User talk:J Greb/Archive Apr 2010

Orphaned non-free image File:Herge Colonel Boris 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Herge Colonel Boris 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Superman

Just FYI if you happen to be online still (you are a busy beaver!), an editor has changed Supermans Kypronian name from Kal-El to Kal-L (no 'E'). User:Dca5347 at 18:51, 2 April 2010.
See this DIFF. NB. Also left a messsage at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics--220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed DC animated universe deletions

So basically, if you're not named Batman and Superman (therefore, don't have an show independent from Justice League/Justice League Unlimited), you're warranted having your own page deleted!?! TMC1982 (talk) 06:41 p.m., 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluntly:

• If it wasn't just poaching the IOMs, and
• If it was limited to the linked shows and not their spin offs, and
• If it wasn't crammed with material on other characters, and
• If there sources other than primary plot mining were used to expand the various IoM material to "Article length"

Then may be there would be a justification for the articles.

As it stands the articles you be putting up are exercises in cut-and-paste creation, fleshed out with extensive plot summaries, and laid out to suggest that the are talking about a show and not a character.

And considering that most of the ones that have been found have been deleted on that bases under AfD, it maybe worthwhile for a rethink on the creation of like articles.

- J Greb (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The articles were "crammed" with material from other characters were supposed to "flesh" out the characters' universes (since they don't have their own shows) in correspondence to the comics. And since when was it a crime on Wikipedia to cut and paste from elsewhere on Wikipedia!? TMC1982 (talk) 06:53 p.m., 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Right... so you worked up the articles in a manner that isn't used elsewhere to hit a reasonable "article length". Material that should have been left at the IoM of the "foes" and "supporting characters". And frankly, using those terms implies a show focused on the character, even when one doesn't exist.

As for it being a problem, take a look at WP:FORK. In both of these characters, along with the rest that have been deleted, the is no justification in the content fork of splitting the information into a separate article.

- J Greb (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, what would be the point of creating comic adaption (i.e. film/animation, etc.) related lists or "long form" character profiles if we already have "IoM" sections of the main articles!? You helped get many, many film related articles for Marvel (such as the live-action X-Men and Spider-Man films) because you felt that they were "unnecessary" due to there already being "IoM" sections (look at a bigger picture). I guess then, you don't like the villains/supporting characters lists for Batman: The Animated Series and Superman: The Animated Series also, since they're not confined to only the "IoM" side of the discussion. TMC1982 (talk) 07:11 p.m., 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK...

1. Most television shows, movies, radio shows, plays, video games, and the like tend to get their own articles where there is notability and reliable sources present. Most of those also operate under the premise of:
   • The article is going to be written primarily with an eye to real world context. That is the discussion of the plot is minimal and the important things are production and impact. This can be fleshed out with an overview of the plot and a list of characters, locations, etc.
   • The focus of the article is the entirety of the show, film, game, or whatever as a integral work. Not a particular character or character set that appears in it.
2. Lists, when they exist should deal with the material that is actually in the film, show, series, or what ever. The should not be scatter shot collections of things that were rumored to have been intended to be in the work, what fans interpret included elements to be, what maybe in later instalment, and what is in similar works. And in any event such list should start as part of the article on the work. If they justifiably expand to the point where a content fork becomes reasonable or necessary, then they should be considered for splitting out. That though is generally after the article is copy edited as far as possible and there isn't something larger that can be split off.
   The issue with the lists you created is that you just copied the information from various IoM sections. The exact same purpose is served by creating a bulleted, phrase (character, location, or object name) only list that links to those sections. Any additional information important to the work should be in the broad plot summary so it shouldn't need to be repeated in the list.
3. The character lists for Batman: Te Animated Series and The Batman, as examples, are fairly focused, avoid OR, provide a space for expanded information that is not being kept else where, and are to large to be merged into the large number of relevant articles. Also, they are, for the most part a result of plot related cullings of character articles and flat out removal of plot only episode articles.
4. Ideally, the IoM sections for characters or locations should be covering the where the adaptations have been made, how they were done, and how the element functioned in the derivative work. And those points should be referenced from reliable secondary sources. And the coverage should be kept to the minimum needed. If the various sections get to large, the IoM can get split off. If it is still oversize, it can be split by media. If a section is still to large and cannot reasonable be edited down, then it might be time to split out one or more larger adaptations. Some cases of each of the above:
   • Spider-Man is a good example of an IoM being sub-divided by media.
   • Clark Kent (Smallville) is a good example of a character adaptation that cannot be reasonably folded back into an IoM.
   • The material about Absorbing Man in the Ang Lee Hulk is justified by the references from secondary sources. But it is only justifiable as a short, very short, section.
   • Creating sections in the IoM for Doctor Octopus for the first and third Remi Spider-Man films isn't justified. That is information that can, and should, be covered in an over view of the characters adaptation for the second film.

