User talk:Doceo

First of all, I apologise for the following elucidation's length, but I wanted to make things crystal clear for the record, as well as acknowledging specific Wikipedia guidelines to your satisfaction. I would have added this to the Marvel discussion page, but since my last entry was deleted I am assuming it is now under your direct protection. If you wish to move the discussion to my newly-generated talk page, you're as free as the next Wiki user to do so. As you can see, I have finally taken on a handle to better facilitate my communication with you on this matter.

I think that the crux of this problem is that waiting for any reviews of the Maximum Entertainment DVDs will prove to be a task long in the making. Although these episodes do date from 1966, these recent DVD releases are squarely being aimed at the low-end of the children's DVD market, rather than adult collectors. I myself only discovered their existence a couple of weeks ago, nearly a whole month after their release date. I usually consider myself pretty observant when it comes to releases of older Marvel animation, and these still passed me by for nearly four weeks, thus serving as an explanation as to why I'm so insistent the release information is correctly included on your Marvel page. That is to actually say, if I almost missed them, many other genuine fans are bound to miss them as well!

Currently, on your Marvel Super Heroes article, you have incorporated my citations literally by mentioning the Captain America DVD release only, which is in itself now ironically misleading considering my numerous mentions of Iron Man, Thor and Sub-Mariner also being on DVD. When I said "Captain America, in this example" in the discussion page, that actually meant that I was simply using the Captain America series release as an example; the other three series in question have all been similarly released as per my previous statements. Given that there are already five "citation needed" remarks on the page, and the fact that my information on the four DVD releases has been consistently rebuffed by you, despite me actually being able to substantiate it (albeit not to your or Wikipedia's acceptability), it is perhaps a little more understandable why I have taken this personally.

Even discounting the above, all four DVD sets were all given multiple non-commercial citations in my final, highly-detailed, reference entry that you excised from the discussion page (as is entirely your exclusive prerogative now, so I will not challenge your personal decision while you own the page). I do however object to your opinion that my final entry on the discussion page was a disruptive entry, since it was restricted to the ostensibly free talk page rather than your protected main article (and as such, seems to not fall under Wikipedia's strict definition of editing disruption as per the talk page guidelines).

Since I mentioned you by name on your Marvel talk page, I now realize it could have been construed as a personal attack. Therefore I would allow you to revise the entry and simply edit my brief opening paragraph should you wish to restore my breakdown of the discs for reference, along with BBFC certificates and the links to the cover artist's website as citations on the discussion page only. However, as I stated before, I will probably not belabour this particular point any further by "demanding" proof to back up this specific editing decision of yours, requesting information on the admin's findings (as you mentioned you would call in) or anything else that could be considered borderline-belligerent behaviour of the type you have already accused me of, so I will leave the matter of your Marvel Super Heroes discussion page alone.

Looking into the situation further with regards to Wikipedia's rules, as far as I can tell, my proposed single-sentence entry to your personal Marvel page would have come under category number 1 of the "Unsourced material" section on Wikipedia's citation page, unless I am grossly mistaken. Please correct me if I do not understand this section accurately either, as understanding more of Wikipedia's regulations will be key to enable me to make successful additions to other pages, including some outside of your direct jurisdiction, which I am keen (and hopefully literate enough!) to do, assuming a constructive resolution of this simple matter. I would actually like in the future to add more info to your Marvel page that can easily be cited, such as the name of the composer who produced all the stock music used in the series, but at the moment I actively fear you'll edit any of my further contributions into non-existence due to what I perceive is some abrasiveness from yourself towards me, even though I still genuinely fail to see any instances of objectionable language or syntax. If you have perceived any such objectionable behaviour from me, then I can only pre-emptively apologise.

In any case, I think at this point, even with proof from Amazon, Play.com and Sendit (although they obviously cannot be cited in the context of your article), I do inevitably grow increasingly fatigued by my attempts at enlightenment on this particular matter. You are obviously extraordinarily dedicated to your own Marvel Super Heroes page, have an impressive encyclopaedic knowledge of most of Wikipedia's rules, and are surely in Wikipedia's top few percent of expert page editors/owners.

Given your dedication to the various pages you own, and your understandable personal reticence to acknowledge the existence of the DVDs in question, due to Wikipedia's guidelines, I believe it would probably be better for me to concentrate my future energies into stimulating the creation of third-party reviews (not self-published sources, I might stress!) of all four Marvel DVD sets on other websites. Hopefully, whenever such reviews emerge (barring anything unforeseen), they will be of an acceptable enough quality for you to possibly allow their citation on your Marvel page, and you can finally relax knowing that your page will be adequately up-to-date! I can only hope that such reviews appear at least within the next 12 months or so, and certainly before the DVDs start becoming harder to find for prospective fans, especially those from outside the UK.

