User talk:J Greb/Archive Jul 2008

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Oriondcu0.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Oriondcu0.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Marvel Zombie 2 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Marvel Zombie 2 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dentposter.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dentposter.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Years in comics

That is stupid. Years in comics and films is used all the time - in fact it is the simple [[1989]] that is the pointless link. I'll drop in my fourpennth but won't be around for a day or so - so thanks for spotting this and raising the issue. (Emperor (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Personally I think those links help with WP:CONTEXT. However, it is specifically ruled out here and here and while I think they are wrong and it is actually useful for the context I don't have the time to challenge it so I suspect they are going to go and there isn't much we can do about it.

At least I won't be here to watch all the hard work get hosed away by a robot. (Emperor (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

I've left a comment here - not much but all I can do. (Emperor (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Excused under the first link here through both "compact presentation" (parenthesised date of publication) and "heavy use" (almost every other article).

As far as the second link goes.. I had no idea that there were different date settings. "You learn something new, etc., etc." But except in rare cases, the comics articles are dated for comics purposes, not those of the wider world. Surely the importance of using the "RIGHT"/most helpful links outweighs that of aesthetic date-presentation choices by people who may not even know they are able to make such choices...? ntnon (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just general points out of what Emperor pointed to: use in the info boxes and tables (collected edition lists, foes, and members jump to mind) should be "safe". It's the embedding in the article text that's a no-go. I think that may extend to references/notes as well. - J Greb (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. :o) I also interpreted the "exceptions" listed at the first link (and the second seems to be for full' dates - day, date, year - and therefore less likely to be commonplace in comics articles) as meaning that articles with multiple year-links (so publisher articles or even creator articles) are fair enough: "heavy use."

I think the whole logic is spurious as it pertains to this specific point (comics years), but even accepting its validity, I think most of the current usages I've seen would fall under the exceptions and thus be fine. Hopefully... ntnon (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

N.B. It looks like all dates are being de-linked in at least some articles... surely because the links in those cases are not pertinent. Whereas the links in comics articles to comics years are useful/relevant/pertinent. ntnon (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes I see what you mean.

I also caught the removal of all year links [1] (ironically those links are being removed because they are against WP:CONTEXT while the "X in year" ones satisfy that, but are being removed due to another policy!! It does feel like if you search long enough you can find a policy or guideline for anything.

The discussion has moved to here. I'm going to have to do a bit of catch up reading before I pitch back in on that one. (Emperor (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC))

Foo and overlinking

Hi, I saw your posting at Lightmouse's talk page. I find it hard to work out your precise objection to the delinking of years. WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT are quite clear about it. MOSNUM no longer even encourages the autoformatting of full dates. TONY (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify:

I understand the basic premise of what the Lightbot is doing, and it does seem consistent with WP:EGG.

However, WP:MOSLINK#Date looks to be a refinement of WP:EGG with regard to year in foo piping ([[YYYY in foo|YYYY]]). Up to and including that there are specific cases where piping is an accepted exception.

If the 'bot is ignoring the exception criteria, which it is, it needs to be fixed. If there was a consensus reached that the exception points in WP:MOSLINK#Date are invalid and should be removed, please point me to it, otherwise the 'bot is creating problem edits in amongst its clean up efforts. - J Greb (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Has this been resolved? If so, which way? Foo in year links have always been acceptable, they were part of the solution for overlinking years. Hiding T 10:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Long and Short, no. It was dumped to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) where it has been mostly ignred. - J Greb (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've chipped in to a discussion somewhere, although I'm not sure where. Ah, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Intuitiveness and year by subject pages. Hiding T 10:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, [[YYYY in comics|YYYY]] are not being unlinked. Lightmouse (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, that's good to know. Hiding T 10:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Avengers

Oh, see, I didn't know they were recent. I just thought he was removing a large section of it. I apologize. Rau's Speak Page 23:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I talked on the Template talk page Jgreb. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Beetle

I was running through Project Superpowers and adding the characters to the cat. I haven't quite followed that one too closely since I started it but the character Scarab is, as far as I'm aware, the Fox Feature Syndicate Blue Beetle reinvented. [2] I see it doesn't actually say so there and I did a sweep through when the series was first proposed and added what information there was and I suspect this has been added later. It would be worth updating if anyone has any information - this is one I'll be picking up in trade. (Emperor (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

I was picking it up as an impulse buy for a while... and to be honest the writers and publisher seem to be doing a bit of dancing on a few characters, notably calling the Golden Age Daredevil "The Deth Defying 'Devil".

