User talk:J Greb/Archive Mar 2011

Need help

I hate to ask, but at Wikipedia:Administrator it says "to ask an independent administrator to review" when there's a case of possible admin abuse. I summarize the issue here. My apologies for asking. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion

Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Where at WP:CANVAS does it say that contacting individual editors constitutes one of the four criteria detailed there? Posting at Project pages often does not yield any results. For that matter, even posting at individual editors talk pages often results in only a fraction of them responding. Nightscream (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand." (emphasis added)

If you had limited yourself to those editors that had significantly contributed to the content of the article, it wouldn't be an issue. That list is:

• Nightscream
• Midusunknown
• Shadzane
• Juliancolton
• Hmains
• Jeandré du Toit
• Level

(From here.)

This is the following removed

• bots (5),
• Those I'm positive didn't contribute content (2 - me and Gigs), and
• Those editing after your canvas (1 - Friginator)

But you went to 17 editors:

1. Jhenderson777
2. Spidey104
3. Bibliomaniac15
4. Feezo
5. J Greb
6. Tenebrae
7. David A
8. BOZ
9. Mutant Raccoon
10. Luminum
11. Erik
12. Friginator
13. ThuranX
14. WesleyDodds
15. Cirt
16. Dayewalker
17. DrBat

On what do you base this list of editors as having "significant connection to the topic at hand" - the biography of Beth Sotelo that is?

- J Greb (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Solution for edit conflict

Hi, i just observed that how 200.106.220.170 i.p. user explained his edits (for removing the content from comics articles), now they seem genuine but the problem is he never explained the edit summary for his edits, which (after seeing his history of only removing the content from articles) compelled me to revert his edits as the part of vandalism. So, my question his how to deal such kind of situations which may create possibility of edit war?; also, did my act of judging his edits as the part of vandalism was wrong? enlighten me so that i may take of it. Bill william compton^Talk 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the IP's edit history tends to swing between useful and harmful edits. As I pointed out on their talk page, most of the edits from this month are reasonable removals of speculation or worse. A few are borderline. And a very few are detrimental. And without hard evidence that they are either predominantly hurting articles or they are evading a block, calling all of their edits "vandalism" is more than a bit strong.

As for where to start... Pointing out on the IP's talk page that they should be providing a clear edit summary is one place. The other is actually looking at the edits. The one to the Bane article is a case in point: what they were removing was editorial speculation, something that regularly crops up in articles on serial fiction. It's something that cannot be sourced and doesn't belong in the article. Things like that routinely get removed, and depending on the editor the ES can be a terse "No" or non-existent.

- J Greb (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nightscream and canvassing

Hi, I saw you were in a debate with Nightscream over his alleged canvassing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Sotelo; so was I, and I actually requested a third opinion which appeared to confirm that the behavior is spamming/canvassing, although TransporterMan declined to pass judgment. However, Nightscream appears to have now withdrawn from both discussions. I wanted to get your input on what the next step should be — TransporterMan suggested that it would be WP:AN, but there doesn't really seem to be a category for it. Feezo (Talk) 22:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

S.H.I.E.L.D. template

Based on your previous edits to the S.H.I.E.L.D. template you might have an opinion on a discussion I recently started. Spidey104 22:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