- J Greb (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You like to talk about "fleshing" things out, yet instead, you rather junk things completely instead of improving on it (therefore, doesn't look like a total carbon copy)! It shouldn't always be only one person's responsibility to improve on such things like this. Isn't that what Wikipedia is partially for (a group effort of sorts in terms of making things better and more pronouced)!? TMC1982 (talk) 08:19 p.m., 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is about consensus - which is what has happened when the articles, categories, and templates you created have been deleted. Constantly creating similar articles, categories, and templates verges on disruptive editing in the face of that consensus.

As far as "fleshing out" that tends to start with working on the existing articles. Using the Flash as an example - How much information about the character from STAS and JL/JLU needs to be in Flash in other media? The nutshell is:

• First appearance episode,
• Voice actor(s),
• Broad strokes of what got carried over and what didn't, and
• Broad strokes of how the character was used in the series.

If that is long enough, or there are secondary sources about the development for production of the character that significantly expand it, then it may be worth splitting off. But such an article would have to:

• Avoid giving the impression that Warner Brothers produced a cartoon title Flash,
• Stick to the cartoons for the majority of the article, and
• Avoid including fan based guesses and theories.

Also, such and article should not be used as a "plot dump" in lieu of episode articles.

- J Greb (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Superhero image box

Hi J-Greb,

24.148.0.83 seemed to find that the Aurora image is not the one used in the OHOTMU, at east not since its original edition. The image I utilized was one that I found that was a commission, with Byrne and Rubinstein's signature in the lower right, which was removed in this version. I placed a faded background because the original image made it appear indistinct, with some of the line work completely fading out, since the colorization is essentially black and white.

In the original images for Ink Wiki, Pixie Wikie, and Storm, all three were indeed washed out by the background with things like text balloons and random body parts and dialogue. You can find scans of the original source for Ink, Pixie, and Aurora here:

• Ink [1]
• Pixie [2]
• Aurora [3]

I trust your judgment in determining if they are "busy" or not int heir original forms, but then it comes down to subjectivity.

I do not know if the Quentin Quire image is from OHOTMU, only that the image itself of him is pulled directly from the lower half of the page from New X-Men #135. I assumed that someone had manipulated the background themselves.

The image of Storm is one from the actual issue of Phoenix Endsong #3 that was scanned in. I don't recall where I found it, but it was from a Portuguese version. I removed the background because a text balloon (in Portuguese) would have been in the direct center of the image.

The Enchantress image is one that I found here: [4] Since another of similar design exists for Melter, and neither of those two images were from original source material (Dark Reign: Young Avengers), and it's unlikely that Mark Brooks drew those two specifically and only for OHOTMU, I assumed it was promotional material.

The Phoenix image is one that I found already with the background removed. I had nothing to do with that one in terms of photo manipulation. I recognized it from another image I had seen with the original page in full, which basically has a split shot of Cable, Nate Grey, and Archangel, since Phoenix is contacting all of them simultaneously.

Likewise, the Wondra image is as I found it.

