User talk:J Greb/Archive Oct 2007

Fair use disputed for Image:Kingpinani.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Kingpinani.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:GLCRayner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GLCRayner.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:ZerohourcrisisintimeTPB.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ZerohourcrisisintimeTPB.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey thanks for adding FUR to those two images. --Basique 11:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Shapeshifter category vagueness

I saw your interesting reply at the talk page here and totally agree. Could you place those similar statements at this area? Confusion there should be cleared up, and those examples you mentioned should be categorized if they haven't been so already. Thanks! Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Mjolnir

No problem. I can handle that so long as the extraneous images go so it looks sharp and professional. Thanks.

Asgardian 01:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Trouble with the Fair use stuff on [[Talk:Scarecrow (comics)

Hi remember me? I have looked and looked and looked for info on fair-use stuff, and I just can't find any sense in it. Can you help please. (Sorry to bother). Claycrow 00:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood just one more qeustion. How do I put in a fair use thingie on the picture's page? Do I have to delete the page? If so, how do I delete a page?Claycrow 00:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a look at Whizzer

Since you were the Admin for the RfC...

A synopsis can be found at Talk:Whizzer#Today's edit. I've also asked User:Neil for input since he's the most recent admin to deal with Asgardian.

I honestly need to know who/where to take this at this point.

Thanks - J Greb 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there. I'm thinking his style of slow but steady reversion to his perferred version means that any block of any duration is essentially meaningless to him.

Since there have been innumerable RfCs regarding these issues, and the user himself, and Steve block, myself, and others have tried to mediate as third party opinions, I think the next step would be for you to attempt for mediation or if that's refused, maybe skip to arbitration. - jc37 04:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ogg... my head hurts... - J Greb 07:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something I said?... - jc37 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not exactly. It's more trying to figure out how to get a pattern of action to mediation when that process seems to be geared to an article by article approach. Especially since, IIUC, an arbitration request will likely get shot down if mediation is skipped over entirely. - J Greb 18:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. You may want to look through the WP:AN and WP:AN/I archives. I seem to recall Steve block attempting to discuss probation and other recourses. There was also a start of a discussion on Tony Sideaway's talk page. - jc37 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Steve's AN/I, and Doczilla's, both fed into the RfC on Asgardian. And are you sure that the user you're think of is Tony Sideaway? I pulled that and found a 1 entry talk and an indef block as a sock of LIGerasimova. - J Greb 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her's the link : ) - jc37 18:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... looks like an "e" slipped in. - J Greb 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk (comics)

You might want to poke your head in, on the talk page and article. That's all I can fairly say. --Tenebrae 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Hulk's strength is concerned, the quote is actually not from the handbook. There are several repeated references to "a rampaging monster with near limitless power" in the Incredible Hulk #106,107,108,109,110, Iron Man 19,20 , World War Hulk Prologue #1, are all examples. There are other references, including interviews with the writers Pak & Gage during comic con as well. Kontar 05:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

An exploratory thought

What are your thoughts about adminship? You are quite active in the WikiProject, and AFAIK, seem at least somewhat knowledgable about images, and have been involved in XfD discussions, among other things. My main concern(s) is/are some of the interaction you've been involved in (rather than link to them, I'll just attempt to jog your memory, you said at various times that such-n-such (or so-n-so's actions) was frustrating, and you were losing your patience).

Other than those examples of frustration, you are typically an excellent editor. I just don't want to see you fall to Wiki-fatigue as we've seen Steve block, and CrisGriswold, among many others. In addition, not everyone finds RfA to be a pleasant experience.

Well, anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts. - jc37 13:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks. The complements, and the concerns, are well taken.

Second, I'm not really looking for adminship, mostly for two reasons:

Time: Over the past month I've had a very large chunk of free time based on how my employment runs. I'm heading back to a point where the time I can plow into Wiki is going to be reduced.
Temperament: Both for the points you raise, frustration and "head-butting", and a tendency to want to "tinker" as well as comment. I think that would compromise one of the major things, IMO, that an admin is supposed to do: mediate impartially. When I look at a discussion, if it catches my interest enough to follow, I'm more likely to put in my 2¢+ and get directly involved rather than just watch.

At the moment I'm fairly content to work through the "minor" project I've set for myself in trying to get the images the project is using squared away in FUR, size, usage, and consistency. The last has been a slight bear since I've had to jump back to the top twice, once to fix my own inconsistencies, and once due to a change in the FUR template. Would it be nice to have some admin tools while doing this? Yes, since I could sidestep the request to remove previous versions of an image. But that would be a very, very minor, and slightly selfish, reason to go looking for an RfA.

