User talk:Emperor/Archive 2010

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Emperor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Category:Heavy Metal titles

FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 1#Category:Heavy_Metal_titles. It seems that you created the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Emperor! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 401 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

David Sutton (writer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U

Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's basically what's needed. This doesn't require the comprehensiveness of an ArbCom case, but definitely a healthy-sized "evidence" section should do the job. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun.

Also, you made statements pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there; just wondering if you were interested in participating in this RFC? BOZ (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate your time on this. Dealing with this whole situation is giving me the same sort of headache that everyone else seems to have gotten over it before. ;) Plus, I am so very tired in general. BOZ (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

24.63.18.242

check out contributions of this IP to Goudiry_Department and have fun Anniepoo (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

They have accumulated warnings for their September vandalism and it'd not really work to slap ones on for older misdeeds when they are acquiring them for more recent ones. If they keep that kind of thing up they'll be on the fast track out of the door and it looks like other editors who edit the relevant areas are keeping an eye on things). (Emperor (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

More eyes... again

Mind taking a look at Nova (Frankie Raye), Talk:Nova (Frankie Raye)#Infobox image, and Celestial (comics).

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

J Greb is right - this is a problem on a number of different levels:

Created by cats

Just to bounce this off of you...

Do you think it's worth setting up the the infoboxes to include these types of categories?

It wouldn't be too hard to do, and it can be set up to "screen" for prolific creators only. The only downside I can see would be the cats would not necessarily alphabetize.

- J Greb (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added some thoughts on this over at the CfD [1] - I think it would be unwise to do this automatically and it seems like you rapidly run into thinly populated categories. It might work if, as you suggest, you hold a list of say 2 dozen creators who can populate a category and then if there are matches generate a "created by" category, which would help pick up any stragglers and round out existing categories but it might not be worth the effort as these creators have largely already been covered. I suppose it depends on whether you have free time and are sitting around twiddling your thumbs wondering what to do next ;) (Emperor (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

Actually it's a little bit of ad hoc coding. I've cobbled together something like for {{Cite comics image}} (punting out the site name from a shorthand) and {{Descript-cvr}} (same thing though it creates a link to the publisher's article). The same principle can be applied to the "creators" field in the infoboxes. Essentially it would be a "switch" list covering the existing categories. Everything else would, or could, get dumped into a hidden category sorted by "creator" until we could get a tally of, say, "Fred Smith" cropping up on ~2 dozen and going about creating a "Created by 'Fred Smith'" cat.

- J Greb (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you like but it seems a little complicated and would result in hundreds (or thousands?) of hidden categories being made for a marginal benefit (that is probably quite well covered now). I can't think I care much either way but would it not potentially have some... server/performance issues if everyone was doing it? (Emperor (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Removal of categories?

[2] Notifying you in case you did the same thing elsewhere. Enigma^msg 06:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And on a side note Enigmaman, you may want to actually look at what the infobox is doing. - J Greb (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you said "and". Enigma^msg 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've picked up on the "and" - the main point is that those categories are added automatically (just check at the bottom of the article and you'll see they are there) so removing the existing ones is the right thing to do. (Emperor (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Set Index deletion

Any thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bombshell (comics)? BOZ (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nuts - missed this one as I've been a bit wrapped up. Simply it is a WP:SETINDEX. (Emperor (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Excuse me for wasting everybody's time!

This itself is just the most obvious example among the dozens of articles you are creating at the moment, and which are being deleted almost as fast for the reasons I (and J Greb) mention. You should think carefully about these articles before creating them and, if need be, consult people on whether it is a good idea or not. At the moment you are wasting a lot of people's time, as people are having to follow along behind you removing articles with very broad, vague or unwise inclusion criteria. Could I ask that you pause this activity for a while and see how the results of the various AfDs and PRODs turn out, as you could be quite well wasting your own time, as well as that of others. (Emperor (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

The last time that I checked, only you and J Greb seem to have a massive problem with all of the Legion of Doom articles. So in essence, I'm only wasting the time of two people (*SARCASM*), you're welcome! I guess, I'm wasting people who bother analysing said articles!!! :}