The reason for why I remove backgrounds is largely when I believe that they make the image complicated to view. I look for images where the background has already been removed or if none exists, if there are major obstructions, I remove the background myself, to replicate the style of the main image at Cyclops. Fading a background is only something I've tried doing in the past week, particularly if its not a full body shot (such as the case with Ink Wiki) which provides a level of context to the image, or as explained earlier, the original version's white background fades the main image out completely.

And for all of these images, though they are all sourced to the correct original issues, if you have the OHOTMU and it's clear that the image used in the box is either original to OHOTMU or that the manipulated version (background, etc.) is the OHOTMU version, feel free to take them down and we'll find a legal version to use. As of now, I am completely certain that the images used on Ink, Pixie, Storm, Phoenix are not. Quentin Quire, Enchantress, and Aurora (though another user apparently checked already) could be. Thanks for checking in and let me know!Luminum (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic entities template

Hello. I need input regarding possible changes in this. I tried to modify my own notions considerably from your comments. Would the current version be acceptable to change the entry into, or does it need further modifications? Dave (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Radical?

Why are you removing the images from the Radical Comics article? AkankshaG (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFCC (policy) and WP:NFC (over all guideline which restates the policy).

Galleries, which is what the "collage" and the covers in the table are, are rarely, if ever, acceptable uses of non-free images. The few exceptions I can think of involve actors not publications.

As for File:DavidHine SDCC2009.png - It's unrelated and irrelevant to the article, especially in the list section. Maybe a cropped section of it would be good for Hine's biography, IF a better free to use image isn't already there.

And to be honest File:Darren Bousman SDCC2009.png really adds zip to the section on "A Hollywood Approach to Comics". It's a photo of a film director at the premier pop culture convention. That helps to explain how Radical approaches the development and marketing of comics how? Bousman doesn't even appear to be among the "key people" in the company. So, like the photo of Hine, its a free to use image put in the article for the sake of having an image in the article.

- J Greb (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I probably could have done a better job with the caption on the Hine image -- Hine is the creator of the FVZA:Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency, a Radical publication (http://www.newsarama.com/comics/030919-FVZA.html). I will take a look at the policy and guideline you refer to. AkankshaG (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian

Agreed - I think Asgardian should be allowed to have his say on his talk page, until it becomes disruptive; if he is causing disruption, the page itself will likely need to be protected, and if anyone else causes trouble then they should be warned (or worse, as needed). I'm not sure what is meant by saying he won't "take legal action (think on what that one may mean one day: it's only a matter of time)" but if you think ArbCom should be aware of that comment, then maybe they should; it sounds more like blustering to me than any sort of real threat. I'm sure ArbCom is used to angry responses after passing down some decision, but I doubt they will do anything further until/unless it gets to be more than just rumblings. I'll put his talk page on my watchlist for now, at least. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

My major concern is that the entire section may become a target for a few editors (I can think of two off the top of my head) to post rebuttals to on that talk page. Do I think that it should be protected? Right now no, especially since it's Asgardian's only legit point of contact with the community. It shouldn't be taken away from him based on what others may do. But I do think that we should be aware of it in case it does draw fire.

And the blusted, including the implication that he has grounds for leagl action (though gods know what) and berating the ArbCom for acting as judge, jury, and executioner, is likely just that. It's just the wrong thing at the wrong time. Like the edit warring durring the case running. - J Greb (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you; I've got it on my watchlist just in case. And I sincerely wish to avoid further drama in the issue as well. BOZ (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Me? Nah, I'm not the gloating type. He's finally gone and I'm still tired, that's all. The discussion had a bit of an odd focus, but I've already said that. As for the farewell, the only noteworthy aspects I found were the 'I should so sue you all, but am simply too nice to do it' 'mob lawyer' parody, and the implication that he moulded the situations he were involved in to illustrate, and influence change in Wikipedia's policies. Dave (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed your revert on Rhino. Someone is taking advantage of the new change in status quo. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the circumstances of how Asgardian left these various articles, sweeping changes really should be discussed as that's a big part of what got Asgardian into trouble in the first place. I'm OK with Rtkat's reversion of the other media/other version sections (that seems to be his main thing) but not with a big revert just to get rid of the "Asgardian version" in a hurry. I'll revert the Juggernaut changes as well. BOZ (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting how sweeping that revert on Rhino was as it also removed a lot of later additions like interwiki links, which is A Bad Idea (unless the relevant article on the other wiki has been deleted).

