User talk:Netkinetic/Archive2

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 11:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filipino writers

It's news to me that this is even expected. All I've ever been told before today was that "subst" was a specific part of some templates and not others. Bearcat 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Do kindly help me since I am doing a constructive edit. I am having problems how to properly do it the wikipedia way since I am relatively new here.

"Filipino writers" as a category is problematic since it is ambiguous. it may refer to the Philippines national language "Filipino."

The problem is, the Philippines has at least 80 languages and many of these languages have their own literatures. Using "Filipino" to describe writers and literatures from the Philippines can be controversial, ambiguous and politically incorrect. Writers in the other Philippine languages may be offended.

What I did was to move what was previously under "Filipino writers" and transfer these names under the category "Writers from the Philippines."

"Writers from the Philippines" is a more appropriate category to embrace all writers from the Philippines -- whether they are writing in that country's various literary languages: English, Filipino, Spanish, Tagalog, Ilocano, Bikol, Kapampangan, Hiligaynon, Cebuano, Kiniray-a and several others. This category does not offend those who are writing in the other Philippine languages.

There is a strong resentment towards "Filipino" language since the language was largely derived from "Tagalog." The Philippine government implemented this as a policy in 1935 during the period of Philippine Commonwealth under the United States. The creation of "Tagalog" as "Pilipino" (and later, as "Filipino") as a national language marginalized the other Philippine languages. many of these other languages in the countryside are now either dying or extinct.

Feel free to ask further questions. I am actually a scholar working on Southeast Asian Cultures and Societies so I am very familiar with the subject.

Many thanks for your concern and kind attention. - 7258 16:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much

Thanks. I am just struggling to learn edit summary. I was a bit confused since I discovered that writers from the Philippines and other items related to Philippine literature are quite disorganized. I am trying to find a way to make coherent and structured categorizations. There's still a lot to learn and I can only thank people like you for being around to help me. I also have very strong convictions against vandalism. I understand your concern. Thanks so much and do keep in touch should there be a need for me to be reminded or instructed further. - 7258 16:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of templates

If you nominate a template for speedy deletion, please use <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags around the {{db}}. Otherwise all pages carrying the template will end up in CAT:CSD. I disagree with speedily deleting the template you nominated, I suggest you go through WP:TFD to have it deleted in the normal non-speedy way. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud van Nistelrooy

My apologies. I removed a redundant list of the clubs he played for. My mistake not to state that in the summary.

WWE Draft

Should'nt Kane be deleted from that list because he was drafted to SD

Loose Change (video)

Fighting vandals is appreciated, but do not use vandalproof for British/American spelling issues. The correct spelling is "center" not "centre" in this instance. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwing // Dick Grayson

Please vote in this Discussion --Neodammerung 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nero

Curious: Why did you move Nero (comics) to Nero (DC Comics)? Chris Griswold 11:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apostrophe

He's left anyway, but I don't need to report him: I'm an admin and I could just block him. I wouldn't, however. 1ne 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mr_Scarlet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mr_Scarlet.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superman

Superman ability to absorb solar energy is based on his Krypontian Hertiage. T-1000 04:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I ask that you keep an eye on the Superman and Superman's power pages, to revert Cystalb4's edits, as it is already proven that Superman has regenerative abilities. T-1000 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution process

Okay, basically, in this edit, [1] you don't really keep within the bounds of our [[WP:CIV|civility policy]. It's not best practise to threaten people, and you shouldn't really ban people from your talk page, it isn't conducive to smoothing a situation out. If you do have a problem with a user, you should seek guidance straight away. Sometimes it is possible to get frustrated when editing Wikipedia, and in those circumstances it is best to try and keep WP:COOL. An approach is to write a response, and instead of posting it, walk away for five minutes and then come back and rewrite it. Frustration is the hardest part about contributing to Wikipedia. Disputes occur frequently, especially in areas where the situation may not seem clear cut to both parties. The best advise is to stop acting, keep a cool head and keep talking. However, if that fails, rather than find yourself in a position where you lose your temper and say something you shouldn't, you should walk away. You should also consider extending a sincere apology when you have lost your temper. An apology does not have to mean you accept you were wrong in your position, only that the way you put that position across was perhaps ill-judged. We do have a dispute resolution process, and if you need help in working through the steps don't hesitate to contact me for help. Your contributions are valuable, but bear in mind all parties in an edit war must be treated equally. Steve block Talk 14:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reverts

I suggest you check consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Categories before reverting my work. Thanks. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because that's the page where discussion takes place and decisions (like this particular one above) are made. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 18:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, I really do because I used to edit following this line. What I didn't think before but I do now as I was convinced about it, is that the most reasonable thing to do is checking one by one in order make decisions. Each case is a case. The line you follow (and I myself used to) creates doubled characters within categories while my work right now focus in eliminating this kind of thing.
One thing we do have in common is that we both work for improving the Project and related articles. Enough of foolishness, this is history. Peace. —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Spectre

I know this might be a moot point given the team categories are up for deletion, but...