TMC1982 (talk) 07:36 p.m., 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist

Hi Emperor/Archive 2010, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 03:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi. Can you move your comments from the Asgardian RfC draft page to the live page? I'm thinking that a resolution is now in order, but I'd prefer if all who have an interest in this had an opportunity to voice their dissent or endorsement before one is carried out. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR

If you look closely, you'll see that it was not 3RR. I'm trying (once again) to deal with an inexperienced editor who is fond of blind reverts when not getting their way. That said, I have now have a solution. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)

Hi, Emperor. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 7, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

MLJ /Archie Comics project

I've decided to take on revising the MLJ/Archie titles and superhero information over the next few months. Nobody else seems to be interested in tidying up a very untidy corner - it was first mooted 18 months ago at Talk:Archie_Comics. I was wondering whether you could spare a few minutes to glance over my plan for revision at my home page. I'd appreciate any input - feel free to scribble or tell me I'm insane Archiveangel (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

CB MI13 in 2010

Hey, great to see we will be getting another taste of Cornell and Kirk on Mi:13.. and Deadpool team up. Yay! it can only be good thing.---Paulley (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardcore Station changes

Thanks for those - extremely helpful from an editing point of view; showed me how to use citations better and how external links should be organised (saves a lot of quote typing also!). All much appreciated Archiveangel (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian

You might want to visit the ArbCom evidence page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bleach Plagarism

Thanks for helping out with Incarnate and other related pages, especially with the citations. I really appreciate it! -SaltwaterSky —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

RE: Copyright violations

Isn't Marvel Database Project under creative commons licensing and therefore able to be copied to Wikipedia?--Marcus Brute (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Zip Comics

Thanks for the lookover - I'm afraid as usual with MLJ there's few citation sources.

Can I assume that the infobox you added is standard, and I should use that on other new pages instead of the one I have been? (actally I did originally copy from the one you changed recently, but forgot to save my changes and lost the edit, then forgot about it on the second run)
I put the basic { comicsproj } header on new talk pages. Is it in order for me to also fill in a couple of the non-grading blanks (such as images=no US-work-group=yes)?

Apologies for the sudden rash of cancelled messages - I forgot that putting the 'comicsproj' syntax in would put the whole box on your talk page. Call me Mr Dim. Archiveangel (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Final Crisis

Hi. I don't know how this was done, but the title of the Final Crisis article is italicized. Is this right? Should it be undone, and if so, how? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of my ideas regarding Masters of the Universe and do you know how to merge?

I have discussed mergers about He-man related articles at wiki television project. [3] what do you think of my proposals and do you know how to merge stuff? Dwanyewest (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sweet-Tooth-01-cov1.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sweet-Tooth-01-cov1.png. 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 will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received 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 somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Trigan Empire revision

Apologies, but I'd appreciate a little steer here if you can spare the time.

I've belted through the first 23 series, and throughly enjoyed myself, but it's a little out of hand as it goes. If you just think of the revision page as formatted notes for the moment:

I'd be kinda happy with the format of the start, Publication history, Background, Artists, Writers, and Reprints as they are, with content completion/polishing of course.
But fictional history is going to be a) stupidly long and b) unneccessary, I think. I considered hiving it off to another page (like a 'summary of episodes' for tv series) but much as I'd love to, as most people will sadly never read it, can't justify it on importance grounds. Perhaps a brief summary on the lines of Trigo then forms alliances with the other countries, defeats alien plant invasions, retires and returns, etc, literally slamming the key stories into about 30 lines, would get the flavour?
Would the Main Characters section be best as another page, perhaps amalgamated with the Civilisations section? Is this legit? It would allow a little more story information.
Would the stories list be better on a separate page? and would that mean the reprint details going there too?

I'm hoping the above would give a long-er, but reasonably so, and pretty good entry (pace the lack of great citations other than primary source) more fitting the subject. I'm also getting a very nice web site in my head more on the lines of whats on the page now but even more depth (monsters/detail on politics/real-wold references/furry dice!/turtles!etc, with pictures; which might be a good little project for later.