Asgardian's banning shouldn't be seen as a green light to undo his edits if anyone has been in dispute with him. In fact I'd caution against it - his efforts may have been sometimes misdirected and he didn't play well with others, but the edits themselves did help improve some articles. Although I wouldn't put Rhino or Juggernaut quite in that category I'd suggest the way forward on both is getting stuck in and rewriting it (banishing the awkward dates and things to footnotes) rather than just setting the clock back - which usually can't be done now since there have been so many edits from others in between a blanket revert is bordering on vandalism and could be treated as such if it becomes a pattern. I think the lesson that has to be learned is you need to cooperate with others and not taking that lesson on board could lead others into trouble too. (Emperor (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

That really is my concern here - the restorations of the AV and IoM sections is too problematical, it's the flat reverts/massive overhauls. - J Greb (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

67.71.49.42

Thank you for dealing with this user. This individual appears to be the Saban troll, changing his MO a bit. The ISP is at least the same, as well as his removal of anything to do with Power Rangers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

May or may not be the same person. Some of the edits seem to match what you've been chasing. The ones that got them in trouble this go round were futzing with dates, up to and including in signatures on their talk page. - J Greb (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Daleks appearence.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Daleks appearence.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Comic-questionable-use

Template:Comic-questionable-use has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Usual Suspect

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? [5] BOZ (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Quack, definetly quack - J Greb (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to add that one to the sockpuppet investigations page? I'm not sure how to do that. BOZ (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Normally you'd use the normal process to start an SPI but use "Marcus Brute" as the puppetmaster. It should kick it through as a "new" SPI. Once closed, the archive would be added to the previous ones. - J Greb (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I did it right.  ;) BOZ (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One to watch - lots of redirecting and a story arc article plus covering some similar territory. No categories... yet. (Emperor (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

I think this has to be the clincher - an obscure article started by a previous sock... (Emperor (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm not so sure... this editor at least asked, and listened, prior to attempting to starting an article on Power Girl v2 or Starman v2.

It feels like it's either not him or he's learned a little. If the HotCat abuse shows up again though... - J Greb (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I imagine they have learned their lesson (or at least learned cover their tracks better).

Another interesting example [6], started by the original account, then edit by a sock puppet, redirect by Tenebrae, which was then reverted by an anon IP and then this new editor carries in the editing. (Emperor (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

STG

The IP should have been reverted point blank. Deleted again and refered it back to Detectve...Damn tempted to redirect and lock. Those single issue articles really need to show notablility and a need to split off of the article on the series. - J Greb (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there is some possibility the article has legs - it depends on the viability of articles like Action Comics 1 and Giant-Size X-Men. These comics do make the news because of the huge price paid for them, but then again there is no reason that can't be included in the main article. It was more an example of an editing pattern and I'd support turning it into a redirect. (Emperor (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

To be fair

• Action Comics has the room to support a Notable/Landmark/Important issues section that can hold the entirety of Action Comics 1.
• The same situation exists for Detective Comics and Detective Comics 27 and Amazing Fantasy and Amazing Fantasy 15. This list could go on and on for the anthology books.
• Giant-Size X-Men is a case of a special issue. Up until recently it was a series that only had one issue. Any article is going to be of limited scope. It seems a case of apples and oranges to say "If Giant-Size X-Men #1 deserves a full article, so should this other important issue."
• The self titled comics that currently don't have a separate article for the comic and the character/team are places where adding in the "notable/landmark/important issues" where it is likely that the section would almost immediately need to be split off.

- J Greb (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plus there is an intrinsic problem in that Action Comics #1 is going to get a lot of collectors interested, but what is Action Comics #2 sells for $1million too, does that warrant its own article? Most of those articles reek of filler anyway. I do think the material from Detective Comics #27 should be in the Detective Comics article, though.

