User talk:Phoenix741/Archive 2

Request for Comment

There's been a Request for Comment initiated at Talk:John Buscema#Request for Comment: NPOV and images, concerning a dispute over alleged violations and which includes links to two versions of an article, for comparison.

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics, and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You speak sense, kemo sabe. I like your clear-cut, no-nonsense approach. Sometimes some of our colleagues can be frustrating. Other times, I learn so much about process from levelheaded editors like you. Thank you so much for your plain-spoken common sense. --Tenebrae 04:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

That's flattering beyond words, to hear this from two peers and excellent editors. I'm not sure I have the temperament or the time — it's been weeks since I've been able to write an article, just from the upkeep of my watchlist. But I'm honored by your suggestion, as corny as I might sound. Maybe that would the be logical progression.... With great respect, --Tenebrae 19:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

sorry for my lengthy absence I saw your message on my user page and I was touched. Thank you, hope we can work to together on projects in the future. Pls reply Trish86 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New box

Well, there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board and Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. And I offer these even though my feeling is ... He ain't freakin' dead! :- ) Cheers, buddy. And nice little graphic, BTW -- Tenebrae 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I gotta tell ya, the way the Captain America article is right now (at least at this particular moment!) seems pretty good: States things in a straightforward fashion while taking the particular conventions of comic-book deaths into account. I'm feeling pretty proud of my colleagues and myself -- at least, as I said, at this particular moment! --Tenebrae 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

List of Marvel Comics endearments has been nominated — unfortunately, I believe — for deletion. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article and adding a comment, pro or con, at its "Articles for Deletion" discussion, then the article can at least be assured of a fair and knowledgeable hearing by editors familiar with the context. Thanks --Tenebrae 05:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I did a small tweak on your Green Ranger userbox -- seems there was an unnecessary </div> tag in there that didn't belong. I didn't catch it myself until I was rearranging my userboxes and everything started falling apart. You may want to check the other boxes. Take care! JPG-GR 01:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

There's been a Request for Comment initiated at Talk:Whizzer#Request for comment over style and content issues between two versions of Whizzer, one by Tenebrae, the other by Asgardian.

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Belasco.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Belasco.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Avengers

I see what you are saying now, it was the typo that was making the statement confusing. Thanks for the cleared up explanation.

Marvel Zombies

Hello,

You just deleted my fanpage at Marvel Zombies. I would just like to know why my fanpage is deleted and not the other one of BotchTheCrab...??? Please use the TALK-page of MarvelZombies to explain. --boomvavavoom 09:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say thanks

I've been keeping off Wiki for awhile, and I probably will again for awhile, but I read the kind things you wrote at the RfA, and I just wanted to say, "Thanks, man." It means a lot, what you in particular, User:Doczilla and User:Bloodpack posted. This was a surprisingly rough experience. Speak to you again down the road. And please accept a virtual handshake across the ether. Wishing you all good things, --Tenebrae 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:X-Men2006withoutdeadpool.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:X-Men2006withoutdeadpool.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. ShakespeareFan00 12:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:X-Men2006withoutdeadpool.JPG

I have tagged Image:X-Men2006withoutdeadpool.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 13:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:NA Elektra.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NA Elektra.jpg. 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elektra

The reason why I think the other image is better is because it shows more of the scene and gives more context. --DrBat 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see it better when you click on the image. --DrBat 22:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep the other image in the skrull article, at least?--DrBat 23:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:NA Elektra.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:NA Elektra.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 23:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I know people arn't probley going to read this, seeing as it is my chat page, but what ever. The people who say that there is no rational for uploading comic images are fucking dumbasses. It was in a comic book, that licensing tag said it was part of a comic book, all comic images seem to work, so if you all read it, you would see that I don't need rational because it was in a comic. Sry, i just had to say this cause it is really pissing me off Phoenix741 00:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope sorry you are wrong, copyright policies force us to have detailed fair use rationale for each use, as it is stated at the bottom of the template: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information. Please go through our fair use rationale guidelines for more information. I am putting the missing rationale tags back, please do not remove them without a valid rationale. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care if I am wrong. This is how I feel about the issue.Phoenix741 22:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ecover12.gif

I have tagged Image:Ecover12.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please see abovePhoenix741 20:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ecover12.gif

I have tagged Image:Ecover12.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your Image Tagging

Hi I just wanted to let you know that the tagging you are doing is really messing up the picture size.

Examples of your work can be seen, at Wolverine (comics) and The Sensational Spider-Man (vol. 2).

Could you please fix this so if you do tag and image it does not make the whole page look bad, thanks.Phoenix741 20:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: I have fixed the problem my self so you will need to go through the history to find it.