As for the Fox Blue Beetle... At this point all that is there is reader speculation that the guy called "Scarab" and depicted in blue chainmail is the Fox Beetle. I've seen 0 commentary that they're using the public domain visual as a jumping off point. Then there's the Nedor Scarab which is part of the family of character's the Project Superpowers has limelighted — Black Terror, Fighting Yank, Miss Masque, Pyroman, and American Crusader.

- J Greb (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

While they do also use Fox's Flame and Samson that does seem more likely. I'd remove it for now. (Emperor (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Batbullet.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Batbullet.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Juggernaut

Far from it - it is well overdue, I was just holding off doing the same in the hope that one of the participants would actually do something about it. If something wasn't done today I'd have had to do the same (as it beats banging my head on the table) but I might have been tempted to protect the page to force them to address this on the talk page - although that might have come across as banging everyone's heads together (even if it was looking like it was needed). I'll see how it goes and then throw in my fourpennth. (Emperor (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

So what was the point of blocking the page and starting a discussion about it if someone else is just going to come along and make a third version? Seems like a Colossal waste of time.TheJaff (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going to unprotect this - looking at it, I see that you reverted to a preferred version before protecting. That's a big problem, and given that you've now undone my accidental edits (I hadn't noticed the page was protected) I think the entire situation is a bit messy, and that the protection should probably be re-applied by somebody else to make sure it appears legitimate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really in the mood to argue semantics Phil.

Any contibs I've made to the page are less than minimal, so I take a little offense with the implied, intended or not, statement that I picked my preferred version. I picked the last non-controversial edit, by a 'bot, prior to the week of edit warring, pure and simple.

If you want to play cop on the article when there has been little in the way of discussion, fine by me. Just remember to listen to the other editors, protracted editing and reverting by fiat is what got the page protected in the first place. As well as your massive trim - it was done without consensus, much less the attempt to find one.

- J Greb (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have two things to say.

Phil Sandifer: J Greb wasn't reverting to his version; he was reverting to the last version before the edit war. It wasn't like he was involved and protected the version he wanted.

J Greb: The discussion was really going nowhere on the talk page, and since Sandifer is essentially a neutral party with no prior involvement I don't have a problem with him editing the article. --DrBat (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The version reverted to before blocking seemed a reasonable point to draw a line under the sand. As I was close to doing the same thing it would be the kind of thing I'd have done and I don't think either of us have an investment in a (preferred version) other than one which is on the general upward track of improvement (and a lot of the edit warring was setting the version back). All that see has happened since the protection was removed is another day of edit warring and requests for this to be taken to the talk page - which is the reason the page was protected in the first page: to force people to discuss this rather than spend their whole time switching between two approximate versions. None of that helped by a misunderstandings over the protection itself!!

The version of the page does seem to just about be taking 2 steps forward for everyone one it goes back but we might have to consider protecting this properly - I am surprised no one has passed WP:3RR yet but it can't be far off. (Emperor (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC))

This WAS taken to the talk page. It was probably a couple days from being resolved. Then "Phil Sandifer" jumped in and screwed everything up. Now the page is a complete mess. And nothing is getting done to it. At all. I thought Admins were supposed to be neutral?TheJaff (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Except everyone but you and Cosmos Keeper supported Sandifer's version. --DrBat (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone meaning you? And maybe PC13? Besides me and cosmos I would assume everyone that was involved with trying to improve the page would be on our side. Two of your edit warriors bailed out as soon as they were asked to back up a position. So maybe everyone but you disagrees with it?

In fact you are the only one (besides Phil now) who seems to have any stake in this. I personally have no clue what Phil is doing with the page. He took a page that needed improving and chopped it up. Now we have a disjointed and inaccurate page.TheJaff (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The only other users on your side were some anonymous users, one who had a history of vandalism. And all of the anonymous users had few prior edits (like five at the most). The only exception was the IP registered to the Enoch Pratt Free Library. --DrBat (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So how many users does it take to equal 1 DrBat? I just want to know how important you think your personal point of view matters on this publicly edited site.TheJaff (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's check out the anon-users on your side.