I also sincerely hope that you take on board at least some of my admittedly long-winded exposition regarding such a comparatively trivial matter, and that you can work towards your own consensus regarding this issue on your Marvel page in the absence of any formal reviews on other websites. I similarly have no desire to file a WP:RFC or even possibly raise the spectre of a WP:OWN should any more of my comments regarding your protected Marvel Super Heroes articles, or indeed the obviously now-protected MSH discussion page disappear, and potentially get such a prolific and constructive comicbook page owner such as yourself into trouble over such a small matter. Therefore, hopefully you can eventually clarify your stance on Wikipedia discussion pages publicly on this discussion page, or on at least one of the comicbook-related pages you own (if not all of them, with a standard disclaimer or similar). I am truly trying to help both Marvel fans in general, and your own Wikipedia standing.

However, I still ultimately insist that the total prohibition of non-commercial links is detrimental with regard to certain DVD and other such releases, in that with the absence of a review or standard ISBN number, their very existence is effectively unable to be proven, given who chooses to own each article in question. This is even though such previously established commercial websites happily display the very same products for prospective paying customers. I certainly wouldn't want to see Wikipedia plagued with needless links to such websites, but the fact remains that some releases never get reviewed due to various factors marginalizing them, and thus some alternative acceptable arrangement badly needs to be found in such circumstances in order to verify such items' existence to a level satisfactory for vigilant page owners such as yourself. Doceo 16:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad you've registered and, clearly, have been reading up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Welcome! I can honestly say it took some time and some misunderstandings before I got to understand enough of the basics to responsibly post. And believe me, I, like everyone else, learn something new about Wikipedia every day.

As regards the talk pages: The very first policy listed at Talk Page Guidelines is "Maintain Wikipedia policy." That means unsourced statements and commercial links are as prohibited there as anywhere.

I understand you disagree with the policy disallowing commercial-site links. That's fine -- Wikipedia policies evolve and sharpen over time through discussion and consensus. You can generate a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:External links. Until the policy changes, we all agree to abide by them; nobody forces any of us to be here, but if we're here, we play by the rules. Surely you can understand that.

Finally, I need to ask you to stop making what I've already stated are accusatory, WP:OWN statements. It's simply not fair or accurate to accuse someone of page ownership when they just following some of the basic rules of Wikipedia.

All the material you provided that was properly sourced, you could have put in yourself. I went so far, in the spirit of cooperation, to add and footnote that material you found. I don't know how else to show my good faith and willingness to collaborate.

In sum, we play by the rules. You can start a discussion to change the rules. And we're civil to each other. Thanks. --Tenebrae 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's cool. So for the moment, I shall leave both the Marvel article and discussion pages alone until a citable source is put online to formally verify the DVD's existence in a non-commercial environment. Until then, it might be best for you to simply remove the contentious DVD section altogether, since we've established that no meaningful information can effectively be put on there at the moment due to the lack of a permanent citation. In the meantime I shall try my best to actually find or persuade someone to actually give the DVDs in question a review, or some otherwise formal acknowledgement of existence. Hopefully this will be on a well-known website rather than a lesser known one of questionable verifiability. Once such statements are online, I shall direct you to them, and hopefully you will finally allow either myself or someone else to mention the DVDs on your protected page.

It is my hope that the timescale for such non-commercial citations to be generated would be quite short, so I see no reason for not adding the information regarding the DVDs now with a "citation needed" button, as per citation page "Unsourced material". If after a designated period of time to your choosing, either I or anyone else cannot provide a citation, then there's no question that you should subsequently remove the information.

In my opinion, such information rendered in one, or two at the most, sentences would not constitute harm to the whole article. Of course, your opinion may differ, and so I won't push this through you if you can offer a good case as to why it would be harmful to your article as a whole. If not, I will write up a brief and pass it through you first before it goes on your page, hopefully ready for a citation that will be quick in coming. I'm not sure how long the "citation needed" tag should be up for though. I'm thinking two, maybe three weeks. That doesn't seem like such an inordinate amount of time to me, but again, it's entirely your call as the page editor.

I do notice the "Others" section regarding the TV stations has had at least two "citation needed" marks up on the page since [February], so I am hopeful you will allow a placeholder DVD entry with a similar "citation needed" tag on the page for only one-fifth of the timeframe of the specific tags in question. Please advise, and let me know if the proposed DVD entry would constitute harm to the whole article with it's temporary uncited status. Doceo 22:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)