User talk:J Greb/Archive Jan 2012

Batman & Robin

Excuse me, but why are you so adament about not retaining cohesive information, including how Barbara becomes Batgirl, or that even Poison Ivy was a botonist? They're not so much extremeties, as pieces of clarity, so where's this "bloating"? DarthBotto _talk•cont 07:43, 01 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The summary is just that, a summary. Not all details get in.
2. As per WP:MOSFILM, specifically WP:FILMPLOT, the summary is capped at 700 words, which I believe the Batman & Robin one is at or close to. Pushing beyond that without a very good reason isn't going to work.

- J Greb (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ross Aquaman.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ross Aquaman.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. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• 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) 17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I was trying to restore my response that the complainer deleted. --ChristianHistory (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have worked out and you comment was restored.

Still be careful about change thins like that link though. Looks like there is enough friction without adding to it.

- J Greb (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

70.52.174.181

Could you extend the block on this IP? He matches a known pattern (also triggered the edit filter). Same goes for 70.52.173.110.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Avengers protection

The article is currently protected until April 6, and the film is due out May 4. Since the page is mostly likely going to be protected around the time of release, why not go ahead a protect it longer now?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm hoping to shorten it if it seems quiet over the next few weeks. - J Greb (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Need advice

I've gone without success to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Request for admin to review apparent consensus asking for an admin review of a now more than 20,000-word discussion at Talk:Demi Moore#A specific proposal and its run-up. The majority of editors there have reached a consensus. One editor who has touched virtually no other page since Dec. 27 is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the consensus, but writing lengthy, obsessive tracts.

Other editors who left the discussion have come back acknowledging the consensus and perplexed the discussion still going on; for example, [1], [2].

Other than the RfC talk page, which hasn't proved responsive, is there any mechanism for having a disinterested, outside admin view the discussion and render some guidance? I'm not asking you in particular; I'm not admin-shopping. I really do want to know what the options are after the RfC talk page since the discussion has been hijacked by an obsessive, and other editors besides myself have grown concerned about how this is grinding on with one editor writing screeds on how The New York Times is not a reliable source. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoteth the Duck "WAUGH!!"

Options I can see:

• Amend the RFC talk page section to clearly and concisely lay out your concerns about what is happening. Right now TL;DR (or WRorC for editors just coming to the ramble) seems to be the main sticking point.
• Possibly, coupled with the above, request that and Admin that patrols the RFCs to seriously look at closing it. If they can parse it down to a consensus, all well and good. But at the least try and boil it down to a short "where we are" to start a fresh RFC.
• Run it by the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee to see if this should be run through informal or formal mediation. If you do, make sure to ask where to go if it isn't a mediation issue.

I'd worry about getting called on "shopping", but frankly 20k words on her name and going one stp at a time should shoot that down.

- J Greb (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Angel (comics)

Hey can ask you a favor: please help me fix the references of the films of Angel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.79.138 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia blackout

Just got a press release from the Wikipedia Foundation saying English-language Wikipedia is staging a 24-hour blackout on Wednesday to protest (as well it should) the SOPA legislation before Congress. Darn good way to get people's attention to that bill. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We're meanies

Did you see this? http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:NeoBatfreak&diff=473037753&oldid=473036250 We both asked the kid to please write edit summaries (I did several times on several talk pages and on his own, which makes me meaner than you), and he's been trying to enlist people to yell at us for him. Poor boy. By the way, he's still not leaving summaries, even when he's made a dozen edits at a time. Driving me nuts.--TEHodson 20:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit war: Miranda Kerr

I checked up on the guidelines and it seems that you're either to place a template or consult an administrator if something like this happens. Well, I was trying to make tweaks to Kerr's article, and I noticed that an editor or two had dabbed into creating an "Other work" section. I tried to merge the three lines back into the career section, but one editor (User talk:Orangecandi) kept reverting so that the three lines remained a separate section.

Similarly, the career headings... I don't think that's appropriate but I'm not sure if we should just leave that. Mariah Carey is a FA with headings, as with many singers, but Kerr is a model. Natalie Portman and Keira Knightley are GAs without the section titles. Thanks in advance. ★Dasani★ 21:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The first step would be to use the article's talk page. That should be where a content dispute is worked out. Even if you need to revert with an edit summary that points to the start of that discussion.

If that doesn't work, then warnings about edit warring are the next step. The moving on to reporting the conflict, either informally to an uninvolved admin or formally at WP:ANEW.