The article covers the entirety of the Spectre, not just Hal's period as host. Since it includes the period for Corrigan as host, during which the character was a member of the All-Star Squadron and the JSA, the cats were correctly applied.

As a side note: the continuity of this one creates a small mess. IIUC, up until Gaiman's Books of Magic, the character was nothing more than Corrigan's ghost empowered by on high. For lack of better terms, "The Spectre" was a codename used by the character Jim Corrigan. That changed with Gaiman's story. The Spectre became a character separate to Corrigan, but bound to him. It predated it's host and, with Hal and Crispus, has been shown to exist after the host has moved on.

Any way... the team cats should stick with this article, at least until the cats themselves go. — J Greb 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaman

Before you go splitting characters off into separate articles, please review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). Phrases like "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" are specifically mentioned as terms to avoid. CovenantD 02:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huntress, Robotman, Johnny Quick, etc

I see what you're doing now, splitting them up by character and not just code name, and wholeheartedly agree with this approach. CovenantD 02:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you know what you're doing? Superman doesn't need to be made into more articles. It was fine the way it is. And now I don't like it. Brian Boru is awesome 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm divided about this. I think Hero (alias) is okay, but ... I would have liked if we'd talked about it on a comics-proj page or something first. I'm all for being bold, but this one has massive ramifications for all the hero pages and it's a heck of a lot of work. A consensus, and maybe someone with AWB to help out would have been nice. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This way needs more discussion. We only just discussed this and couldn't come to an agreement. We do have a naming convention which all these moves is violating, so it would be best to discuss the issue before we implement it. Steve block Talk 13:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm just looking at the mechanics of what you have done and it appears you have violated the GFDL, the license under which all work is contributed. When you move information, or split information, you have to leave links from where in the edit summary so contributions can be attributed properly. That's why it's best to discuss ideas best, so people can point up problems and offer solutions. Steve block Talk 13:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve block,
I agree conversation would be advantegeous. I noticed Lesfer has made a series of such moves of which you have not commented on, and I simply did the same. If we are to treat each Flash as different, we should treat each Robin and Superman as different by also providing them their own article. DC Comics lists them separately, why are we different?
You had mentioned two guidelines which I was violating. I'm sorry but I fail to see a precise example of this relating to the free license, I've extracted material to produce adjacent articles but I don't believe I disgarded any contributions from fellow users. However I will review the guidelines in more depth, as they are always beneficial to incorporate into our contributions.
If there have been any violations, please WP:AGF that I was unaware of the precise mechanics involved in these guidelines as it applies to recent edits.
Additionally, you are asking that we handle each article as a separate case, however you have previously sighted the "No Rules" guideline, yet by saying we should treat each article as separate is...in fact...a rule in and of itself. If they are to be handled as exceptions, then why have a comicbook project to lend suggestions across the board?
That said, I agree that more conversation should be involved, and would ask you also invite Lesfer and others who have also follow the same naming convention I have utilized into the dialogue. Thank you for your time.

You've violated the GFDL by cutting and pasting information without providing a link. The requirements of the license mean we have to provide a history of who contributed what. By cutting and pasting information without providing a link in the edit summary you have removed the contributions from their history. I know you did this because you were unaware of how to do it, that doesn't mean I can't point out to you what you have done so that you know better next time. And I can't be everywhere, I hope you will appreciate that. This was brought to my attention, hence my comments. Forgive me if I fail to get into a semantical argument as to what constitutes a rule. And don't forget to sign your comments. Steve block Talk 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the guidance on splitting a page, Wikipedia:Summary style. Note that Whenever you break up a page, please note the split (including the page names between double square brackets) in the edit summary. Steve block Talk 15:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin

Please do not consider this as a part of a "pile-on". : )

Robin (comics) is on my watchlist. I notice that you created Robin (Dick Grayson I).