If I'm missing something about either the RfA or adminship though, please feel free to tell me. You're the one with the experience with both, I'm just the guy looking in :)

- J Greb 14:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.

A couple comments for clarification, though:

First, an admin is "just another editor" (tm) - They just also have some extra buttons/abilities/access, which the community has trusted them to use discerningly, and as well may be called upon to use their discernment to close discussions (as they've been shown trust by the community). (There's more to it, but that's pretty much the basics.)

So to take that a step further, being an admin doesn't mean that you can no longer join in on discussions. As a matter of fact the reverse is very often true.

And finally, even if I hadn't met you already, your response above shows the kind of humility that I think is worthy of community trust.

Anyway, if/when you may come to a point where you might feel that you might be interested in it, let me know : ) - jc37 22:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second the suggestion. We all have negative aspects - I think the key thing is that we are aware of them (as you demonstrate) so they are less likely to cause serious issues (so one of your reasons against is actually a point in your favour). So this gets a double thumbs up. (Emperor 23:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I third the suggestion. --Basique 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Gangbusterdcu0.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gangbusterdcu0.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox's

Thanks for your imput. I felt your separation of the supporting from lineage Flash's was a great suggestion. Keep checking-in, I think this an area that needs more attention and support. 66.109.248.114 21:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Uncanny X-Men -289.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Uncanny X-Men -289.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 '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 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. Scathlock 09:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

classic batgirl

I actually got the image itself from comicartcommunity Bookkeeperoftheoccult 01:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reverts to comic articles

Hi - the articles you are reverting are currently the subject of discussion here, if you feel you have something useful to add, please jump in. --Fredrick day 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comic covers

Hey there, I see I've created more work for you by my adding some comic covers to individual character categories, but where is the discussion regarding this effort to keep them out? It kind of seemed intuitive to me that I'd find Aquaman covers in the Aquaman image category, etc. The comic cover and Aquaman categories (for example) are "sister" cats under DC comics and so not mutually exclusive. TAnthony 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, there wasn't one since I've been putting together the comics images cats from more or less scratch. In doing so, I've been trying to follow some implicit guide lines from parent categories, CfD discussions, and reasonable size upper limits:

Form the parent cats comes an attempt to keep the material housed in the category within that scope.
For the screenshots, with the category title stretched with "...and pictures", that's keeping it to 'shots from the show(s), promotional stills, add copy, and comic pages and cover art for the direct spin off books. Hence a panel from Teen Titans GO! would have gone into the screenshots cat instead of the parent DC Comics.
For covers, this means separating the images in covers as published and cover art. Partially this is to reduce the various "image" cats, and partially it to keep cover art from slipping back into the "covers" cats.
From CfDs I've watched, due to a chunk being due to "lacks population and potential to grow", I've been dragging my heels until a parent crests over 190-195 images to split things off. If a cat is sitting the with 3 or 4 images and someone happens across it, the a good chance the cat will be put up for CfD "upmerge".
And I've been trying to keep to the 190-200 limit to allow editors who are looking for a specific image to take the "NOGALLERY" limiter out and look at a "Show preview" for the images. If there's a 2nd page, the editor would have to commit the edit and remember to self-revert.
Cross listings. I've tried to limit this to single character/team showing up in a another character or teams show. Such as the individual JLAers from "The Joining" episode for The Batman, or single character shots from Justice League/Justice League Unlimited.

Two things I've been kicking around given the size of the image and covers cats has been to sift out teams (Legion, JLA, JSA, and Titans, which you've done) and "Covers for 'character/team' titles" for the corresponding subs of the "images" cat.

I've put that off because of two potential problems: One is the CfD fave "Overcategorization" with images of Superman, Batman, Robin, Nightwing, etc getting placed into multiple team cats. (My though there would have been to list the sub where those characters resided.) The other is situations like the Adventure Comics cover. It wasn't an Aquaman title, it was an anthology title. The intent with the sorting in the cats is to group by title, not cover character. Looking at it, if there is enough images to support an "Aquaman covers" and "Adventure Comics covers", and it looks like there are. It would be reasonable to move the images to those, and cross cat the on issue. It wouldn't if the Adventure cat wasn't viable, see the "upmerge 'bait'" I mentioned above.

- J Greb 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for this, I see you've put a lot of thought into it and now I'm seeing the method to your madness, LOL. You definitely have a point about overcategorization of images and the Adventure Comics cover, I obviously wasn't looking at the big picture. But Category:DC comic book covers and Category:DC Comics images are definitely somewhat overpopulated and could use more subcategories where there are appropriate numbers of images (like what I've been doing with the Titans images). The covers in particular could use some subcats by character or title. Actually, those subcats in turn could also be subcats of character/group cats for navigation purposes (like Category:Aquaman comic book covers could be a subcat of Category:Aquaman images, allowing the covers to be accessible from the Aquaman cat but not multi-categorized themselves).