- J Greb (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor DC Comics character response and more

I understand what you are saying. When I leave something in the Edit Summary with me on Mozilla Firefox, it is there as one of the optional comments until the cache clearing. But enough about that. I understood that you had done a redirect with Plastique (who was a recurring Suicide Squad member) and Typhoon (who was a recurring Firestorm villain) where I was starting the section for you to help establish following the recent mass-merging act (this was similar to some of the Digimon articles before their info was transferred to the Digimon Wiki). When it came to Sam Lane's section there, there was no mentioning of his part for The New 52 there even though he was a recurring Superman character. I'm just mentioning this in case you want to either add whatever New 52-related info you know about Sam Lane or bring back his page. Speaking of Suicide Squad, I had to add Captain Boomerang's info of him becoming the field commander for "The New 52." I have been noticing that DC Comics has been including new characters during it's start like Silverback for the Brotherhood of Evil Coyote for La Dama's gang, and Savant, Voltaic, and Yo-Yo for the Suicide Squad. What do you think of The New 52 so far? Rtkat3 (talk) 7:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd... I don't seem to have a problem with Firefox and ES. But then again, I've prefrenced Wikipedia to prompt me if I actually havent entered anything into the ES field.

"To come..." isn't a good way to prompt someone. But I take the hint. And "recurring" doesn't equate to "major" or even "notable" based on how some comics character articles are written.

re: Sam Lane. Frankly, there seems to be scant need to start rolling in every appearance. Prior to COIE, he was a non-character, a one dimensional backgrounder for Lois. Same can be said for the most part post-COIE though his career changed. The character was made more prominent from the "Our Worlds at War" event onward, though it was as DC's "Thunderbolt" Ross. That character arc carried through to his suicide in the aftermath of the Earth-New Krypton war. The Flashpoint reboot just brought back the Ross-like character - that's maybe worth 1 or 2 lines.

Cpt. Boomerang: You mean "field sacrifice" right? On board for all of 2 issues. That really is the problem with rushing in large chunks of information: your interpritation about what it means and its importance may be wrong.

Some of the "new" characters I'd rather have the creators comments on them. Silverback looks like a stand-in/replacement/replacement of M. Mallah. Coyote looks like a brand new one. As for the "red shirts du jour", does more need be said?

As for the New52... Long & Short: It's a reboot. Some things are close to status quo - Batman, GL, Jonah Hex - others are unrecognizable - Firestorm, Teen Titans, Superboy. I really can't square that with expanding the fictographies in the articles.

- J Greb (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course at the end of the Flashpoint storyline, the DC Comics had merged with Wildstorm and Vertigo as a hooded character stated that they were separated to weaken them from an impending threat and now it was merged to combat this threat which would appear in future comics. I can't say that Silverback is a stand-in for Monsieur Mallah since he and Brain haven't appeared yet. Coyote was killed off by La Dama for the group's failure into retrieving the scarab. Dollmaker ended up removing Joker's face where the Batman Wiki mentioned that Harley Quinn overcame her neck bomb, escaped, and vows to reclaim Joker's face and avenge him (which I think occurred in one of the Batman issues after her escape in one of the Suicide Squad issues). Rtkat3 (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Designer

Mr Greb, I had already added "designer" to Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse, The Complete Carl Barks Disney Library and The Complete Peanuts before you went and reverted it. Did you think it was vandalism? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 00:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

1. No. See WP:AGF
2. Actually more of unneeded minutia over stuffing the infobox.
3. Please also take a look at WP:BRD. Normally discussing a change is done before you reinsert your bold edit.

- J Greb (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the first bullet point of WP:BRD. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Template changes

Please read my message on the template talk page before asking me to use the template talk page. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You are doing a fine job as being disruptive. - J Greb (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the need to be uncivil. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If the entire issue is that everything's being converted to plainlist, then why was "designer" deleted? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sorry, the attitude you copped above didn't help anything.

You made a bold edit, that's fine. Jumping to asking "You thought it was vandalism?" or moaning that you edits predicated on your bold change stopped working aren't.

Re-inserting you change and running with it and changing articles after that when your original bold edit was reverted also isn't.

Now, would you care to go undo the changes you've made to articles that currently remove information or are you going to dig in your heels an leave it to others to fix the damage?

re designer: Bluntly? It falls under editor either as product design or art direction. As a separate field it is a piece of unneeded bloat in the 'box.

- J Greb (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly? You're factually wrong. The editors for The Complete Carl Barks Disney Library and Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse are David Gerstein and Gary Groth, and the designer is Jacob Covey. The designer for The Complete Pogo is Carolyn Kelly, and its editor is Kim Thompson. Walt & Skeezix and Crazy and Ignatz are edited by Jeet Heer and designed by Chris Ware. The Complete Peanuts is edited by Gary Groth and designed by Seth. This has become quite common in the 21st century.