Any thoughts now would be really useful so I can change direction and reformat before going any further. Additionally, I'm going to take it off-Wiki (or at least any further work) until it's finished. The page is already linked on Google; if I continue, someone else might nobble the lot before I can do anything else with it, and if I'm doing in-depth work I'd rather keep it for something cool later (and then let anyone steal the web site!). A little different from dropping any ownership of a precis, really. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. I've had a ball reading these, hopefully if you glance at it that'll bring back a few memories. Not as wondrous as the art and stories themselves, but ... Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC) oops ... User:Archiveangel/Trigan_Empire_revision —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC).

Hmm

Duck? Quack!

Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with switching to a new account (if you're abandoning the old one), but it's something to keep an eye on, I figure. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

GCD

I promise, I'll try to get the GCD template formatting to work for me! :-) --Tenebrae (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sweet-Tooth-01-cov1.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sweet-Tooth-01-cov1.png. 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.
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) 00:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dick Giordano

Semi-protect?

- J Greb (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Mick Anglo

Ta muchly for the corrections - as I thought, I'll be able to fathom out the way web citations work from that. As for the white space, that's a habit I'll have to break - I usually do it for ease of finding things while editing, then forget to remove. Best be getting on with Marvelman then, seeing as I was <ahem> so smoothly coerced into it. Managed to track down a copy of Alter Ego #87 from last summer which has an Anglo interview, I'm sure that'll help when the postie arrives. Cheers!Archiveangel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

I've kept all my notes with web refs etc, so any more citations needed for existing material can be dropped in easy enough. As to photo - there's the one link I put on the talk page which looks promising, and one of the pages I've ref'd - can't recall which right now - has a better b/w one (although oval shaped), but I haven't a clue on the procedure for adding.

It would be good to get this up to 'B' Class - yep, of course I'd be personally pleased, but mainly it's a historical perspective thing, and the timing would be spot on. As I've said elsewhere, and you clearly think, it's about time that the whole saga got the full recognition it deserves, and not just the wonderful Moore and Gaiman days. BTW - this is interesting [[4]], I'd used the Moore interview he'd done from the site, but missed this excellent bit of detective work on the copyright issue until now (500 web sites in so far on Marvelman, and still turning stuff up!). Cheers Archiveangel (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about 'Blogger' and friends being unsound sources per se, either because of the reputations of the people (Steve Holland, Lew Stringer, Scott Shaw et al) or the clear quality (Pappy, Comic Book Catacombs, Peter Gray). Guess it's just an instinct thing - there's a lot of Marvelman associated stuff I've found I'd not touch with a barge-pole, but something I'll keep in mind. Just about done with the basic Marvelman source searching, so will start reconstructing the publication history part after this weekend. I'll concentrate on the wranglings second as it kind of naturally falls after the publication stuff - then temporarily put up the work on my area for comment once that's all reasonably well-dressed, probably after next weekend. The character history will, I think, follow that. Cheers! Archiveangel (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ta for the latest scrutiny also - the 'citation needed' bits are, thankfully, easy and I'll clear them later today. Archiveangel (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Carpenter (surname) - help request

Hello,

When you get a chance, could you review, make suggestions or comments on the Carpenter (surname)?

Any help would be appreciated. Some minor disagrement going on listing those with the surname Carpenter. For example: All "David Carpenter"s being redirected to another disambig page just for David Carpenters. Another example: Possible listing of Carpenters mentioned in various fiction being reduntant if there is no article in wikipedia even if such an article might be or could be pending.

Again, anything would be helpful to prevent an edit war or other bad feelings.

Thank you. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic entities template

Hello. I need input regarding possible changes in this. I tried to modify my own notions considerably from previous comments. Would the current version be acceptable to change the entry into, or does it need further modifications? Dave (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Frankenstein" animated character articles, again...

At what point can we DoS things like Flash (DC animated universe) and Wonder Woman (DC animated universe) from TMC1982 as disruptive content?