I like what you did there with {{unindent}} I'll be using that myself sometime. (Emperor (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

HotCat has been fired up [7], plus a number of redirects have been put in place that are not useful, may be misleading and go against WP:REDLINK (I'm building a list of a few dozen redirects that need deleting from the original main account - might have to do them as a batch), see for example Chris Sims, where none of the incoming links are actually comics related (and probably needs deleting too). They are not hammering in their own very specific categories, yet. (Emperor (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Yeah... it looks like a lot of similar damage is now being done. Looks like it may be worth taking to SPI w/ CU. - J Greb (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image question

so when i changed the infobox photo of Flash (comics) you immediately changed it back because it was "new for new's sake" or something. and you let this one stay. just wondering what your reasoning behind it is. i really don't see why one is better than the other. Exrebel (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing thatone out to me.

Bluntly: I don't generally watch "in use" images. CmdrClow bypassed scrutiny of an edit to an article by "overloading" the image.

And frankly that really pisses me off.

- J Greb (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Flash image

So, you say above that you're pissed off over something I did, and I rectified it, so now you decide to make my edits "disruptive" by constantly changing them back, even though now it's blatantly apparent you're trying to block my edit because I piss you off. Your tone and actions seriously lack WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and you should learn to let things go when there's clearly no rules being violated and edits are taking place for the integrity of the articles. You're stunting progress for no reason other than to exercise control over me as an administrator. --CmdrClow (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Clow,

You essentially hid your change of the infobox image. And you did it for an article in a topic set where you have hit resistance for changing image to suit your personal preference. Further, it's something that has been pointed out to you before as the wrong way to go about it.

Yes, that pisses me off. While the content you may have wanted to add or change would have gotten an AFG, the method you chose falls flat. You want ed to improve the article - a good thing. You did on the sly - not a good thing.

As for the change to the article... I'm sorry but you don't get a free pass on using the talk page of an article to garner support for a contested change, no matter who is contesting it. That is the civil thing to do. It is also the civil thing to go to the talk page first if you think your change may be contested.

And I'm evidently not the only editor that has problems with the content your adding - [8]. And while IMO Noelemahc over shoots the mark slightly, they aren't entirely wrong. WP:NOTPLOT argues for limited plot synopsis and WP:UNDUE argues that material added shouldn't skew an article to one point or aspect of a topic. A substantial synopsis of the sole released issue does rub against the spirit of NOTPLOT and adding a "more to come" line does skew the article to the current series.

That, along with most of your other edits show you are dancing on a fine line between providing encyclopedic content and fan site material. 9 time out of 10 you stop short - there isn't anything to object to, at least by those watching the articles who bother to look at the summary-less edits (see WP:ES on that one). Your entrenched desire to change the infoboxes at Flash (Barry Allen) and Flash (comics) and you insistence on keeping you summary at The Flash (comic book) do over step into material for either an indexing site or a fan site.

And as for tone... "What needs discussion? You're changing your motives to block my edit. I fixed your initial valid complaint and now you're grasping at other 'problems.'" [9] needs a look too, don't you think?

- J Greb (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Not if it's true. Again, I rectified my mistake, and you instructed me to make the change more openly on my talk page, which I did, and then you persisted in blocking it anyways. What was the point of telling me to make the change differently, and then proceeding to block it, without contesting the change in the first place on my talk? Because of that, it's very easy to infer that you had no intention of letting that change stand. That sounds an awful lot like bait-and-switch, which is the polar opposite of AGF behavior. I wasn't trying to be "sneaky." It just appeared that the new image would be suited by that same title, there was no wanton subterfuge intended, it was an organizational edit. The point of adding the new image is because it includes more of the characters that the article explicitly names as the Flash, by adding Barry Allen (the most recognizable Flash anyways, who has the most adaptations in media outside the comics leading the charge in the image, no less) in addition to Bart, Jay, Wally, and Jesse Quick. It is also not as stylized as Michael Turner's image, which the CMoS instructs against. Your antagonism towards me makes any editing on this encyclopedia, done in good faith, difficult. --CmdrClow (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

1) The objection to your first approach was, and still is, that is was essentially hiding the change to the article. Period. Addressing other problems at that point is moot.

