User talk:Spidey104/2011 Archive

FCB

WQuite all right. Though CBCH has been there a few months, FCB has been the standard term at the MOS for much longer. while I might agree with our fellow veteran editor User:WesleyDodds on this, there's certainly no harm in leaving FCB while we all work through the discussion.

It was thoughtful of you to alert me on my page, and I thank you for the kind words — I've certainly enjoyed collaborating with you as well. I think the work we contributed to the "Fictional history of..." deletions are having important, positive repercussions on the quality of WikiProejct Comics. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for the heads up. I posted a comment. I'll keep checking back to see if there is a need to comment again. Kurt Parker (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphan article - The Dragonslayer's Apprentice

Thank you for that input. I had misinterpreted the Orphan tag, and, though adding useful links within the article is still good, I will be sure to link to The Dragonslayer's Apprentice in the future to make it not an orphan. Thank you for correcting me. Layona1 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Spider-Man

Just to avoid controversy, I am going to remove the publications portion of the template just to avoid redundancy. I thought I should notify you of what I was going to do out of caution. It's all out of good faith. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion

Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough on the subject to provide a useful comment for or against deletion of this article. Also, be careful to avoid canvassing. Spidey104 14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the warning

I am not an administrator meaning I don't have the power to block Brian Boru is (not) awesome, nor can I protect your templates page. If he attacks again request protection at WP:RPP. Also, I issued a Level 4im warning, which should have stopped his gallop, but he is one of those vandals that ignores warnings no matter how harsh. Sorry about that.--^{The Master} _{of Mayhem} 20:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Spider-Man film

I don't want to be a bother but you need to read this. If the article X is ambiguous having a X (disambiguation) it needs a hatnote but if it is X (2012 film) it's not ambiguous and therefore a hatnote does not qualify. Just thought I will let you know something you didn't seem to know. Keep up the good work at edting. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Daily Bugle

I would like to invite you to look at my comment on the Daily Bugle talk page in regards to the Front Line article, since I feel due to it's removal from the comics is a subject that needs to be brought up and I know I can trust you. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Publication histories for long-running characters

I think every character who has been appearing at least semi-regularly in comics for, let's say, over a decade should have a Publication history section, which should be encouraged to grow. Removing it leads people to believe it isn't necessary. The lead should contain and summarize information which appears elsewhere in the article, so yes, it is supposed to be repetitive. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Having an incomplete "Publication history" section with the {Expand} tag makes it look like there isn't enough information to have a complete "Publication history" section and therefore makes the character seem unimportant for having a severely lacking history. Also, there has been discussion of deleting the {Expand} tag because it almost always sits there forever and never expands. YOU should expand the section if you feel it should belong, otherwise let the articles lay as they are. Spidey104 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's your preference, I won't revert you. It's not up to me or anyone specific to fill the sections in, because this is a collaborative project. There is a strong feeling on the WP:COMICS project (not everyone agrees) that the Fictional character biography section should be minimized or removed altogether, so that character articles focus mostly on Publication history sections, and that characters which cannot sustain a good sized PH should not have separate articles. See Punisher, Daredevil (Marvel Comics), Hulk (comics), and Doctor Strange for examples of articles where the FCB has been seriously minimized or removed altogether in favor of an extended PH section, and vigorously defended against having the FCB section restored or expanded. I realize that articles such as Banshee and Polaris are hardly ready to be at that point yet, but this seems to be the direction where the character articles are (slowly) moving. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The thought that it is a collaborative project and you don't have to be the one to expand the section is why those sections are never expanded. Everyone feels it is someone else's responsibility, so no one does it. "Just do it!" and make the expansion yourself; I won't remove the section if you expand it to a full paragraph. Right now as a single sentence it is pointless.

I realize there is that push to make PH dominate over FCB, but as you said yourself there are many articles (probably most) that are not to the stage where that can happen. But you also have to remember that opinions in Wikipedia ebb and flow. For example: a few years ago many editors on WP:COMICS were pushing to merge all minor/small villain articles into list articles and now there tends to be the opinion in many of the same editors on WP:COMICS that list articles should be broken up into full/real articles if possible. Spidey104 14:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; when I have a moment today, I will add at least a full paragraph for each of them. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good!! Spidey104 20:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rogue (comics)

sorry, the new article hadn't been explicited, I just tried to preserve the article. 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)theweirdalien