- J Greb (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as they crop up hammer them down - we now have... what 2, 3 batches of AfDs to back up this being A Bad Idea. (Emperor (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

You may also want to take a look at User talk:J Greb#Proposed DC animated universe deletions... - J Greb (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And DDG downed the PRODs... with "probably controversial enough to require an afd, unless a merge is available".

'

Both are now at AfD with a FULL listing of what TMC copied in toto and from where and why "merge" isn't an option since there is nothing new to merge...

- J Greb (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

On a related note...

Should I bring up that we have:

All from the same editor and ready to go with exactly the same fundamental fatal flaw.

As well as Justice Society of America (DC animated universe) and Legion of Doom (DC animated universe) awaiting final "merging".

And the subs of Category:DC animated universe and Category:Marvel animated universe may need a trim...

- J Greb (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There must be nearly a dozen AfDs for just this kind of thing by now - I think it'd be appropriate to nominate the batch as it'd take forever to do a careful dissection of them all, but by now we can point to precedent for their being a consensus not to create these articles. (Emperor (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Getting back to my original post... I'm tempted to "Delete on Sight" based on the past AfDs as soon as Flash, Wonder Woman, and Blade (still up on the comics AfD list) close. It may be beans, but I'd lay really good odds that if the 7 I found are batched both "Too much for 1 AfD" and "Prove it" get called. - J Greb (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It is your call - I think AfDing them individually and extracting all the locations for all the bits is a waste of your time now there is clear precedent against these kinds of articles. However, if you don't think it'd fly then you may be right.

I'm not sure what you mean with Delete on Sight - any speedy deletion seems to get removed so I can only see AfDs as being the solution. Which is why I suggested a batch AfD. If nothing else it is worth a punt as it'd save a tonne of time. (Emperor (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Something to keep an eye on...

With the close of the ArbCom case, Asgardian has left a farewell note - [5] - on his talk. Actually used it the replace the ArbCom case notes and two "complaint" threads, but that isn't the real issue.

The content of his farewell... to be honest some of it reads as "troll bait". We may want to keep an eye on the page in case some rise to that bait.

And I'm a wondering if we should run a few of his phrasing choices past the ArbCom since they look like parting shots at them.

- J Greb (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You can do - it doesn't seem as bad as I was expecting but might be something they'd want to look at. (Emperor (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Asgardian fallout

Just something to keep an eye on...

It looks like at least one editor - Rtkat3 - is hitting, and reverting, a good chunk of where Asgardian was editing.

On a cursory, very cursory, look I found most of the edits limited to restoring/re-inflating IoM and AV sections. At least one instance though - Rhino (comics) - was a top to bottom revert and included link changes didn't and shouldn't have happened.

This may not be the only occurrence we'll see.

- J Greb (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Flash (comics)

We could use a second set of eyes here.

Yes, Clow on a Flash article again.

Flatly:

He overloaded File:Flash Family.jpg on File:Flash Pack.jpg mid month to avoid discussion.
When that was reverted, he properly uploaded his pref and changed the article.
At the point his change has been reverted with a call for hm to take it to the talk page.

I'm really at my wits end here. While Flash Pack isn't perfect, he's insisting on using an image that is less appropriate and doesn't even want to discus it on the talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And add User talk:J Greb#Flash image to the asecond look... - J Greb (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

<personal attack removed>

Blakandman (talk)

User indefinitely blocked.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Action Comics-775 13.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Action Comics-775 13.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Girl Comics

Hi, Emp! I'll see if I can contribute anything, but boy, did you put together one solid article! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I made mostly copy-edit and style-edit stuff, and only one small content change for a slightly blurby quote. Tiny stuff — it was hard to improve on near-perfection! :-) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the recentism. I'd say we do like Amazing Adventures for now: Have the infobox image be that of the first (and in this case longer-running) series of that name, and have a secondary image of the second series within the article body. And yeah, you're right — when/if this gets expanded, it's sensible to forgo the infobox image and put an image in each section, like at Strange Worlds. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And believe me, what you had there was solid and encyclopedically written, in my humble opinion, with terrific sourcing. As far as I'm concerned, it was the model of a comic-series start article. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No with covers? I think yes with covers! :-) (Guess you meant to say "Done"?)