Several concerns:

1.) Roman numerals are a contrary to naming conventions
2.) There is no indication that this Robin only existed pre-crisis. (And "golden-age" is another term that should be avoided, as far as I know.)

I realise that you're trying to disambiguate between Robins for team membership, but doing this with this character causes several problems anyway:

1.) The Robin of "earth-2" (AKA Robin I, or the golden-age Robin) no longer exists in DC Universe continuity. As such, he was never a member of any DCU teams.
2.) Creating categories based on characters who no longer exist in a current chronology requires citations/sources at the very least, which means that it deserves a list, not a category.
3.) The article is merely a copy of the [[Robin (comics}]] article.

So for the above reasons, I suggest that you {{db-author}} Robin (Dick Grayson I). I'll undo the change to the Robin (comics) article for you.

Please feel free to make a list pre-crisis differences in golden-age teams' make-up. I think that that would be a great article. However, before you do, drop a note on the WikiProject to see if anyone can come up with a good name for it (I can't think of one right now). - jc37 17:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your enthusiasm is wonderful. It's really great to see, but you're making some big changes without knowing what the existing Wikipedia conventions are for these things. One thing you MUST do is become more familiar with Comic articles editorial guidelines. Invoking IAR is not usually appropriate until after you know the rules well enough to understand the logic behind them. You need to follow the guidelines for quite some time before understanding when to deviate from them. And when you want to try something really creative, test it with just one or two articles to get broader feedback before doing it repeatedly. Otherwise, you're sometimes going to generate resentment from the people who see themselves as wasting a lot of time "cleaning up" after you. Believe me, I've been bolder than I should have about a few things and felt embarrassed afterward. Have fun. Direct your efforts for a while in line with how those more familiar with Wikipedia are doing them, and you'll really get in the swing of things. Doczilla 00:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I inadvertently rubbed a couple important comics contributors wrong myself not long ago, also operating on the BE BOLD principle. I didn't cause quite as big a stir as you just caused, but that's just a matter of luck. If I hadn't had the chance to backtrack and undo my own work quickly, it might have been just as big a problem. The incident, which actually only drew a couple of people's attention before it got cleaned up, is part of what set off the most recent batch of our numerous ongoing discussions about overcategorization. I hated a category and went through ripping it up. Some people disagreed in a big way. (I still think "Fictional Americans in DC Comics" is a stupid category, but now I'll just let the process take its time while everybody weighs in on the issues. There's no hurry.) Anyway, I feel for you. You had the best of intentions. Don't worry about it. That said, nice to make your "acquaintance" (such as it is in Wiki-cyberspace). Doczilla 05:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unified discussion

Moved several related discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject comics/Disambiguation discussion. (Feel free to revert if you wish.) - jc37 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dialogue

I know you had good faith, and I can totally get behind the Superman edits (Kal-L etc). That's an even more headache-generating mess than Nightwing. I may have jumped the gun a bit with Dick, and if so I apologize. We went through a big hassle about having him at Dick Grayson and not Nightwing, since Dick is still 'Robin' to a lot of people, and Nightwing used to be Superman (that whole drama's archived if you're in one of those moods where you find yourself reading eeeeverything - maybe that's just me). Anyway, I think you've got a good idea with a lot of the renamings, but lets take it case by case :) Hey, maybe 'Richard Grayson' for E-2 Dick? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Thanks

No problem ;) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 04:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Announcement: It's an administrator!

Netkinetic, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

CfD

Please sign your CfD nomination on those DC group categories. We want to show exactly how many of us think that. Doczilla 07:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Helena Bertinelli

While Helena Bertinelli has fought crime under more than one identity, the page should remain at "Huntress (Helena Bertinelli)". This does not contradict Wikipedia Comics Project policy, as it argues that character articles should be under the characters real names when they've had more than one NOTABLE codenames. Bertinelli's "Batgirl" stint would count as non-notable, as it only lasted a couple of issues, was not sanctioned by Batman, and was always intended as a temporary plot device rather than an actual long-lasting character change (in fact, for most of the time she served under the Batgirl moniker, she was still referred to as "Huntress" in the narrative). Remember that there's also a "go with the most common name" policy. While Barbara Gordon's article's title need to be the same as her real name because users will likely be searching for her using the both the search term "Batgirl" and the search term "Oracle", no one will be searching for Helena Bertinelli using any search term other than "Huntress" (much in the same way no one looking for an article about the Martian Manhunter will be using the search terms "Bronze Wraith" or "William Dyer". If his article is not under "J'onn J'onzz", then Helena's shouldn't be under her real name either). Also, you accidentally created a double redirect when you reverted the article's name back to "Helena Bertinelli (comics)" (a title which doesn't make sense to begin with. Is there a notable real-life Helena Bertinelli we're likely to confuse her with?) --Ace ETP 06:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Avenger