2) Your change after that - after properly uploading the image as a separate file - is still open to objection on the article level. And frankly something that would have been objected to if you had done it properly in the first place.

3) At that point, you as the editor wanting the change, should have made your case at the article's talk page. Not bulled ahead. And honestly, at this point it still should be discussed on the articles talk page, not here. And you may want to look at what has been pointed out there regarding the short comings of the current image and your preferred change.

4) And on the point of "hiding edits"... Yes, NOT providing an edit summary explaining your change that has gone up the conflict resolution chain and been found to be contrary to etiquette to be used when editing. The most recent quote on this being - "Editors are expected to use edit summaries to make it easy for other editors to see what is being done with an article. Leaving the edit summary field blank is undesirable, and using it to mislead as to the substance of one's edits is prohibited." - in an ArbComm resolution.  — [Unsigned comment added by J Greb (talk • contribs).]

1) I wasn't disagreeing since it was pointed out, but again, I fixed my mistake.

2) You could have added your initial objection when you left a note on my talk. Since you didn't, it infers that you wanted me to make the correct change and then get into a fight with me about it.

3) "Bulling ahead" is not what I thought I was doing since you told me to make the change the correct way. If I thought there was a problem, as you apparently knew there would be all along, I would have gone to the talk page.

4) Again, my intention was not to mislead anyone. I've laid my case to you and if you are simply denying what I'm saying then you're not using AGF behavior. Sometimes accidents happen. And since I'm not an administrator, I'm not seeing editing trends on the Administrators' Noticeboard or Arbitration pages unless I'm directly involved with them, which I'm not. It's unfair for you to hold a non-Admin to that standard. --CmdrClow (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The bottomline is WP:BRD - you were bold (WP:AGF), J Greb reverted it and this should have been taken straight to the talk page rather than trying to hammer this in through sheer persistence. That is problematic and it needs to stop. Talk it to the talk page. (Emperor (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

And again, if there was a problem with the changed image and it was told to me in the initial note, I wouldn't be as persistent. That is just as "sneaky" as I was and I don't appreciate being lured into a confrontation. --CmdrClow (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually Clow the stumbling block becomes your edit of the 24th not the 23rd - that's the one that was made in lieu of actually going to the talk page. So...

• April 15 you "backed" it in.
• April 22 that was undone as an improper way to do it.
• April 23 you went about uploading the image properly and making the change again. This was reversed.
• April 24 instead of starting a discussion on the talk page you dug your heels in and reasserted your change. And we've been going down hill from there.

And Clow, you may have had pure motives, but looking at the backend image change and your almost absolute refusal to provide edit summaries when editing articles - [10] - "sneaky" becomes a possibility.

And as for lured in... I have to ask, if one of the issues with the current image is that one of the three characters isn't depicted in a Flash costume, how could you think that an image where 4 of 7 depicted character are not in Flash costumes would go through without a challenge?

- J Greb (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't an issue, I said that the issue was that it didn't show enough of the characters that have been the Flash, and the main image leaves the most recognizable of all the characters to have been the Flash conspicuously absent. And again, if on April 22nd when you asked me to make the change properly, you also stated that if the change was made anyways you would have reversed it, then I'd have gladly gone to the talk page, as I seem to have to repeat. I was lured in because you failed to tell me that it was a change worth contesting and, knowing full well that I was going to go about making the change the proper way, let it reoccur so that you could argue with me about it. --CmdrClow (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Soundwave-dreamwave.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Soundwave-dreamwave.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pat on the back, fist on the shoulder

Just offering my support and a "hang in there" with the NickLenz19 thing. I imagine it's never easy being the one to block somebody, even when they clearly deserve to be blocked. Thanks for helping to keep the Project livable. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)