I'm adding a little background on the 1949-54 contributors, to add content that will help lower where "Notes" starts, for layout. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And another fine collaboration done! Always great working with you, Emp! I've just created Jay Scott Pike, and I've pretty much exhausted what resources I could find on him, but there must be much more. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You're right. I've never liked Mike Royer's inking -- I know Kirby did, but I thought he was the least attractive of Kirby's regular inkers, compared to Chris Rule, Dick Ayers, Wally Wood, Chic Stone, George Roussos, Joe Sinnot and even Vince Colletta (loved their old Thor art). Still, Royer deserves a much more expansive entry. Thanks for pointing it out! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter O'Donnell death

Per the Wikipedia policy WP:BLP you must provide a reputable (i.e. non-blog) source for indicating a death. Please add this information ASAP. Thanks. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added one to your original post (no Cheers! sign-off this time, just a silent lifted glass to a great artist)Archiveangel (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Man 2

Hi, Emp. You might want to look in on Iron Man 2 and Blacklash (comics). As happened with Iron Man, where the term Iron Monger was never used for Obadiah Stane, there's much rv'ing going on at those two pages re: the terms Whiplash, War Machine and Black Widow, which are never used in the film. I don't know if an RfC may be needed, or just some experienced editors to go in and take a look. I'm involved, and if I'm off base, let me know. I'm going with the examples from Iron Man (film), where War Monger was not used, and [[The Incredible Hulk (film), where the Leader was not used and, as per this archived consensus, Abomination was not to be used. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Atavar.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Atavar.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Mike Royer

Gave it a quick pass, as per your very good suggestion. Take it away, Emp! ;-) --Tenebrae (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Barry Allen image

There's a new candidate I've decided to present, and I'd appreciate your thoughts at Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010. Thanks! --CmdrClow (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Badcompanykroolworld.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Badcompanykroolworld.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Double-check

Glad to! Still on deadline, but this seems like something I can do fairly quickly (as opposed to the Galactus mess!) --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I used numerous sources for Tex Blaisdell. With Roger Brand I will add more when I have time. Pepso2 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dread and Alive (comic series)

Thanks for the info man, Ive added more links and fixed the reference section and I'll continue to fix the page. Thanks in advance :) Ryonslaught (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Galactus - the final solution?

With Asgardian removed, David A and TheBalance have continued to go at each other over Galactus, and related Marvel cosmic articles such as Living Tribunal, Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics), and Template:Marvel Cosmic. Rather than let that siutation go on ad nauseum (although it is currently much less than it once was), I think there needs to be a resolution that either gets them to work together, or to stay away from each other. I suggested the idea of volunteer mediators to the two of them; David seemed skeptical but willing to try. Balanace said he "wouldn't object" but was too busy at the time, so I asked that he let me know when he was less busy; I have yet to hear back from him on the subject. I'd like to explore our available options for resolving this situation, maybe on the Galactus talk page or somewhere. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring has resumed between these two users, and they have also been using edit summaries to discuss their differences rather than talk pages (and when they have used talk pages, little resolution has come of it). I think it would be good to discuss the best availabe option for keeping the two of them away from each other; please join me at User talk:BOZ#David A and The Balance for discussion. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dieselpunk

Hey. I thought you might be interested in knowing that User:Larry442010 is working on a Dieselpunk page. You can see his progress here. Ottens (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessments

Would you mind handling the long pending assessments for Democracy (Judge Dredd storyline) and Alan_Class_Comics_(publishers)? Both Brit publisher related Wiki entries. Homoaffectional (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful review, I'll have another look at the article. Richard75 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I implemented your suggestions for the Democracy article, and as a result it has now been rated A-class. Thanks for your help! Richard75 (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyes...

Mind taking a look at Zepp900's plot dump on Dick Grayson?

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary amounts of plot, especially as the details are on the Robin in other media article. In fact why is there still such a big section on the Dick Grayson article when the article has been split off? (Emperor (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

Bluntly? Editors like Zepp - who's mono editing just the grayson/Robin articles atm - and Neobatfreak keep shoving it back in.