I added a merge from Lee Walter Travis to the Crimson Avenger main article. Would really like your input since you created the article Lee Walter Travis. Thoughts?Brian Boru is awesome 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (Earth-Two)

Why did you change all the Earth-Two Batman info to stuff about Robin/Dick Grayson? [2]--Exvicious 05:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin (Earth-Two)

Just to hit the current raw point: CovenantD has a point, poorly stated or not, the article title shouldn't have been changed.

It could be construed that changing the name is an attempt to muddle to discussion of if the split should stand or not.
Even if the above is not the case, your argument that the Earth-Two Robin took up the name of "Batman" and operated as such for a while needs a citation to support the "character used multiple codnames" justification.

As it stand you did not offer such a justification ,you just moved the article, boldly and blithely while it was the topic of a discussion/debate.

I'm loathed to say this but it feels like an act of bad faith on your part.

— J Greb 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place to state that a character has used multiple codenames is in the article itself and/or in the Infobox. Given the amount of footnoting you put into the article to this point, it would make sense that the E-2 Robin using the name "Batman" would be mention with a citation attached. To my knowledge, he never used anything other than "Robin" in the stories after his creation.
I am aware that there were various "Just Imagine" stories in the 1950s where Robin was postulated to become "Batman II" and Bruce's son was dubbed "Robin II". (As an aside, that is about the only place where I've seen the characters in the story include the roman numerals in their dialogue...). Those stories were, at best, Elseworlds and not part of the character history, E-1, E-2, pre-Crisis(es), or post.
As for "faith", there's a reason why I couched the comment in "weasel words", I quite frankly want to believe that the people that routinely participate in the project are doing so with the best of intentions. I believe that of you, of CovnenantD, and so on. The change of the articles name though, at this point, feels wrong.

Thanks for listening... — J Greb 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had read through the article, but that paragraph struck as a very, very minor point. Going back after the most recent article move it didn't stand out and the alias was left out of the Infobox.
Looking at it again, it seems less substantial than the material used to support including "Batman" as one of the "main" Dick Grayson's aliases. And that isn't all that solid for some quarters.
Maybe a question that should be asked her is "what was the intent?" Both from the POV of the character and the writer. Was it to take up the mantle and carry on in the Batman's stead, or was it just the most convenient way to shock and defeat the Joker? Either way it becomes a quibbling point.

One last thought or two on a related topic. There is being bold and there is being incendiary. Incendiary could be looked at as either editing to deliberately provoke (such as starting or reigniting a revert war) or not thinking about what else is going on with what is being edited. Second, just because an edit is bold doesn't necessarily make it right. Granted, the most civil way for another editor to respond would be to post to the original editor's talk page before being bold him/her self and reverting, but the overall practice is somewhere short of that.

— J Greb 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earth 2 pages

I'm interested in getting these Earth 2 versions of famous DC heroes pages to stick. Pleas contact me if you want help with Earth 2 stuff. My wikipedia comics work is mostly going towards Ultimate X-Men (story arcs) and its AfD related pages, but I think they are a similar type of article. I think we should really document the differences between the different comic continuities. - Peregrine Fisher 08:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin (Earth-Two)

i'm not going to make any changes since you'll probably just revert them all back, but i'm going to point out some things about that article that you reverted [3]:

Dressing like Batman once (according to the article) doesn't really necessitate another alias (that's just my opinion). For example, in Superman/Batman #5 they trade costumes with Captain Marvel and Hawkman. But neither is listed as an aliases.
- Even if it did, you don't put two names in the super hero box. His last identity was "Robin" so i would put "Batman" under aliases.
"Genius-level, master detective" etc is a word for word description of Batman's powers. I think the mainstream Dick Grayson's powers apply here. It's all a matter of opinion, but if you think he's a genius your opinion is as valid as mine.
The way the first appearance is listed the way i put it because of Bart Allen, Superman, Batman has it that way.
alliance: Gotham Police. If I'm wrong about this one, I found nothing in the article about him being connected to GCPD, unless you count that he's helps them. That doesn't make the modern Batman aligned with GCPD. Did he become an officer or something? because i am unaware.
also, according to the intro Robin retired and died. When did that happen? He was pretty old in COIE, but i don't remember him retiring.

