in the TT article - which would be in place of the longer descriptive passages comic-by-comic, which I also think could sustain a couple of individual pages.
What's already there doesn't seem to be particularly plot-ty (with the exception of the current TT title, which is arguably for that reason of length the most in need of being split out into it's own page(!)), more descriptive - the series started then, ran for this long and featured these characters drawn by these people. Rather than inspiring people to add plot summaries, I would hope that having a couple of (comic book) pages would inspire people to either learn about and read the comics, or to add helpful encyclopedic information: "Wolfman and Perez came from Marvel to DC and decided to/were asked to make a series to rival the X-Men. Arguably they did, but the TT hasn't had the longevity of those series'. The two are still said to be working on New Teen Titans: Games..." NOT "And then in The Judas Contract this happened." ;o) ntnon (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other

In other news...

  • I've been meaning to get to Mr Johnston (sooner or) later, but as with nearly everything my personal examples of his work are in another country, so it's been slipping down the list..! Taboo (comic) is far higher at the moment, although I noticed with some minor consternation that, as with Diana Schutz, someone slipped in and started a stub article while I'm in the middle of preparing a full one... Oh well. I can add just as easily as create, I suppose..!
  • The TPB Table you suggested seems to be coming along nicely - you were right about the excess of boxes, and I think J Greb is addressing that rather well. Should look nice and uniform, informative and comprehensive before too long, so good thinking. ntnon (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note about further TPBTable comments - I've been otherly-busy for a while and missed those! I think it a mistake to not at least include the possibility of allowing editor/colorist/letterer/covers fields, and think that the already-existent compromise table is rather nice looking already. :o) I do take your point about referring to external databases for more information, but I still think the core TPB information should be here in a table, while the external link should be for the more on the issues themselves - story titles & cover pictures. Oh, and Karen Berger was a bad example, because I think she's one of a handful of editors that people WOULD favour and look out for! ;o) ntnon (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Years in comics categories

Fair enough. Hiding T 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Tokyopop titles

I have nominated Category:Tokyopop titles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for merging into Category:Tokyopop (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSI project's layout

CH-CH-CHeck it out. See also Left panel and right panel..--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Lee

Good call. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the NY Con this past weekend, I was there one day. Nice show -- just the right size crowd for it to be exciting without being push-and-shove exhausting. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Totally forgot to take my camera. I got a couple shots from a Nov. NY con, where old-timers Gary Friedrich, Herb Trimpe, etc. appeared. You know what? I'm gonna upload those, sign off on GNU, and add pix to their bios. Hadn't even occurred to me till you mentioned photos. Look at that! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Star Reach in Heavy Metal cat?

Why was Star Reach added to Heavy Metal titles category? Did publishers of Heavy Metal publish a reprint of Star Reach materials? --EarthFurst (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

It's been almost a year, and several subsequent edits and merges have happened since then. Would you either close this, or give me an update so that I can? - jc37 04:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Same for this one : ) - jc37 04:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to merge this one. (Can you tell I'm trying to deal with the back log? : ) - jc37 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I somehow managed to miss it until now. I'll have a look over those and sort them out. (Emperor (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
No worries, somehow I missed this note too : )
And fair enough. Let me know if you'd like any further assistance/help. - jc37 01:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking over them: The Crew ones are straightforward, the Marvel Fairytales will probably need renominating as someone has removed the tags they had been up so long but the Batman one is tricky -have a look over it. The 3 Ghosts are in a different story but one that is collected in the Batman & Son trade along with 2 other stories (see Grant Morrison#DC Comics, so if we wanted to merge them we'd need to refocus the article on the trade and include information on the other two stories. Not an unreasonable idea but it might leave a bitty and unfocused article. Have a look over it and see what you think and if it seems viable as a solution I'll drop a note into the talk page and see what folks think. The only other solution, really would be to delete the 3 Ghosts article - which should do OK in an AfD but I think we can find a better solution and the merge may be it.
Also I'm replying here as you moved my reply over here and I'd get too confused trying to re-reply over there. (Emperor (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC))
Me too. It's part of why I like to keep discussions unified : )

As for the articles you mention, I'll take a look at those momentarily. - jc37 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that I didn't propose some of those merges - the Batman one was one I merely noted on the noticeboard and gave my fourpenneth to. I was hoping someone with a better overview of the current Batman story arc would be able to provide more insight. (Emperor (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC))
I've closed the Batman one, and have left a note at User talk:Wordforge (who, according to his contribs, is still active). Moving on to the next. - jc37 02:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And now have closed the fairy tales one. It was apaprently more straight-forward than I had first thought.
And I guess that finishes these three. Thanks for your help : ) - jc37 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
OK cool. I've left my thoughts there - hopefully we can thrash out the best approach but it shouldn't be difficult to do what I propose. It should also be useful given the suggestion that quite a few of these stories will have some bearing/influence on the major Batman RIP story. (Emperor (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Sandman

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dog Logan

Since you seem to agree with me on this, could you offer your opinions on the IFD discussion for Image:dog tooth.jpg? Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M41A pulse rifle

Hello - seeing that you commented on this AfD, could I have you give it another look?

I have two main problems with the process in this case. First off, the nominator removed/redirected all the links to these articles in the AfD BEFORE the AfD was decided. I think this is problematic.

Secondly, he lumped all of them together in one AfD, even though many of the articles have quite a bit of content in them, which makes me feel this, again, is inappropriate. This also causes an associated problem, because I have now been doing quite a bit of work on Sulaco (spaceship) in response to noticing the AfD, and feel that it has enough references and shows enough notability to stand on its own.