By the way, there seem to be many "cover" images without the actual cover logos, etc. which I know usually come from the DC Comics website; do you consider those actually covers? I kind of think they're more "art" but don't know if there's an established convention on this. TAnthony 02:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking along the lines of what you're proposing for the Aquaman titles, with an "Aquaman covers" holding, if images are in use, Aquaman, ...: Time and Tide, and ...: Sword of Atlantis covers and subbed to "DC Comics covers" and "Aquaman images". Most of the current DC image subs should be able to support "covers" cats/

I'm leary of spreading the categories too thin. For some characters it may work, such as Superman and Batman, but for others, the number of covers of the various runs in use make it problematical. Also something to keep in mind, separating the covers precludes some cross cattings, ie if the JSA cover featuring Jay Garrick's portrait is uploaded and used as published, it would go into a "Justice Society covers" cat, but not into the "Flash (comics) images" one.

As for cover art vs cover, I'm working from the POV that the cover is the front of the comic or trade as it was published. That means the image would include the following pieces of trade dress: title logo, publisher logo, price/issue block, UPC box (more modern comics that is, since the box didn't start showing up until the 1970s), and add copy. The solicitation images are just the cover art, and even then are still subject to change before publication. Examples of that are some of the OLY later covers where the solicit had blanked out characters as a teaser, or the current, I think, Superman/Batman cover where the original art had Batman holding Talia across her chest, above the breasts, but the published cover had his arm removed. - J Greb 02:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm OK with your "related titles" category approach with DC covers and it probably makes the most sense, but it creates some issues of its own. I don't think these images should be overcategorized, but for example, some of the Action Comics issues have nothing to do with Superman, and classifying them that way alone seems problematic. You left Category:Adventure Comics covers alone but got rid of Action, Detective, etc — was that an oversight, or ... anyway, you and I are probably the only ones who care so I'm not going mess with anything, just thought I'd point it out.

Also, there are like 4000 images in Category:Comic book covers all without sort keys and thus all grouped in "I". There are Marvel and DC as well as the miscellaneous stuff. I've used AWB to "autosort" over 1200 so far (basically A-C and W-Z) and thus make them easier to navigate, and then recategorized some to their proper home. If you're ever bored, there are (and will be more) covers that need to go to your new cats (like Batman). TAnthony 05:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Comics is a deliberate choice not to fold into another cat, All-Star Comics, Teen Titans, and Wonder Woman are "on hold", I got through GL and realized I was getting ahead of where I had gotten in clean up. I've been trying to get through the cats alphabetically to get the images cleaned up as far a FURs go and I'm back to starting on "Batman". I had left an note in the boilerplate for Adventure though... and I should probably move it to the talk page. The upshot is that it is one of those anthology titles that lacks a clear " 'character' book" connotation. A stretch of it is Superboy, another Legion, Spectre, Aquaman, Dial-H, reprint, and so on. Same can be said for Showcase and, to a lesser degree, The Brave and the Bold. Action and Detective though have very strong "Superman book" and "Batman book" linkages. Also, this structure allows for tweaks like the Aquaman covered Adventure being catted two places, it's in sibling cats instead of parent and child.

As for Category:Comic book covers... one of my intentions was to eventually start running through that to parcel out the images. And to tag the orphaned and the should be orphaned.

And I think you're right, we are definitely the minuscule minority of editors worrying about trying to get a handle on the back end sorting :) . - J Greb 05:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vance Astro.jpeg deletion: Why?

Why do you people want to delete this picture? You got any better ideas? About the image, I mean... I say the image should be kept. By The Way, get back to me about where this image for deletion discussion page is so I can post it there... If this isn't the right place... Michael 15:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost/Batgirl: The Resurrection Machine

I'm not sure what you mean by "stubtitle." I have the graphic novel here in front of me and the printed title is Ghost/Batgirl: The Resurrection Machine. The interior pages state: Ghost/Batgirl: The Resurrection Machine. Ghost/Batgirl Copywrite 2001 Dark Horse Comics, Inc. and DC Comics. This book collects issue 1-4 of the Dark Horse comic-book series Ghost/Batgirl. Bookkeeperoftheoccult 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. With the source's I had at the time I couldn't find that title. The mini was just Ghost/Batgirl with a story title of "The Resurrection Engine". That actually yielded Google hits, mostly from stores which you would think would have the correct title. If the physical book differs, and it's listed that way at the Dark Horse site (where the watermarked images was drawn from and I should have checked first...), then no problem. - J Greb 23:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard complaint against us

Thuranx brought this to my attention. Sesshomaru decided that one day wasn't long enough to try to work things out and has told on us: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Regarding_users_WesleyDodds.2C_Doczilla_and_J_Greb Doczilla 01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement TT png

Just as a question, but are you going back to source in creating the pngs or just converting the existing?