As someone who has edited Horror comics, you may have an opinion on a merger proposal being discussed on its talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment. ItsLassieTime (a "corporation" of many users I understand at a teen magnet school for excellence) and their dozens upon dozens of socks have a great number of GA articles that need to be reviewed one at a time for copyright violations, too close paraphrasing, and hoaxes. GA and FA articles created by socks cannot be deleted or sent to AfD, and should not be merged without gathering all the cited sources and closely reviewing the article for infractions. This takes an enormous amount of time and reviewing all of ItsLassieTime's GA articles will probably take a number of years. Additionally, articles are being found attributed to ILT all the time, thus swelling the already sizeable list. Interestingly, ILT created GA articles and actually passed an article to FA without being detected. They are a thorn in Wikipedia's side. Why is Wikipedia so concerned about a user who is writing GA articles for this project? Why is Wikipedia playing the exhausting role of avenging angel over a trivial incident that happened at least two years ago? Apparently ITL had a backstage spat with an editor and has been permanently banned. IMHO Wikipedia is cutting off its nose to spite its face. Oh well, we all make poor choices. PrestoPrestoPresto (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction and Comment. ItsLassieTime was NOT banned for plagiarism. She was banned for socking. Three years ago, ITL was first blocked, then blocked indefinitly, then banned permanently for socking. ITL is now a ban evader writing GA articles for Wikipedia. In November 2010, she had an article passed at FA as "Susanne" something or other. She then submitted another article for FA review and it was discovered then that she was a sock. She was banned again as a sock/ban evader -- not as a plagiarist. Tenebrae is now rewriting one of her early articles "Horror comics in the United State, 1946-1954. First, Tenebrae should gather the sources ITL used to build the article and methodically go through the article revising passages that are too closely paraphrased from the original source. Essentially, the job is to put some distance between the article passage and the cited source. This is a very simple process. He is not doing this. Instead, he is writing a new article using his own sources. Secondly, he needs to record the changes he makes at this artiicle at the appropriate listing at CCI to prevent other editors from picking up the article for revision and to alert those who are managing this list that work is being done on this article. Thirdly, he is using very questionalbe sources. The business about the Japanese scrolls is cited to two Japanese museums. Neither of these museums posit any connection between the ghost scrolls and the western horror comic book. None whatsoever. One could just as easily say comic books are descendants of Greek vase paintings depicting gorgons and sphinxes. The passage in the article is actually a "fringe theory" of Stephen Bissette, a cartoonist whose only education is a two year cartooning course at a vocational school in New York City. Wikipedia does not publish fringe theories. Bissette is not a scholar, although he presents himself as one. Tenebrae cites him to some weird sort of promotional blurb that offers a movie of Bissette "lecturing" on horror comics. There's some sort of fee involved. What ever this business is, it is not a reliable, scholarly source. And the sad fact is this entire article could be sourced to reliable, scholarly sources from academic presses rather than these unscholarly, "fanboy" type things that are out of print and difficult to locate. I hope some others will get on this case about this. DoverWheels (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As DoverWheels, or whatever this now-blocked editor is calling himself or herself now, is speaking about me behind my back and not on my talk page, I hope you won't mind my alerting you that I've responded to these claims and accusations at User talk:DoverWheels#Attempted ban . Thanks, and I hope I'm not being a bother. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please restrain your edits to what you state. And frankly, *tag it first* instead of just removing it.

What are you saying here? I went and looked for sources I didn't make a judgement call and delete them, Rusty Clem or whatever is something he used in the elseworld coming The Joker, its not applicable, Oberton Sexton is someone else who he killed and diguised himself as to catch the serial killer The Domino Killer who is himself. They're not notable aliases, what tag am I meant to use to make removing them ok?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And if you're this involved in the article perhaps you would be interested in this discussion.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Joker_(comics)#Splitting_Joker_in_other_Media Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Two primary problems:

1. You're edit summaries do not match what you are doing to the infobox, they just cover the aliases. Not tinkering with the first appearance, the IoM section, or adding the typo in the creators section.
2. Discusion on the article's talk page is preferable when the removal of this type of material is contested. In lieu of that tagging with {{cn}} is a good first step.

Beyond that, I would tend to agree that 1 shot aliases and non-"canon" ones don't belong there. It would help if you clearly spelled out this on the article's talk page for Clem, Sexton, and the Domino Killer. That would still leave the anagram though.

- J Greb (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I ran out of space in the description box or I'd have detailed stuff more clearly. Not sure what you mean by type in the creators though. Joe Kerr was used in the episode Jokers Millions when he went 'sane' after killing Batman and the same plot was used in "Going Sane" in I think 60-65 of Legends of the Dark Knight. Jack White was used in the game, dont know anything else about it. I've tried asking for discussion on this for the Split and several other articles lately, noone ever seems to respond so I just started being bold, obviously if people disagree they can revert as you have done. I'll add this stuff to the articles talk page and see what happens.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't se where is the problem

I don't see where is the problem to use standard parameter names and standard templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Right.. and don;t look at what it is doing within the teample. It's also a sad thing that WOSlinker is checking for the parameter's usage in the template after you boldly removed it. Bravo. - J Greb (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And you want to run a 'bot "fix" feel free to do it on the items that aren't contested. - J Greb (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hellblazer

Thanks for your editing on Hellblazer. It's the first comics bit I've done, cos I'm trying to improve the coverage of Vertigo titles (that aren't Sandman). Any advice always welcome! Bennydigital (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)