I'm sorely tempted to pull his add in again.

- J Greb (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It all needs to come out with perhaps a two paragraph summary of his appearances, it is redundant and adding more to this section when we need less (much less) is heading in the wrong direction. (Emperor (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox

Hey, Emp. I just got through an obsessive-compulsive seeming edit marathon at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. If you and the rest of the gang could weigh in, trim, add, whatever ... I'm hoping that with enough of us shaping it, we can then build some sort of exemplar-consensus to show how secondary sources can be used. Anyway ... I'm beat. Hang in there. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

David A and TheBalance have agreed to mediation, so I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Galactus. If you feel you should be a party to this case, you may add yourself to the mediation, or I can do it for you; I believe that non-parties are not allowed to comment on active cases, so please take that into consideration as you decide. Also, please keep in mind that inactive contributors can cause a stall in the case, so if you may have trouble in continued participating then you should not add yourself. If you are added, make sure to sign the agreement – mediation cannot proceed until all parties have agreed.

If you do join the case, you may consider adding your own statement under the "Additional issues" header (please wait for David A and TheBalance to add statements first). This should be brief and discuss succinctly the issues between the two of them regarding article content, as you see it, not how you feel about the editors' conduct. For example, you would want to say "I feel the article should include X, but he removes it; I feel the article should not include X, but he restores it; I try to rewrite parts to fix them in a particular style but he reverts it", and describe, in brief, why you feel these edits are appropriate. Brevity is the key here; assuming the case is accepted, you should have ample opportunity to explain your feelings later. Remember that Mediation is about trying to resolve differences, not about proving who is right or wrong, or getting the editors in trouble. It is not about providing evidence of wrongdoing on an editor's part, because this is not an Arbitration case. The idea is not to discuss how you feel about an editor's conduct, or what kind of person they are, or focus on the negatives – this is an attempt for these editors to try to see the positives in the other person's point of view and find a middle ground.

Also, if you feel that I have included any articles in the case which should not be included, or that I failed to include any articles which should be included, please let me know as I can change that before the case begins.BOZ (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your help. No other admin could see that I had nothing to do with Marcus Brute but you, despite the lack of evidence. I am very grateful, and so I award you the Barnstar of Integrity, for being everything an admin should be.

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For helping me overcome an injust ban; looking at all of the evidence and helping me prove my innocence. For helping me when few else would, I thank you. Wiki kaye 10:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it is just a pity no one asked me before doing this, as I have followed Marcus Brute's edits and he does have a well-defined pattern of edits which I didn't see in your (which is why I was surprised when I came across your name as a suspected sock puppet). Glad it has worked out OK and sorry for the delay and inconvenience (I'm kicking myself for not following up and raising the question of the block earlier). Now go forth and make Wikipedia better. (Emperor (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

You may want to take a look at...

{{Midnight Sons}} and User talk:Jrfoldes#Navboxes, categories, and a little on images and article info...

- J Greb (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Current Avengers roster

Hello Emperor! Just thought I'd let you know if you don't already, that there's a discussion on the talk page for the List of Avengers members article, regarding the best way to display who is currently an active member. If you have time, please consider adding your opinion to the discussion under the "Current Roster" section, so that we can come to a consensus. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My assessments.

Hey there. I will support your re-evaluations for the larger two articles (Rex and Jason Todd). As for Gabriel Vargas, what I was thinking in terms of structure is that it could have been more detailed and then broken up into at least one or two more sections rather than combining such large chunks of his life into three congested, condensed sections. But as you might now see I have decided to support your assessment of it as B-Class. And I certainly appreciate your feedback. I hope to see you and the others who have been inactive for some time get back into the swing of things. Homoaffectional (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. When moving certain users to inactive, I have gone through their contribution histories and looked for anything comic-related. You were the last person that I moved to inactive after determining that you were more on top of it than anyone else and when user Fram complained, I automatically retained you in the active category along with him because I could see that you definitely did many comic-related assessments even if they weren't "officially" part of the Assessment Requests page for the Comics Project. Hope that reassures you that I have noticed your contributions and am glad to see you chiming in more often lately. Homoaffectional (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I did speak to a couple of them -- the ones that have been historically the most active. But I probably wouldn't bother with those who haven't done anything for over a year, especially when even when they did do some work it was very little, if any. We all have our standards to maintain... but when Fram returned, I absolutely did not fight his desire to be re-included onto the active list. All I ask is that people come back at some point, and once they do, just as I supported your reassessments, I will absolutely support their desire to be re-added... there's probably a reason why instead of deleting editors altogether, they are just moved to inactive... that implies, they can be re-"activated" again. heh. Best,