And what's with all this aggressiveness? What's with "You are doing a fine job as being disruptive" and "the attitude you copped"? I see you doing this at {{Infobox comics creator}} as well. Why the need to make this personal? Stop and talk about things (the issues, I mean, not personal BS) and everything can be sorted out, if you can leave the attitude at the door (and stop reading "attitude" into other people's statements when there's none there). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's clear things up

I have no intention of getting into a fight with anyone on Wikipedia. "Did you think it was vandalism?" was maybe not the right choice of words, and if that's what set you off, I apologize. However, you will have to admit that my choice of words was not as unambiguously challenging as "You thought it was vandalism?" (your misquote), especially when read in context. The intent was to get a reason for your reverting it, which I think you can see if you go back and read the message now.

I couldn't possibly have known about the {{plainlist}} stuff. It's not mentioned anywhere on the talk page, and there are unarchived messages there going back to 2005. If it weren't for the plainlist thing happening, I think you'll admit that my change was definitely for the better (without splitting hairs). Reverting with an explanation that plainlist was in the works would have been expedient and helpful, rather than slipping that fact in several messages into this discussion, wrapped in accusations about my "attitude" (which is plainly not assuming good faith).

And rather than having us accuse each other about attitude and good faith, let's make a deal right now. I have every intention of continuing to make bold edits to Wikipedia (as I recently have done with completely rewriting Canadian comics and Quebec comics), and I have no intention of discussing it with anyone beforehand unless I have some reason to believe it will break something (which my edits to {{Infobox comic book title}} definitely did not). If my edits are inappropriate or objectionable in any way, I'm completely open to hearing explicitly and civilly why. After all, it would be my edits which would be contentious, not me as an editor. I make mistakes as an editor, and in order not to make the same mistakes in the future, the reasons why they are mistakes needs to be explicated. That helps the whole project in the long run (for instance, I can pass the same knowledge down to someone else who is making the mistakes I used to make).

Is there anything here for you to object to? My intention is to make Wikipedia better, and I think my entire edit history backs up that claim, even my mistakes. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no trouble with you being bold. And I agree, we both let this spiral out from focusing just on the edits.

Beyond that, you may need to rethink how you handle contested edits. General practice - and this is Wikipedia wide - is that when a bold change is reverted, it is up to the one making the bold change to make their case on the talk page and show consensus for it rather than restore the change. It may also be take that if one bold edit has been reverted, especially with edits to templates, changes following a restoration without discussion are likely to also be contested. This is why BRD is normally pointed to, or assumed to be known by long standing editors.

- J Greb (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, when you first reverted me, it was with a question in the edit summary, which I replied to both to you personally and in my edit summary when I reverted. It was not clear to me the edit was actually "contested" (since no actual reason was given at the time), and when that did become clear, I did in fact cease reverting (I only reverted you the once, adding the information I thought you were asking me for). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Please take a look at the reversions you made to The Complete Peanuts, Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse, and especially Yummy Fur (comics), where you reverted 19,621 bytes from 116 edits representing a month and a half of work. None of these edits had an edit summary, which makes it look like I've been spending my time massively vandalizing pages, so please include an edit summary making it clear that wasn't the case. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it now, it seems you've reverted all of the edits I've made on many of these pages, whether they had anything to do with the infobox or not, including removing the Infobox from Optic Nerve (comics) entirely, which was added in an unrelated edit two months ago. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You really don't want my comments on this Curly Turkey. - J Greb (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm meant to interpret that statement. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm 100% sure I want your comments on this. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, that should have been followed with "right now." As in right before turning in after a long day. It would have been very snippy.

I'm sorry that it unraveled your edits, but you were asked in two different places to undo your changes to articles that were based on the reverted bold edits you made to the template. Since you seemed uninterested in doing that - all of your edits between the request and you "hold on" were either talk pages related to getting reverted or working on you personal re-write of the Maus article - I went with the most expedient way open - flipping them back based on your contribution list. That you seem unable or unwilling to insert edit summaries made even that a bit of a crap shoot.

Now it looks like you've gotten the ones that were as wrong after as before straightened out.