A new start

Sure. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

One link

Sorry for the "yelling". I usually check for double links but using multiple tabs to edit may seem a double link when it's just me copying it inside another section before deleting it. By the way about the article, do you think a section about the historical logs might be useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco1980 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Ok i will add the section tomorrow. Keep up the good work, night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco1980 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Since the main WikiProject Comics Noticeboard has not been significantly updated since 2009, and since the 2011 merger/move noticeboard is seldom used, I'm asking a few Project members to spread the word that this page exists and that there is a current merge proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice board/Requested moves/2011. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Third Summers brother for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Third Summers brother is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Summers brother until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I found your sandbox. I hope you don't mind that I have edited it and invited Crazy runner to edit there as well. Kurt Parker (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you. Kurt Parker (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is safe, for now. You should still find that Wizard article and add it to the page when you get back. Kurt Parker (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I see you're back (and yes, I will try to help with the "Big Time" article), are you going to add the Wizard article in soon? Kurt Parker (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have had the same idea of Family members for minor characters of the Grey Family. Someone objected to the project that it is necessary to have a source that put together all the members. So I think that it will be a problem if you want to create a Summers Family article, I prefer to see Third Summers Brother merge and redirect into a section of Vulcan, narrow down a little the information, if another developpement happen or a source is find, we can come back to the article. Vulcan is the actual answer to an old plot, other characters were planned to be the answer, are linked into alternate universe, ... --Crazy runner (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a good point. And I honestly don't have the time right now to find reliable sources that would link them together, so a merge would be easier. I had opposed the merges earlier, but that was before the article almost got deleted. I would now support a merge instead of deletion. Spidey104 14:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Spidey104, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Spidey104/Summers. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

update on Spidey's plot

Hey if you notice any updating or know of any story's after the "One More Day" storyline would you mind citing them if they appear on the article Spider-Man because I know some users won't put that on there. Commentary interviews are even better if there is artices for those that we can cite. I am hoping for A-class and maybe FA class someday for the article. Fingers crossed for that one. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That can be added. I just don't want any part of the plot to be uncited. I would welcome any additions on what's going on with Spider-Man as long as they are cited on the article to be consistant for a A class or FA class. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Do you want User talk:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox to be deleted as well? —DoRD (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of bibliography sections

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (comics) both have guides for Bibliography sections, which wouldn't exist if they didn't belong. A discussion between an editor and an IP is not a consensus to remove bibliography sections, do you have a link to a consensus discussion about this? - SudoGhost™ 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As a note, I reverted my edit to Terror Inc., as the two links above apply to articles about characters, not articles about comics themselves, which is a distinction I tend to forget. However, Young Allies (Marvel Comics) is about the characters, not the comic itself, so I believe Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars applies to this article. The articles about comics themselves, I agree that bibliographies have no place in those articles. - SudoGhost™ 15:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted an old template to the edit summary. I apologize. Take a look at the current discussion. Spidey104 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Predator screenshot

Found it on a fansite along with other scenes from the film a few months ago. Mariomassone (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Table for Without You

I recently initiated a discussion about the song table you added to the disambiguation page Without You; the discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Dab page table. My general opinion is that such tables could be useful for these longer lists, but I wanted to get some other opinions and establish a consensus before using tables on other dab pages. Please join in with your thoughts. Regards--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I need your opinion

Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Result of your edit-warring complaint

Please see the result of Wikipedia:EWN#User:Darkwarriorblake reported by User:Spidey104 (Result: No action). Try to find a compromise or find a way to bring in outsiders to give their opinions. WP:Third opinion is a possibility, or you could get User:MikeAllen to break the tie. A continued 2-person war over the references might lead to both parties being blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sig

Would you care if I stole it, please? --Spidey665, 00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Spidey665 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"If every single episode of The Simpsons can have an article, why are the articles for CSI episodes considered non-notable?" An answer.

Because, all CSI episode articles have virutally nothing but plot, sometimes not even one to summarise the whole episode. There is also virtually no production or reception detail (which is where the notability comes in). Every episode of The Simpsons however, has at least some degree of notability (production and reception, and cultural references detail). That is why the CSI episodes were merged, twice by two different editors. -- Matthew RD 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, you need to read WP:NOTABILITY more carefully. -- Matthew RD 16:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Those editors also need to learn how to discuss changes. Without discussion there is no support for their changes. I am also not the only editor to revert the redirect changes. Spidey104 16:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JDDJS (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Stating something is not notable does not make it so. Support your claims. Spidey104 18:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. You don't need prove that something is not notable. You do need prove to show that it is. JDDJS (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it does work like that, otherwise editors who don't like a particular subject would claim it is not notable to have it removed. Spidey104 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And then other editors would simply prove that it is notable. You don't understand how notability on Wikipedia works. If you add references and out of universe information to the articles, I won't redirect them. JDDJS (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand how notability works. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument and the flaws in Wikipedia's notability standards.