And try to get a picture of the SWANK Robin/Batman hybrid costume. --Exvicious 07:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2¢... if not more.

The listing of the Earth-Two Robin as a member of the GSPD: What you put forward is OR and very close to editor-POV. If there is no source other than speculation, the information should be gone.

Earth-Two Robin as Earth-Two Batman: Based on your statement it is your opinion that this is the case. Find a reputable secondary source before presenting it as verifiable and using it as a justification of actions. — J Greb 01:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that there should be a link, I just don't think it should be a lead off. For example, the Lex Luthor Earth-One page. There's no intro, like most pages. (ie. Lex Luthor is a fictional supervillain...). There should probably be a section mentioning what Earth-One is and from there you can link the main Lex Luthor article. --Exvicious (talk • contribs) @ 16:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL

I posted this a while ago, but it seems to have become relevant again:

I'm just looking at the mechanics of what you have done and it appears you have violated the GFDL, the license under which all work is contributed. When you move information, or split information, you have to leave links from where in the edit summary so contributions can be attributed properly. That's why it's best to discuss ideas best, so people can point up problems and offer solutions. Steve block Talk 13:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please respect the copyright license under which we all work, and please respect consensus. Many people have voiced their opinion that such splits are a bad idea, and I would ask you recognise that consensus. Steve block Talk 12:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you split information from another article you must note it in the edit history. Have you cut and pasted information from one article into another? As to discussing Batman (Earth-Two), I'm sorry but the existence of an article there has no bearing on the existence of Robin (Earth-Two. There are issues of sourcing and undue weight to be taken into account and how best to present this information. What works best in one case does not affect another. As to the the merge discussion, it is quite close, and so we would revert to the former consensus, which was to not do such splits. If the prior consensus has not changed, it must still exist. I would also note the article Robin (Earth-Two provides no sources outside of primary source material. Articles should not generally be built in such a fashion, in line with our policy on verifiability. These articles are certainly contentious, which I hope you can agree on even if we agree on nothing else, and I would hope you would respect that fact by refraining from creating anymore such articles until some sort of consensus regarding the issue is built or is re-established. I would note the discussion at the comics project is leaning towards merging this stuff. Steve block Talk 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Those aren't what I call reliable sources, to be perfectly blunt. I'd also note you haven't answered the issue regarding whether you cut and pasted information from one article into another? As to consensus, it stands to reason if there is no change to an existing consensus, that consensus still remains. If a house exists, and there is no agreement on knocking it down, it still exists. If an agreement is made, and there is no agreement on tearing it up, it still exists. As to double standards, I think you may be taking all this a little too personally. It's really a blind alley of an argument. If there is consensus to allow one article but not another, then that consensus must be respected, no matter how much it offends us. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and if we fail to appreciate that it can disrupt the encyclopedia. I'm sorry you feel these articles are being let down by editor's decisions, but please remember you do not own these articles. To my mind, I think your case would be better served by making the Robin (comics) article the best it could be, and working back from there. The comics articles are severely under-represented at featured article level, in fact I'm fighting as it stands to save Superman. Maybe your energies would be better served building more articles up to such a status. Steve block Talk 20:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I reserve the perrogative to exercise WP:IAR in lieu of only generalities over the quality of this article being in dispute. Stating that it is not "reliable sources" in not only blunt, but subjective. Netkinetic/T/C/@ 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Feel free to ignore all rules. All I ask is that you continue to engage in discussion and help to build a consensus and respect that consensus. We have a dispute resolution process, and I would hate to see this case end up in arbitration. It is completely unnecessary. At the minute there is a suggestion to merge the articles to an Earth two article, which is a compromise well worth exploring. As to reliable sources, I lean on the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability. We don't typically apply Ignore all rules to the verifiability policy. Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 12:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article rating

I suggest you stop changing the rating for article until you've actually read the guidelins.

They are supposed to be over all ratings, not based on importance to a particular company, book, or plot-point. — J Greb 17:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And most of these characters are trival in the overall scheme of comics. At best, with te ones you started with, Jade and Phantom Lady can be argued as of mid-level importance. Jade due to the linkage to an arguably Hige article (Green Lantern, not currently rated) and Phantom Lady due to the complexities of the character's publication history.

The rest, in the JSA or not, from Earth-Two or not, currently used or not, are not the overly important. — J Greb 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]