Oh... and some side observations and question regarding User:Curly Turkey/Maus:

• Question: Any particular reason to do the work in a sandbox as opposed to doing some or all of the work at Maus?
• Observations:
  • I think I can see why you are using the ToC template, but it still creates layout issues with the text sandwiched between the ToC and 'box.
  • "Synopsis" is typically used with a section for a summary of the story. Having both it and "Summary" as headers is a little confusing.
  • Generally, an attempt should be made to have real world context prior to the story synopsis. In this case that would be the publishing background or history.
  • A chapter by chapter plot summary is going to run into problems. Either the sections will be so short, to take into account WP:PLOT, that they will be awkward, or so comprehensive that others will copy-edit them down to be in line with PLOT. (Yes, there are lots of Comics articles that breach, fold, spindle, and/or mutilate PLOT. But Maus, any way it's viewed, should wind up as either a GA or FA and those reviews are going to hold to PLOT.)
  • Chapter section images are going to be an NFCC nightmare. The cover currently used at the live article covers the points any image would be needed for - Spiegelman's style, character identification, animals substitution for the two major groups - anything else can be handled in the text.

- J Greb (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

1. The reason I didn't revert all those edits myself is because I hadn't been given a reason to do it yet (the {{plainlist}} thing). By the time I had read your message about that, you had already made the reverts. You'll notice that once that was made clear to me, I immediately acquiesced, and would have made the reverts myself if you hadn't already done it.
2. As for Maus, I really appreciate the feedback (I don't get a lot---most of the articles I edit are pretty obscure. I still haven't gotten a single comment from anyone on Canadian comics after putting it up for peer review nearly a week ago). I wouldn't put much weight, however, into how the article is organized at the moment. I have a particularly...let's say "organic" way of editing, when it's a big job. I add in information as I find it, split up sections, merge and move others, cut out information that turns out to be redundant, inessential, or possibly incorrect. The finished article is organized in the way it is more to help me with my own, personal, style of editing, and is not meant for other readers' eyes (not that I'm saying to stay out or anything). The Canadian comics article went through the same ugly process, but I think you'll admit, looking at it, that the final product is fairly well organized. If you've got the time to waste, you can watch it happen in its history when it was in my sandbox at User:Curly Turkey/Canadian comics.

The ToC will not remain in the final article. It's there because I copied & pasted the original article into the bottom of the new one, in order to make it easier to chop pieces out of it and add them into the new one. As a result, the ToC ended up running ridiculously long---I think something like 20 sections, plus all the subsections. What I did with the ToC was strictly for my benefit. You'll see also there are a number of sections that will obviously not remain in the finished article---"Glop", "???", and a number of duplicated sections.

I have no intention of including images for every section. The images I am planning to include (already prepared for upload) are, for example, a panel from "Prisoner on the Hell Planet", to illustrate, for example, the drastic difference between its drawing style and that of the rest of Maus; another (from Volume II) is from the scene where a prisoner, taken for a Jew, is claiming to be German---Spiegelman is in a bind as to how to draw this: as a cat, or a mouse? Demonstrating how the animal metaphor is intended to self-destruct. They're illustrative, and not random or gratuitous. But, of course, that's impossible to see in the state the article's in. I also plan to include an image from the original "Maus" strip (because the style and approach are drastically different), but my copy of Breakdowns won't fit in my scanner.

As for the chapter summaries, again that's mainly for my benefit at this point, making it easier for me to navigate when adding in some text or a ref. Whether they remain or not will depend on how the article turns out later. I added the chapter titles because they are referred to frequently in the sources I'm using.

Why am I doing it in my sandbox? Because I could see it was going to be a big job, and I could see the way I was going to edit it would be far too disruptive to do in the mainspace. Many of the links in the original are dead, require access or a to primary sources; some of the information is just wrong, and it was clear that rewriting it would also mean greatly reorganizing it anyways. It would not just be adding information to what's there already, otherwise I would have done it in the mainspace (I did over 300 edits on the Chester Brown article in the mainspace). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A good chunk of that seems to stem form the "why" - It's your editing process, and it's easier for you to handle. That's really a "no harm, no foul" situation and what I thought was going on.

The images sound reasonable, but they also sound like they don't belong in the plot section. The change in style and layout are more relevant to either the publication history or development and the cat/mouse metaphor destruction defiantly sounds like development. And the last also sounds like the one that will have the most trouble with NFCC - I can understand an image helping with that, but I can also see others that hone in on images asking if it doesn't just replicate what the text is saying.

- J Greb (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have a copy, the image is the third and fourth panel from Volume II, page 50. I think the image makes the point more clearly than the text alone. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Response

The actor David U. Hodges played the gunman in Bruce Wayne's nightmare sequences in the film Batman Forever. Though he is never named it is well established that it is indeed a continuation of the Burton films, making the gunman Jack Napier/The Joker.

I wanted to add his appearance in Batman Forever in the article, what is the problem? In fact, he appeared in the film.

MarcFernando77 (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The continuity of the 4 films is not the problem.

Assigning an actor's name to the role when it is not credited and no reliable sources has ever been presented for the credit is the problem.

- J Greb (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)