Give me a chance to add the references. Spidey104 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what sandboxes are for. But just adding references isn't enough. You need out of universe information too. JDDJS (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to be on Wikipedia for at least an hour, maybe longer. If when I comeback, the episodes have a decent amount referenced out of universe information, then I won't redirect them again. (unless I decide to start an AFD, which is very unlikely). JDDJS (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. One hour isn't enough time, especially since I'll also be off of Wikipedia very soon as well. When I asked for you to give me a chance I figured you'd give the typical month that is allowed when an AFD closes with the decision to temporarily stay deletion to give editors a chance to improve the article. Spidey104 19:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not joking. I'm not asking for you to make a B-Class article. Even you feel you need a month, then you should use a sandbox because I can't redirect those even if I wanted to do (which I don't). JDDJS (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The episodes are probably notable. Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television if want. So, if you're redirecting because they are not notable, then you should stop. If you don't care if they're notable, and want to redirect articles because they are not currently shown to be notable, then continue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the second reason. Most prime time shows could have article for every episode, if editors cared enough to find references to make complete production and reception sections. However, if editors don't care enough to do that, there is no reason to make a crappy article that only has plot (which in this case, usually isn't even complete) and unreferenced information. JDDJS (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just checking. I think our policies and guidelines say leave it if you could be a good article, but you're certainly not alone in how you feel. The amount of effort that all the Simpsons GAs took is no longer possible with the decline in editorship, so unless something crazy happens, I doubt the thousands of man hours needed to improve the CSI articles will ever happen. WP will probably go defunct first. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked for more than an hour because there was a 48 hour gap between my edits. I brought up one month because that is the typical time allotted when an AfD decides to give editors time to improve the article and then to delete it after that month if the improvements are not satisfactory.

Thank you, Peregrine Fisher, for showing me the proper argument to defend my position. I have now joined the Television WikiProject (something I should have done a long time ago) and will be making an effort to improve articles along their guidelines towards better articles. JDDJS, please no more reverts. Peregrine Fisher has shown that you are wrong, so please let us work together to improve Wikipedia. Spidey104 19:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher never said you were right. I asked him to clarify his opinion and he simply said that it's a personal preference and that he doesn't feel that either of us are "right". JDDJS (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Tobias Ragg

I see that you redirected Tobias Ragg. You might also want to redirect Johanna (character), Adolfo Pirelli and Lucy Barker. JDDJS (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No need anymore. I made my point and we've come to a reasonable agreement. Tobias has been fixed, too. Spidey104 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You should read WP:POINT. JDDJS (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

And you should read WP:NOTPOINTY. If it was disruptive it would have been reverted, but never was. Spidey104 13:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being such an ass. I greatly appreciate it. It helps me to understand the true lows that you will stoop to. Spidey104 19:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Editors there agree with me. Most editors agree with what I'm doing. Only one agrees with you. You are the one editing against consensus. So don't claim it's notable per a Wikiproject. especially when they claim it's not. JDDJS (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And by the way I'm trying to "stoop" you at all. I am trying to stop you, and consensus is on my side. And you might want consider reading WP:PA before calling me an ass again, unless of course you don't mind being blocked. JDDJS (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure if you're joking or not when you say "I'm trying to "stoop" you at all." If you were being serious then it means that you don't understand what I meant, so I will assume you were joking so as not to insult your intelligence.

As for the personal attacks I have to congratulate you on pulling off one very superbly. Yours was only implication and therefore not something that can really be punished. I responded with a blatant personal attack which can be punished. Point to you for having the better personal attack.