Reason I'm asking is that a lot of them are becoming darker, and more muddy, from what was ther as jpgs. - J Greb 22:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some I grabbed new and some I converted, but they look identical on my Dell LCD screen in two different browsers so I can't see what you're talking about. Can you give me one in particular? TAnthony 22:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm seeing it:

The last one is the one that really caught me since it's a convert of the image i had just uploaded, sans source, where the image was pulled from, info. Based on the FURs you have put in place, it almost looks like you scaned and uploaded all of them. But back tracking shows:

Image:TeenTitans023.png, revised from Image:TeenTitans23.jpg sources to http://comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=23015&zoom=4
Image:TeenTitans050.png, revised from Image:Teen Titans 50.jpg sources to User:Kchishol1970, either as a scan or an unstated site.
Image:NewTeenTitansVol2-001.png, revised from Image:TT-Bax01.jpg sources to http://www.georgeperezgallery.com/images/N/TT-Bax01.jpg
Image:NewTeenTitansVol1-001.png, revised from Image:Teentitans2.jpg sources to http://www.newsaramablog.com/2006/06/07/i-sidekicks/
Image:TalesoftheTeenTitans050.png, revised from Image:Tt50.jpg sources to http://comics.org/details.lasso?id=39665
Image:TalesoftheTeenTitans059.png, revised from Image:TALES59.JPG sources to User:Mordicai, either as a scan or an unstated site.
Image:TeenTitansVol3-001.png, revised from Image:Teen Titans v3 1.jpg sources to http://www.comics.org/coverview.lasso?id=165602&zoom=4

I also have a concern about what you did with Image:TeenTitansVol2-005.png, revised from Image:TeenTitans5.png. By all right the image name is fine, all that should have been done is the FURs being added. There is no reason to blowaway the file history in this case.

And it looks like we're losing the information that the 'bots that do the conversions save to the new pages. - J Greb 23:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a third opinion, I am not seeing any difference and I've got 20/20 vision ;) As far as Image:TeenTitans5.png, it was pretty much the only one that was already a PNG but I thought I'd make the names consistent and the volume obvious without having to look at the image. As far as file history, I get your point but don't see how that is very important considering the edit history consisted of repeated link and category updating. Finally, as far as the source goes, I feel a web link is only relevant when it is affiliated with an actual copyright holder or when the image can only be found in a couple of places. These cover images are everywhere and many files seem identical across varying sites, down to flaws and odd cropping, which means they're not all scanning their own. And anyway, the person/entity who scans an image has no rights to it and therefore is irrelevant. I got a couple from here and converted/reduced them but you obviously can't tell the difference from the previous sources. TAnthony 00:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe... it could be my system that doing it. (And that's part of the reason I tend not to convert to pngs... 3ish yr old sys w/ a CRT and an old version of Photoshop. Anything I convert comes so dark they're illegible. These aren't there by any stretch, but it's noticeable on this end.)

I can see you point with regard to the file name, but it may be a dicey thing. Some file names need to be fixed, no question. The Batman: Cataclysm cover and most of the screen caps from The Batman are good examples of artifacts from other sites (cover) and/or personal shorthand (caps) that do zip to say what the image is. But others.. it becomes a difference of personal preferences, which can range from series (Tales of...), character (Nightwing), artist (Perez), or descriptive (Nightwings 1st outfit). I tend to come at it from the POV that, if it works, I leave it, even if I don't agree with it 100%. There are other things to deal with, and it isn't worth the risk of prodding someone else to come back with "No, this is a better title.".

With the histories, you're right, in this case they don't amount to much. On other images that isn't the case. This may boil down to me being overly worried about these action happening elsewhere instead of just looking at this case.

As for the websites, while I can see your point. But, I've also seen images challenged where an origin site or a declaration of "I scanned/captured this". While neither the the site nor scanner have an actual claim to the file, a record of that is a buffer against overzealous taggings or deletions. - J Greb 02:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same about all this, and don't worry, I don't intend to re-upload and change the titles of all the DC images! Although I'm hoping that the better-named files will set a good example for future uploads. Complex sort keys seem harder for the masses to notice, comprehend and implement.

