User talk:J Greb/Archive Aug 2007

vol. v. v.

Sorry; just having fun with form there in the subhead!

User:Asgardian claims at Talk:Galactus that he's been changing such notations as "vol. 1" to "v1" because that's "the new thing" and that "J Greb" is doing it. I'm unsure of the veracity of his claim, and in any case, I left a link on that talk page to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#Titles with numerous volumes, which specifies the "vol." form. Just double-checking with you, since it didn't sound like the kind of thing you'd do. --Tenebrae 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See {{Comic book reference}}. The template is set up to generate "v#" for the citations. This is echoed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Citations. That being said, the way I read the project guide is that "v#" is limited to foot note citations. All other cases, in text statements, captions, 'boxes, etc, fall under the "vol. #," format. I have run into cases where Asgardian has balked at the CBR template, reverting it and stating it was fro "readability" issues. In those cases he has seemed to accept cites when I put them in formatted as the template's result, but without the template code. - J Greb 16:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Brothers

Had a go at merging the publication history and fictional bio here, but Tenebrae disagrees with me due to the fact it contradicts the exemplars. Appreciate your thoughts on a way forward. Steve block Talk 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look... - J Greb 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J'Onzz-ing for some answers

Yeah, I get that, but we aren't allowed to fill in the blanks. DC wants to keep is vague for now (keeping sales up). Too many fans out there think their brains are bigger than the good folk at DC, and they mightvery well be. However, until someone citable comes out and says it, we aren't allowed to. It's a comic book - i get that, but the policy applies uniformly to all articles. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite where I'm coming from. DC has released solicitation material with very specific images and enticement copy. That can be used as a citation just as easily as interview with editors and writers. However, given the potential for "bait-n-switch" I'd rather see editors practice restraint in what they add until the books actually ship for sale and can be used as a primary cite.

If the solicits and pre-release interviews are going to be used to generate and flesh out articles, then the information needs to be whats there. That's the half step edit came in. It wasn't filling in blanks per se, though it could have been trimmed to just the Black King/J'Onn picks. It was a deliberate attempt to get a blatant piece of spec out. - J Greb 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something I'd like feed back on...

I'm working on something with regard to Amphibian (comics), and potentially the rest of the related articles.

I've moved a copy of the article to User:J Greb/Pasteup while I'm working on it.

The upshot is, given the relatively short history of the characters, I'm trying to blend the PH and FCB into one section. Right now I've only gotten through the first character, but I'd like a few other editors to take a look and tell me if I'm onto something, blowing smoke, or somewhere in between.

Thanks, - J Greb 10:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for missing this note. I've been away from Wikipedia for a while (RL irrefusably called). I checked out the link and it's something else now. Anyway, I'm back... Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not I problem. I had waited a while and moved what I had edited by chunk into the actual article ( Amphibian (comics) ). I was working on another when I got side tracked with the image deletion/FUR issue. - J Greb 04:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The animated batmans.JPG

If Warner Bros. did indeed create that image to illustrate the evolution of Batman, then they might have a claim on the copyright (on the presentation of the material, if not the underlying Batman elements). But as no source is given for the image as a whole, it's unclear who would own the copyright. —tregoweth (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late, but thanks for the help with JJonz

Dave has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dave 21:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Uncanny200.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Uncanny200.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Image tagging for Image:Rising_Stars.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rising_Stars.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bwanabeastdcu0.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Bwanabeastdcu0.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 22:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

CrystarB4 edits

He is rightly suspected of being a sock-puppet for JJonz, including that he uses JJonz 'Gaashooru' when addressing Gschoyru, but he didn't vandalise Powers and abilities of Superman or Sentry (Robert Reynolds). He's currently either blatantly trying to bait both you and Gschroyru with harmless and completely pointless, non-vandalism, edits, while feigning 'harmless pacifist' comments, or is simply some unrelated guy doing semi-stupid but harmless edits. Please keep track of whether he does reverts or just adds an 'and' or similar here and there, or he'll lure both you and Gschoyru into a pitfall/ban. Ridding you of much credibility with the admins with JJonz getting an open market to do whatever he wants/act silly petty tyrant again. Dave 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If, and a mighty big if, if it were just an arguably useful or relevant a word here or there I'd agree with you.

However

The user is hitting the same articles JJonz ran through;
This spate came right after JJonz2 was blocked indefinitely and JJonz had 2 months tacked on for blatant socking;
The edits, as a whole, did hit a point where it could be considered dissipative editing;
Based on the Sentry (Robert Reynolds), since he was adding information that was in the same line it definitely moves to disruptive. At least as I understand it.

Your concern though is noted.

- J Greb 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point isn't that I disagree with you about him and JJonz rather blatantly being the same person, it's that he's currently being a more devious bastard than I would previously have given him credit for, given his consistent embracement of Lobo as a personal role model. I.e. he's doing a 'nudge-nudge wink-wink, I know you'll get this vague reference but the admins wont' double-play where he's perfectly feigning victimhood to get fallback for when admins quickly browse through his history the next time. I.e. he's blowing a few sock-puppet vandal identities, while keeping one of them officially 'pure' and hopefully getting all of us out of the way in the process, before his ip has time to get perm-banned. Sacrificing a few pawns to gain an extra queen with much looser restrictions.

He's without a doubt the by far worst and most detrimental wikipedian I've ever encountered. Exactly the type of vandal that is very hard to handle, since _everything_ he does is deliberate lies, distortion and censorship, without adding anything of value whatsoever, and he's relentlessly using the loopholes to get away with it. Dave 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men

For what it's worth, I didn't add that image to a lot of those articles (animated series, ect). Back in 2005, another version of that cover was on Modern Age of Comic Books, X-Men, and History of the X-Men comics when I replaced it with Marvel.com's image because it looked cleaner. [1][2][3]

Anyway, I'm really sorry if I caused you any trouble with that fair use rationale template. --DrBat 22:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Giganta-ww28.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Giganta-ww28.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Giganta sf.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Giganta sf.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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 05:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gl2.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gl2.gif. 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ASBMRCv1a.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ASBMRCv1a.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. Pekaje 10:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]