I don't currently have the time to keep fighting this on a grand scale with you because I have a life and those two days of massive edits were aberrations rather than normal levels of activity. I will remind you that in the discussion above Peregrine Fisher pointed out that I was justified in my edits. It is a personal preference, so why is it a problem to let the articles stand while myself, and hopefully others, work to improve them? There are other editors besides myself who have tried to revert the redirection of the articles. Spidey104 17:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a problem because the odds are they won't be improved. I've been there before. Editors are quick to say that the pages will be improved, but then they do. Besides, the CSI project is inactive, and you can only work on one article at a time, and in the mean time they'll all be crap articles. And only one other editor complained about the redirects, and he was complaining more about the way I did it rather than the actual redirecting. Like I said before, improve them in your sandbox first. When you get enough out of universe information (mainly production reception) that they can at least be C-class articles, I promise I won't redirect them. JDDJS (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been there before as well, and the article was improved. The article was a pointless spin-off from the main Spider-Man article that was improved after the AfD discussion and eventually merged back into the main article because it had been trimmed down to a reasonable size and made into a quality section. However, I understand your side of the argument. I still disagree with you on leaving them as redirects, but I don't have the time or energy to fight you on that. I can agree to the one-at-a-time approach you have suggested. I'll let you know when I have some improved to see if they meet quality standards. Spidey104 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Voltaire attribution

Hello, Spidey104. You have new messages at talk:Uncle Ben.
Message added Grim²³★ 19:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Delete or Merge

I was thinking that since Dexter Bennett was not that much of a supporting character to the Spider-Man series and his page is so small, I think it would be better to put his vital information in a small summary on the List of Spider-Man supporting characters and just delete the page since he is no longer part of the Spider-Man series and nothing new will happen to that page. The same is also true for the Michele Gonzales page since there is already a summary for her on the love interests on the supporting characters page and she has not had that much impact with the plot and is pretty much gone from the series as well. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am against deleting the articles. I'm currently ambivalent about merging the articles. If you really think they should be merged you should check out the Wikipedia:Merging and Help:Merging pages to see what you need to do to get a discussion going first. There will probably be problems if you merge the articles without discussion. You may get 100% support for the merge, but both articles are big enough that a discussion would be necessary. However, I'm fine leaving them as is for right now; both characters could come back in the future. Spidey 104 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for adding the link to the disambiguation page to the top of Wolverine and the X-Men (comic). I wanted to do that, but I didn't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanwhofan (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Vulture (comics)

what do you mean with "that was not appropriate for that IP address to revert your edits to Vulture (comics) because they were sloppy"? explain me that

"but it also was not appropriate to put in that hidden note. Is there a particular reason you didn't just clean up the edit yourself? Are you a non-native english speaker?" of course I am a non-native english speaker, my user name is in spanish, that ain′t give you any clue? but howerver that is not the reason be cause I put that hidden note, I put it there be cause everytime I say somethig about the vulture′s returns some moron erase it, so I use that hiden note to tell him or her that what I was saying was right. That it actually happen on the last issue and there was no reason to think that I was lying and if the reason to edit my edit was be cause I have made a mistake, well he just had to fix it, not erase it

"And for future reference, it is "Spider-Man" and not "Spiderman." what diference thats makes? is the same name, you dont see in the comic book they say "spider-man" they say "spiderman" but it′s OK, I′ll put it hat way the next time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araña-Lobo (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"what diference thats makes?" Are you kidding? "Spiderman" is wrong. "Spider-Man" is correct. They do NOT use "Spiderman" in any comic book published by Marvel Comics.

well actualy I've seen several comics were they spell it that way, of course I also migth have vision issues (yeah right) and by the way I din't really get wha the editors said about been "sloppy" I think that what I said was right and gives all the info you could need about the vultures's return — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.64.175 (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Araña-Lobo, you must have vision issues, because they do NOT use "Spiderman" in any comic book published by Marvel Comics. Maybe you saw it in a DC Comics or Image Comics or some other publisher referring to him or something, but unless you can provide a concrete and specific issue other than "I swear I saw it somewhere" you're just being difficult for no real reason.

But that's all beside the point of why I left that original message for you. I fixed your edit and I did not remove it. I posted to your talk page to provide constructive criticism to help you in the future. The other editor said your edit was sloppy because it wasn't written perfectly. It had errors in spelling and grammar, but they should not have removed it because of that. I'm sorry if I offended you. I was trying to be helpful to a new (based on your edit history) editor. Spidey 104 15:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

All right if you din't erase what I said, well I have no reason to be mad at you, so I gues we can be friends — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araña-Lobo (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Characters of Glee

You are not the first person to have moved this page in this way, and it always has to be moved back.

There are plenty of character pages in the "Characters of" form, and it is appropriate in this case, especially as the page is not merely a list (as in Bones) but has additional information as well, such as casting, future characters, and the like. Before you move any more such pages, you might want to check with the task force working on them for the reason they chose that particular form of the name: they, like the Glee task force, may well have valid reasons. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a list article and the name should be changed.. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I still think it's wrong as "Characters of" instead of "List of." Spidey 104 16:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)