All of 198.151.38.68's prior edits are vandalism. 4.249.96.49's only prior edits were a few edits to Potomac, Maryland in 2006. And 68.49.29.202 has no prior edits at all. So you can see why I'm a little hesitant on counting them. --DrBat (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your hesitant because they disagree with you.TheJaff (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. And you said "Two of your edit warriors bailed out as soon as they were asked to back up a position." Did any of those anons back up theirs? --DrBat (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

They didn't have to. Me and Cosmos actually make sense.TheJaff (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking for an additional look over.

This is something that happened a few days ago, but it's still gnawing at me. Apologies for bringing up with you at this late date.

The up shot of it deals with Juggernaut (comics) and Phil Sandifer's comments on my talk, on the article's talk, and the method of his edits on the article. Especially since his "accidental" edit happened over 17 individual edits where he either didn't notice, or ignored, the warning on the edit page.

I think my problems fall into:

1. The accusation that I had chosen my "preferred" edit.
2. That this was leveled for enforcing the protection of the page.
3. That he's effectively inserted his version, and enforced it, without consensus.
4. He's re-opened the article up to edit warring, the very reason the article had been protected in the first place, albeit with his version as the base.

Am I worrying this over nothing?

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. This will take me some reasearch time. So please be patient : ) - jc37 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to provide a second opinion. As I was monitoring the situation I can do this from memory (so sorry if I get anything wrong):

• We were asked to take a closer look at the Juggernaut article and both J Greb and I had a look at it and seemed to be on the same (or at least adjacent) page - no one was bothering to actual discuss the problem (the D in WP:BRD is not "do it all over again") and we asked people to take this to the talk page. There didn't seem any desire to do this so J Greb posted a note on the talk page, informed the main parties that it would be best to discuss this and then protected the page to make people discuss moving things forward. If he hadn't have done this then I would have. The situation badly needed being brought under control.
• J Greb also reverted to a less contentious version before reverting. I'd have also done this as if you are going to move things forward then that is the base version you'd want to work from (even then if the consensus was to start from a different version it wouldn't be difficult to set it to that).
• Phil Sandifer then made major edits to the page. This led to expressions of concern by a number of editors but was an understandable mistake as there was no major notice on the article.
• J Greb reverted these edits as the discussion was still ongoing.
• Phil then reverted these and removed the protection as he believed J Greb was trying to impose his preferred version when I have seen no sign he has any investment in any specific version. As I've said if he hadn't have done it I would have done exactly the same thing.

I'm afraid the whole thing has been a farce in the stricter theatrical sense - people seemed to be entering and leaving through different doors with misunderstandings growing exponentially as time passed (I've seen at least one Feydeau farce on the stage, the outcome of having one parent who teachers literature and one who teaches French) and it very much reminds me of that, which isn't to say anyone was wearing a frilly nightie at any point). While I am not a mind reader, so cannot talk directly about intent, I don't think either J Greb or Phil Sandifer were editing to try and improve the article but that their edits accidental clashed - I can see myself making both sets of edits (although I'd have thought long and hard about removing the protection given the history of the page).

While not a mind reader, I don't see any reason not to WP:AGF here. I think we need to draw a line under this and focus on the reason we are all focused on the article - trying to help the active and involve editors of the article move forward and create a better article in line with the general standards and it would be a pity if a series of accidents derailed this. I do seriously think we should take a serious look at the edits today and see if protection is needed (although it might be worth finding another admin and getting them to cast a fresh eye over proceedings). (Emperor (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for sharing your experience and your thoughts.

To answer J Greb's questions directly, I don't see any evidence of a "preferred" version, just a previous one. (And noting that the edit summary was clear that it was m:The Wrong Version.

Phil should have understood that and then discussed the page on it's merits, and suggested edits.

If anything, it looks to me that phil's possibly doing exactly what he's accusing J Greb of.

My next step is to go check out the article, as requested by Emperor. - jc37 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article. See also: Talk:Juggernaut (comics) and User talk:Phil Sandifer.

While I don't believe that you did wrong in this, I've asked that you (J Greb), and Phil S to not unprotect (I'm guessing that you probably understand). That said, please feel free to join in the discussion - jc37 08:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

John Buscema

NationMaster just lifts Wikipedia content - if you go all the way to the bottom of the page you find "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL." There seems some controversy about whether they are mirroring the content and using more restrictive licenses [3] - see also Talk:NationMaster. That isn't any concern of ours as the case is much simpler - you just can't link to mirrors of Wikipedia. I would have removed it when I saw it - I have just been a bit scarce today but have removed it now.