So as above, could you be so kind and look at the discussion again? Ingolfson (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you can get access to either of the following two articles, that would be great:

Thanks for your help in retaing this article. Too bad I won't have the time to save any others, I think. Colonial Marines should have stayed. I may copy and redo it later... Ingolfson (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to Google Books. I never used it specifically, and it seems a really worthy research tool (if a bit disjointed at times due to the "missing" pages). Ingolfson (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Emperor

I've got a few things for you if you have some time.

  • Project Fanboy article. You had said that you might be willing to look over the Project Fanboy article if I were to put it in my Sandbox. I've done so in the event that it does get deleted. I'd appreciate any insights you could give me to strengthen it's case.
  • I've tried talking to Hu12 on his talk page about his reverts of my edits but he seems unwilling to talk about the reverts. I consider them to be a good contribution to the articles, although Fram did have a point I overlooked about the webcomic addition to the comic book article. Take for instance the Chumble_Spuzz edit though. The edit was in the Reception Category of the article and it had a clear reference to the authors response to the reception of the Chumble Spuzz title by religious organizations. I don't understand why it was removed simply because it referenced Project Fanboy.
  • I was wanting to create articles for people listed on the Project Fanboy page who had been interviewed, but I figured that since almost all my edits/articles seem to get deleted, these probably would as well. A lot of the information I would use would be from those interviews, but I'm afraid Hu12 or someone else would just come along and delete the page because it has a reference to Project Fanboy. Any advice you can give me on that subject? Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I've made some changes on my Sandbox to the wiki code for the now nonexistent Project Fanboy page. I thought about listing a lot of the reviews they do and linking to the author's listing at the Comic Book Database (I did a few already), but thought I'd get your opinion before I list very many of them. If you could take a look at it and give me your opinion, I'd appreciate it. Many thanks...Millennium Cowboy (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


Would something like this be helpful? Reactions to story from SLG: Better Comics Through Superior Firepower, this article on TECHNORATI.com talks about a review Project Fanboy did on the independent title Chumble Spuzz.Millennium Cowboy (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

______________________

This is Ethan Nicolle the creator of Chumble Spuzz, I can verify that the Project Fanboy article is legit. I appreciated the reception excerpt that was up and was sad to see it removed. You can email me at the.eef@gmail.com for questions (same email as is in print in the book Chumble Spuzz). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.179.3 (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and I'm happy to take your word for it. Unfortunately this doesn't help address the main issues. I have given Millennium Cowboy a few pointers on what is needed and will be keeping an eye out for anything that can help. Hopefully, we should be able to fix things so it gets to stay but we aren't there yet.
I think Mr. Nicolle was referring to the Chumble Spuzz article not the Project Fanboy article. (There was an excerpt from an interview he conducted with Project Fanboy in the Chumble Spuzz article which seemed substantial to the article but Hu12 removed it twice and refuses to speak on the matter.) On another note, the Project Fanboy page has been pretty much re-written in my sandbox, if you'd care to take a look. Thanks Millennium Cowboy (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah right. Yes I see. I don't think anyone thought it wasn't legit but it is good to hear it gets the thumbs up. I have left a note on the talk page as I think we can get that back in. I'll have another look at your sandbox and leave my thoughts on your talk page. (Emperor (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC))
So you don think the Scoop e-newsletter Scoop Newsletter is notable enough to support it as an article, and we still need to wait for more credible sources then? (Sorry, at the time you had looked it over, I had the wrong url for the article in the references.)Millennium Cowboy (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clifford Meth

I agree the article needs source citations and a little smoothing out but the unregistered user, Rosdinwyup, has no other verifiable presence on Wikipedia. His one and only edit is in these tags. This in itself suggests a personal interest in damaging the article. It appears as vandalism in that it does not represent your correct comment that the article needs source citations. But this is an entirely separate issue from the bias and fan page tags that the unregistered user placed. I'll try to gather together the proper references soon. And thank you for the comments on my own bio page, they're taken to heart and I'll address them there shortly. MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Armstrong (artist on Bella, Moonchild, etc)

Emperor, you've added a link to John Armstrong on the Misty (comic) page but it links to the wrong John Armstrong. What's the best way to create a new redlink with a suitable disambiguation for him? John Armstrong (artist) perhaps, or John Armstrong (comics artist)? Jenniscott (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Emperor. I've asked John Freeman to contribute to the John Armstrong page, which he's done to good effect. The text he's added has been described in the edit summary as coming from the bio provided for the Raptus festival in 2003. What's the best way of including this as a reference, do you think? He doesn't specifically say it was published in the program, for instance. Can it just be referred to generallly or should it have as definite a reference as possible? ta for your help. PS I have now removed the notability flag someone set on this (almost immediately after its creation). Jenniscott (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That's Entertainment (comic shop)

You contested the speedy delete of That's Entertainment (comic shop) because you claimed it had notoriety due to having won a prestigious Eisner Award. However it appears you did not check to see if this claim was sourced, which it was not. It turns out that there is not even a category in the Eisner Awards for comic book stores.

It appears that an editor of the article simply embellished the receipt of a local award given to multiple recipients a year that happens to use the name of Will Eisner in the title of the award, to infer that a much more significant Eisner Award had been bestowed.

Your follow-up comments on the talk page for the article would be appreciated. OccamzRazor (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lambiek

Good catch. Sometimes I despair of what gets deleted and why using CSD's. We assumed a lot of good faith in the ability of people to think when we added those, and with hindsight I think we were wrong. A7 is abused horribly, but when you attempt to change it you are told the problem isn't with the criterion but the admins. Catch-22. Hiding T 09:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Val Verde (fictional country)

I have nominated Val Verde (fictional country), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val Verde (fictional country). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)