Homoaffectional (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox oddness

Hi, Emp. Just a head's up. I've noticed that at Pat Boyette, Tom Sutton and with your own addition to Flo Steinberg here, some coding oddity in what I guess are copy-pasted infobox templates is created an odd blue, dotted-outline space at the top of articles, similar to what happens if a line of text isn't flush left. I've tried to figure out how to remove it, but am having no luck. Thought you might give it a try? Your bud, --Tenebrae (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. The problem seems to have arisen through some kind of trouble on the template (there has been a bit of back and forth and reverting) and it looks like someone (you?) was editing them at the time and the change seems to have got fixed or something. All I did was edit them and make no changes (with the first two my edits aren't even showing up as I did nothing), resaving them again seems to bring in the proper version again. So that is the trick, edit, don't change anything and save. (Emperor (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

I didn't understand a word of that, but things seem fixed, so ... you must be a consultant! :-) --Tenebrae (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Its OK I'm not 100% sure of what is going on. But editing the article without changing anything fixed it so I'm leaving it at that ;) If you want a technical explanation I'm sure J Greb can provide one.

LSS - And editor removed one of the auto catting sections. It looks like it broke the template. Restoring it fixed it. - J Greb (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way ... Dude! I'm closing in on 38,000 edits. Rolling over the odometer sometime today.... --Tenebrae (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll bake a cake. Just checking mine and (including deleted edits) I am not far of 50,000 - I;m not sure if that is a cause for worry or celebration. (Emperor (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC))

Madelyne Pryor Image

I've posted a new suggestion for the main image at the Madelyne Pryor article here. Please leave a note and let me know what you think. --Peter Farago (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Second line

Thumperwad has moved his request/demand re the comics infoboxes - see Template talk:Comics infobox sec‎‎#Style overrides.

Just a heads up since you were commenting at the Project evel talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark Harrison

Hiya.

Looks like the article for Mark Harrison (comic artist) is up for AfD. I suspect it's completely capable of passing as a keep right now, but it could do with it's references being beefed up and maybe a bit of a rewrite to bring it up to standard. In particular anything that confirms an official role at Rebellion and anything thrid party regarding his work would be useful. Artw (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with an RfC

I'm sorry to ask: The rules for establishing an RfC appear to require that two editors first go the talk page where the dispute lies and try to mediate first. I'm simply notifying you and a couple of other veteran neutrally that there is a dispute at John Buscema. Thank you for any attention to this brewing edit war, a repetition of one from 2008. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark Harrison

Hello,

I am letting you know that an article you have been involved in editing, Mark Harrison (comic artist), has been nominated for deletion as part of a series of AFDs based on the deletion nomination of List of Magic: The Gathering artists. If there is anything you can do to improve the article further, your efforts would be appreciated. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history of Spider-Man

Following three attempts at having this page deleted, a number of editors collaborated on bringing this multiply-tagged article up to policy and guideline standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Comments were solicited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite since May 26, and a final draft, created over a month of editorial input, was completed and put up for final comment at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement on June 25. On June 30, this consensus version, which confirms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), will replace the current page Fictional history of Spider-Man. As you have contributed to that page, we wanted to alert you to the opportunity for final comments. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