In response, don't rant at me, rant at TWINKLE's authours, because thats how the tagging was done. I'd like to know why it broke images in the articles as well. ShakespeareFan00 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up the relevant articles, Sorry TWINKLE made a mess, will be having word with it's developers at some point, by the way to resolve the 'no-rationale' issue, you could try writing some :) ShakespeareFan00 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Phoenix

Honest-to-goodness, they just showed up on my talk page. I probably should be equally generous and offer them to editors whose work I admire and respect, but it's a Catch-22 — there are so many, I wouldn't want to leave one out, yet if I place a dozen or more around, does that devalue them? I've been feeling guilty about receiving them and not reciprocating; I should probably read up on whatever, if any, Wikipedia guidelines exist — and thanks for the nudge, seriously. --Tenebrae 23:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!! Thanks!! --Tenebrae 00:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the noodge. I did read up — thanks for the links — and now I just have to create a game plan so as to do right by my fellow WPC eds. I probably should also wait till after this Asgardian-related RfC ends, so as not be seen like trying to tilt opinion to my side. --Tenebrae 03:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MarvelShield.jpg

I have tagged Image:MarvelShield.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Bigr Tex 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Danvers2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Danvers2.jpg. 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:New thor.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:New thor.jpg. 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:PrydeSHIELD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PrydeSHIELD.jpg. 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:UltimateRoss.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:UltimateRoss.jpg. 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).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been blocked due to excessive reverting. Even though it appears as though you have not been warned, you have been a Wikipedian for almost a year and, therefore, should be aware of the WP:3RR. Your block will expire in 24 hours, please use the talk page to find consensus and abstain from edit warring upon your return. Signature ^brendel 07:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even see what was going on, I was reverting Vandalism. If you even cared to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics you could of seen that what was being changed was pure speculation with out any prof and other people agreed with me, and now because I removed it and tried to get the article looking better I get blocked, i'm sorry but this is complete and utter bullshit. Like I said wikipedia policy at its finest 8-/Phoenix741 11:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I see what was going on? Yes, an edit war. I did not see any obvious vandalism in the page history. Another user involved on the page requested full-protection in order to for the edit war to stop. Doing so was my first prority; thus, I blocked you and the other user involved. If someone is repeatetly vandalising an article you need to report that user to an admin so he or she can be blocked - I doubt this would have happen since there wasn't any obvious vandalism. Signature ^brendel 18:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation taken from Signature ^brendel Talk Page

I have to ask this, and mind you I could of just used another IP to ask before my block is over, but far be it from me to defy the all mighty admins 8-/. Anyway, here is the question, did you even look at the situation at all, did you even see what I was reverting, did you even see that other people at WikiProject Comics agreed that it was vandalism or did you just blindly block me cause of what you saw on the recent changes. Now please do not give me any BS reason or rules cause honestly I only follow one rule, just anserwer the question, either Yes I looked at the situation, or no I just blindly followed the rules. Thanks.Phoenix741 11:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is repeatetly vandalising an article you need to report that user to an admin so he or she can be blocked

And what leave that stuff that does not belong on wikipedia on there. After the 3rd revert I put something on his talk page and took off the info. Also, the wikiproject agreed that it was all theory and that it should of been removed, one even said that it was a form of vandalism because of the frequency that it kept poping up. There was no source, it was all theory, and I knew that. Your right I have been on here for at least a year, and besides this little incident, I have done nothing wrong, therefore don't you think I know what does belong on wikipedia, and what doesn't. Or are you so blinded by the rules that you just follow them with out looking at the situation.Phoenix741 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an entire Wikipedia project was behind you, why did you ask for administrative assitance. Why were only two users, you being one of them, engage in an edit war. I am impuing your skills as an editor, but you shouldn't have engaged in an edit war. Instead you should have contacted the other person, and/or reported him or her - and yes sometimes that means leaving their edits in place, so long as they are not obvious vandalism. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got 2 things to say.

1) what does Impuing mean (looked it up and I got nothing), cause I want to know if that was a compliment or not.

2) sry I can't do that, I will explain why I took something off(eve if it is obvious like oringial research or just plain theories)and I will talk to the person, but I will not let it stay up, and here is why, if someone was looking at the article while it is being discussed then that person will get the wrong idea about the character/team/event/whatever and the article. and that is something I will not allow, admin's rules or not.Phoenix741 22:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a typo, it should be "Impune" - it's missing an n
That's is why should have contacted admins to take action, instead of violating the 3RR ourself. That's what we're here for. Why didn't you contact us on one of the noticeboards. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I have noticed about this kinda stuff that if you get into the policy and shit, this whole wikipedia just well plain sucks. I wana keep the fun factor up, and honestly, admins and fun, do not go togeather, and please don't refer me the the "fun" section of wikipedia, cause well I saw it, and it is lame 8-/. Anyway, I did ask for help around the 4th edit(honestly I think the 3rr is also BS) and we talked about it and everything, and it looked like everything was good. Then(and no offence) you come and block people, kinda late weren't you. That is also why I did not contact admins, not real good responce time. which goes back to my whole, don't want people to see the stuff that is obviously not good for the article.Phoenix741 22:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what can I say. There are policies on Wiki and I'm sorry if you think that they're not any fun (They're not designed to be either). Yes, sometimes it takes a short while for admins to respond (there are only about a thousand of us on the entire EN WP). But if you decide not to contact us, not to make WP policy your ally and violate the 3RR, don't blame me for doing my job as an admin. Regards, Signature ^brendel 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I see why rules are there, don't get me wrong, all I am sayiing is that people who just follow the letter of the law and don't look at just the situation at whole, well take out whats fun out of wikipedia. And like I said before I only follow one rule on here and that is this one, I know it may see rebellious and what not, but well I see it as the only way for wikipedia to work. So I guess that is that, c ya Phoenix741 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]