Not sure what the business with the sandbox is. (Emperor (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

The nutshell on the sandbox: Scott Free, as Skylarke, had ported "his" version of the Buscema article to a user sub-page. This was during the original dust-up with Tenebrae.

I think Free then took that, after everything worked out, and posted it to NM. He then fleshed it out with more images than he wanted here. - J Greb (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I had a more detailed read through of Talk:John Buscema and the arbitration. Although guessing I'd suggest they looked around for an older version of the page that more closely accorded with their preferred version and linked to it - a search of difs would establish whether this was the fact but that is largely a moot point as the link isn't allowed whatever the thinking behind it was. (Emperor (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Discussion Posting

Could you please post, to the bottom of my page, where it says in the wikipedia guidelines that the newest discussion topics are supposed to be at the bottom? That seems counterintuitive and hasn't seemed to be the case with my limited experience on wikipedia. I'm simply not aware of that rule. --Nihilozero (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What I gather from your response... this is personal preference on your part, not official policy. On a busy page it seems to make sense to put new discussion items on top where they will not be missed. They can then be discussed and moved down when a new discussion header is posted. I don't see how this would make me uncivil, a troll, or just plain wrong if I posted in this way as I have done on other talk pages for a very long time with no issues. --Nihilozero (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman Balance

Batman does some morally dubious things and those things should be mentionable for comprehensive balance. I'm not trying to troll, I'm simply trying to make valid and cited edits. --Nihilozero (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The new subject was given a new header and was not tacked into the "Bats is gay" section. What I wrote was... if the bats as gay section can exist, can't we at least talk about the bats as a villain without sweeping it under a rug. I'd appreciate it if you'd return the header to it's appropriate spot as a new subject at the head of the page. --Nihilozero (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Phantasm-actionfigure.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Phantasm-actionfigure.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Carnageanimted.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Carnageanimted.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spidermanep10.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spidermanep10.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spidermanep11.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spidermanep11.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spidermanep16.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spidermanep16.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MirrorMaster.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:MirrorMaster.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Batman Vengeance

Hello, J Greb. You recently undid my image in this article. I see you are an administrator.... Did you read Step 1 on the Wikipedia upload page? "Change the destination filename to something descriptive. Don't use default filenames!" The current image has a default filename, and I was only trying to change it to a descriptive filename, while at the same time making it the standard size for a VG infobox. Paper Luigi ^{Talk Contributions} 17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a preference when it comes to video game cover images, it's just that that image had the best quality, not resolution, of any other image I found online. As for image size, I looked at some of the featured video game articles yesterday, and almost every one of them (example) had 256px resolution. Now file size. The image was taken directly from the link and not modified in any way. There are many other images with this resolution (35x by 500px) in video game articles. And in case you're wondering, I don't even own a PS2; I have an Xbox and a GameCube. Paper Luigi ^{Talk Contributions} 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like all that is needed is a doc fix. Uhh... could you take care of that? I can't edit that page because it's being protected. Anyway, I think these users are getting the high res images from Gametab. Paper Luigi ^{Talk Contributions} 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bizarro

What's wrong with the Superman #202 image?

The Action Comics #254 image has Bizarro off on the side; he doesn't stand out. The #202 image meets the requirements better ("The ideal image is a full-body, three-quarter picture of the character standing straight with no background, with a facing-the-camera or profile picture as the next-best.") --DrBat (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Brass tacks?

1. It's still just scuffling images for the sake of shuffling them. The previous image fit the bill.
2. It's a mauled scan.
3. We're, both of us, getting into an edit war over some thing that should have gone to the talk page at the second revert of the infobox to the initial state. You were bold ("newest" Bizzaro), were reverted, re-inserted, reverted, without missing a beat you inserted a different image ("newer classic" Bizzaro), that was reverted, and now you've reverted and as "why" on my talk page. Looking at WP:BRD, the discussion should have started at the second revert, on the Bizarro talk page. I don't like being backed into a 3RR smacking. I don't like seeing someone ignore the preferred option to taking it to the talk page and just plugging away with different images until they "win".

And yes, I know that this pushes civility, but I do feel like I've been pushed into a corner.

- J Greb (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To the talk page with you: Talk:Bizarro#Infobox image. (Emperor (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Extra eyes needed.

I need some extra eyes on this User talk:J Greb#Bizarro and [4]. - J Greb (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed whatever image was on the page. This appears to be "disputed NFC". And until this is resolved, I am presuming that no image would meet "fair use" licensing, without consensus. (Noting that IANAL, and usually defer to you (J Greb) as our "image person".)