War Machine

Hi, Emp. Apropos of our efforts at bringing WPC articles up to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) standard, an editor who is exhibiting, in my view, WP:OWN keep removing a cleanup tag (fancruft) at War Machine. He made most of the hugely expansive, highly detailed edits here, so it seems a bit COI atop everything else for him to keep removing it. I hope you can pop in to take a look and render an opinion. Thanks, -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though maybe we need something in-between, since it's mostly the sheer overdetail and fictography that's an issue. Maybe a new template? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

2¢ - the "fancruft" template redirects to {{Overdetailed}}. That is fairly clear about the problem. If it's a case of "fancruft" being a loaded word, use the the "Overdetailed" and don't worry it. - J Greb (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Welllllll it wasn't just that. I suspect "remove excessive trivia, praise, criticism, lists and collections of links." could be a little misleading as none of those really count. You'd be better off with {{plot}} but I still think {{in-universe}} works best and will have the desired outcome as reducing the in-universe aspects means you have to reduce the detail. (Emperor (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

I like the wording Emperor suggested on my talk page. Let me try something with that tomorrow. 'Night, guys. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Launched

The RfC we've been discussing on color and consensus is launched and located at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. I am in the process of publicizing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on source reliability/notability

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here. Would you please participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Harry Haenigsen

You left some kind of glitch in the categories. I can't delete it. Pepso2 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now - it was a typo in the infobox. (Emperor (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC))

Gauntlet merge proposal

You have contributed significantly to The Gauntlet (comics) article. I recently proposed a merge involving the article. I wanted to inform you since you may be interested in the outcome of the discussion. Spidey104^contribs 14:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please comment? Spidey104^contribs 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Black Lanterns...

Right now I've got this, which is the sum total of what was in the pirmary sources... I don't know if this helps or not though with Manticore.

- J Greb (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which bit is the problem. On who he is, see for example [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. (Emperor (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

Looking at those 2 (comicrelated & Cosmic Team) are fairly clear the writer is making an assumption by way of word bubble placement. 2 (GCD & glcorps) and the CBdb cite in the character article don't provide where/how the connection is made. And Comic Vine really provides almost no information. The annotation is actually the nicest ref, but does it meet the Wikipedia threshold for use? - J Greb (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They look OK to me. It is also only an assumption because the character doesn't seem to be referred to specifically but if the caption is next to the character it isn't much of an assumption (or indeed an assumption at all). I would quite like to see the page though just to be sure but it seems good enough to be going on with. (Emperor (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

Drive: the scifi comic

In an attempt to address the concern about notability, I have added a section describing fan response to Drive in the form of 3D renderings of Drive spaceships. In doing so, I have cited several secondary sources.

I also tried to address the orphan concern, linking to other Wiki articles.

Is the new page now up to notability standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by El guanaquito (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyes...

If you've got a moment, a 3rd party look at Moonstone (comics)‎‎ would be helpful. Thanks, - J Greb (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on photo

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I have done enough if not what should I do

I feel I have added enough source for Miyamoto Usagi to deserve a split as a solo article or does more have to be done? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Csiguide episode

Template:Csiguide episode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

David Roach

You might be interested in the new article David Roach (comics)? BOZ (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Crossley

Hello. As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Crossley. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Shifty Asgardian

I noticed a familiar pattern on Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and I opened a sockpuppet case for him, but haven't gotten a response in over a week - I think they have a backlog. I suspected it might be him, because in the past we had talked about classic D&D adventure modules. BOZ (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

How do you archive? Homoaffectional (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Inline cite banners in EL sections

Hi, Emperor. Happy Holidays. I've noticed a lot of EL sections in comics articles with the inline cite banner, such as the one you placed in this article. Why these banners? Links listed in EL sections are not used to verify article content, as those in the Notes or References section. Why refer to them as references in need of inline cites? Nightscream (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Project page

Hi. Can you give your thoughts in this discussion I've started? Thanks. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyes...

I know time may be tight for you, but can you take a look at War Machine in other media and its talk page?

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And, in the same area, H. G. Wells#In popular fiction has now grown to be the the largest section in the article, perhaps WP:UNDUE. Before I suggest any fixes, do you want to raise your proposal again? Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Need opinions on photos

Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)