By the way, what do you think about ultimately putting the miscellaneous items in the Category:DC Comics images and Category:DC comic book covers into some kind of "Miscellaneous" catch-all subcategories once they've been gone though to make sure they don't belong somewhere else? The point would be so that newly-uploaded images into the main categories would then be obvious and easily identified for subcategorizing, without having to look though ones you've seen before but can't immediately identify because of their crappy names. TAnthony 04:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think "Miscellaneous" cats aren't needed. The parent cats easily serve that purpose. And as for spot checking, the easiest way is with the "Related changes" link. That give you the last X changes of the last Y days. True, it won't show when the images are pulled or added to article, have new versions uploaded over old, or when they are pulled from the cat, but it does show when they've been tagged for maintenance reasons and when they've been added to the cat. At the least you can say "I was last in on the 5th, any changes since then?" And as time goes on you can get a feel for who else is watching the images. With that tool, there is no need to look to empty the cat to clean it up. - J Greb 22:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Deadshot1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Deadshot1.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. BetacommandBot 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your tireless efforts

		The Comics Star
		For your extraordinary work in the field of comics and the WikiProject Comics, I want to make sure that your work is noted. It's nice to see that we have some real heroes here at Wikipedia. Doczilla 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Trials2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Trials2.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. BetacommandBot 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Congratulations

The Original Barnstar

I award you this for your thoughtful, responsible editing, your diligence against vandalism, and your articulate comments in talk-page disputes. Congratulations from my humble self. --Tenebrae 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

Hey there, I just came across Category:Promotional comic book cover art, which seems to apply to pre-publication cover art like Image:TeenTitans50.jpg. Strangely, it's empty. Anyway, it's a WP Comics category and I thought it might tie in to your ongoing efforts. TAnthony 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's empty because it became depreciated. A fair number of similar categories are like the Screenshots from film/television where the licensing tag would have auto-added the cat. The cat that would have fed this was replaced with the current, more generic one. Also, the volume if image would have been comparable to the Comic book covers cat. - J Greb 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No male portrait

Hi - I noticed you adding infoboxes to various pages I've got on my watchlist (they were on my to do list but it is a big old list ;) ) and I noticed you adding the "No male portrait" image. I've not been adding this but will do if it is generally though to be A Good Idea. (Emperor 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Very handy - thanks for the link. Thinking about it, although getting free to use pictures of creators can be tricky, I know of a few who have clearly checked out their own page (as is human nature) and uploaded a picture so this could help encourage them. I'll look into doing this in the future. (Emperor 19:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've done a bit of this and a couple of things I noticed:

The image says to click on it to upload a new image but there doesn't seem to be simple information there for people to follow if they want to add one. Think it is a good idea to look into adding some quick instructions?
I was just editing Black Summer and notice we don't really have one for a comics cover - do you think this might be a good idea? I can float it on the comics project talk page.

Anyway nothing major just a few ideas. (Emperor 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

To be honest, I'm not overly worried about the verbiage in the placeholder. For the most part it covers the basics: "A free image is desirable, please upload one if you have one." I take your point though, it may result in some confusion. A "caption" that's a link to image uploading help may be worthwhile.

As for something similar for comic book covers, and potentially character images, I'd rather not put it into the 'box. Right now we have an "image" and "infobox" variable in the project header for talk pages. That should be enough of a prompt along with the "short" 'box. - J Greb 21:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha - they have all been replaced with a smaller less in-your-face picture which when clicked gives you a page to help with the uploading of a new picture. Its like they are reading my mind (or more likely - it is so obvious it was probably always there ;) ). (Emperor 12:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And I should say thanks for all the good work - I try and add infoboxes when I remember but you have been blazing through entries adding infoboxes and the like. I have also noticed a few editors being inspired to pick up the baton and get cracking on adding infoboxes to other entries after you've passed through their areas of interest. So this should get sorted across a good percentage of the articles under our purview which is pretty impressive. Its not glamorous and pretty thankless so I thought it worth dropping in a thanks. (Emperor 13:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Barbara Gordon

I had a question about the "Importance" rating on the article. Secondary characters such as Dick Grayson and Lex Luthor have "High" as their importance. I believe Barbara Gordon also deserves a "high" rating since 1) her career as Batgirl spanned 21 years in various DC titles and adaptations into other media and her career as Oracle has done the same, even more so considering Oracle is considered to be the sole information broker (as a hero) of DC.

Does this require a seperate assessment? Is there a different criteria? Or can this automatically be upgraded? Bookkeeperoftheoccult 01:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]