I also agree with Emperor above: To the talk page... - jc37 07:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate Nullifier

Wasn't sure when I was looking over the page, but the image looks like it might be from the OHOTMU (although possilbly from a FF annual). As the resident image and fair-use expert, if you get a chance to peek, it may be helpful. Clearly, this is not pressing, just thought you would be best suited to check it out. No response necessary, just a heads up. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC).

Vision

Greetings. I was hoping you could offer some assistance with this article. Some positive changes have been made of late, and DrBat has supported these. I have, however, made some recent additions, which include correcting some of my own material, that have been blindly reverted. I suspect the aforemetioned user didn't even look, as they include some very necessary information on the development of the character. I even moved a section up and reworded it so it was more in line with the character's origins. And while I try not to buy into the whole "my version is better than yours", the sentence structure was improved and I even corrected much of my own work.

I hope you can help, as I don't think I'm being unreasonable here.

Asgardian (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CaptainBritain.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:CaptainBritain.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jokersized.JPG

There is a renewed p. copyright (1989 renewal DC Comics Inc., I believe the patent index in effect is only through 1959 so there is considerably less restriction under copyright; otherwise in effect would be the first appearance of the image (1966) but only if the image legitimately met the content of the copyright, which I don't believe it does) related to (but not specific to) the 1966-1968 Batman television series which applies to the characters, certain objects and locations, trademarked titles, etc., licensed to the broadcaster (ABC) who in turn contracted with Fox studios for production. ABC nor any successor I can find searching the US Patent Office database has taken or renewed any copyright specific to the imagery of the television program. As such, in 1996 (1998 if one subscribes to the notion that the whole run of the television show is the measure) passed in toto into the public domain for free distribution. This status applies to a screen capture of the show so long as the image itself contains no trademark held by DC Comics Inc. (it doesn't; DC Comics does not hold copyright pertinent to an actor made up as a clown but only specifically to the title "The Joker," regarding which the trademark is a limited trademark, and to images of that character that appear in DC Comics publications). As such, my original rationale on the image page is correct for free use.

Further, if you're interested in an image or its application (rather than many editors who flitter about actively seeking images that they can tag even if they don't fully understand those images statuses), it is quite simple to examine the copyright status of a television show and even in the case that the show is within 30 years or has a full proprietary copyright in effect through renewal, a rationale for fair use is easy to make (it follows from: where else does one find that content?). Doing so, of course, is considerably more useful than tagging images that might very well be pertinent, encyclopedic, and open to fair use, just because one thinks their status is in question.

The screen capture image itself was made by this editor and I release my work in this instance for free public use. DvonD (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

While I haven't prepared a case in this instance (I am actually a 3rd year law student), that isn't necessary. The copyrights and trademarks held by DC, as I wrote, relate to specific titles and objects, etc., and not to a particular image from the show. As ABC has not renewed the copyright on the show, certain proprietary rights must be in effect. Having had some experience with these sorts of proceedings, my best guess is that DC Comics wants to assert ownership despite not being the party the produced the show (ABC) and only the licensor. Nonetheless, if you have any interest in the image, you could rather easily craft a fair-use rationale. Otherwise, I'd say delete it; it's not important enough to develop the argument further.

He is pretty tall though, isn't he? DvonD (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice

• WP:AN/I

I'm currently under time constraints, but wanted to leave you a notice concerning Juggernaut and Phil Sandifer. - jc37 21:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Joker-1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Joker-1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TBJoker.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TBJoker.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Image-fine.jpeg

Thank you for uploading Image:Image-fine.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Million_Moments (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox comics story arc}} revert

Out of interest, where was this colour scheme discussed? I've had a look over the archives and I can't see any specific discussion around the 28th which says "this should be sky blue". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it in more detail, the thread in question appears to be this one. Well, I missed that thread, and would have strongly opposed such a change. Can we at least agree to remove the sky blue backdrop until such point as the issue is discussed further? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see a reason to undo the formatting of 9 of the 10 related infoboxes. Holding of on updating the 10, sure, but not strip the rest.

If you want to bring the issue up again on the Comics Project talk page, please do. It would be good to have your thoughts on it and where you're citing the need to strip them down. But at this point it should be from "This is wrong, the color should be removed." Not "Now that we've got the colors out, this is why they shouldn't come back."

- J Greb (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's what it's going to come down to, yeah. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)