User talk:J Greb/Archive Jun 2010

Soliciting your input

Hi, J. Hope you're well. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That same old feeling

So following on from previous discussion, the newer user starts John Steele (comics), who was revamped in The Marvels Project, an article started by Marcus Brute. They have also been using HotCat a lot, although they aren't yet hammering in overly specific categories.[1] Anyway nothing urgent needs doing just wanted to keep an eye on developments. (Emperor (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

Splitting off bibliographies with no link back to the article it was split from (or vice versa) [2]. Plus more HatCatting. (Emperor (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

Technically they did cross link in the Waid case - First use of the name in the biblio and {{main}} in the main article. But they damn well need to start using edit summaries.

And there are also the navboxes now...

(sigh)

- J Greb (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And left him a note... - J Greb (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And SPIed along with Wikikaye - J Greb (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And it turned up another sockpuppet who had been waiting in the background to be reactivated when BtU was clamped down on (they reverted you on Thanos I notice). (Emperor (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Have a look at this, moving articles, redirecting, using HotCat to add categories, all from an account springin up as the previous one closes. (Emperor (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC))

Looks like a duck... SPI or block as a duck? (Note that Wikikaye is railing against the duck block sans CU... though multipli Admins have declined his "requests" to be unblocked.) - J Greb (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is safe to block as a duck with that one. I was surprised when Wikikaye popped up as a possible sock because they didn't pop up on my radar on tick all the boxes for being a Marcus Brute sock - no terrible redirects which need deleting, no HotCat, no moving stuff around, no hammering out navbox and articles, etc. They don't seem very friendly but then I might be a bit miffed too if I'd been hit by a ducking. (Emperor (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Oh and revisiting old articles from previous socks [3]. (Emperor (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Help/input with X-Men template

Hi, I've been editing around the X-Men template for quite some time now, and I saw what you did to help with the inclusion of all the various Brotherhood of Mutants members so we can get around not having to list them all separately, but still include them when you see the template on their various character pages. Recently, there's been a lot of talk of including characters with some of the secondary/ancillary teams, especially the recent incarnations of New Mutants and X-Force. I'm working on putting up a new section for the secondary teams, and I was wondering if you would be able to do something similar for some of those teams, notably New Mutants and X-Force, and maybe even Excalibur, X-Club and X-Factor, or if you could give me instructions on how do to it myself since you seem to have your hands full. Thank you. 68.49.68.231 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

X-Men First Class

So, what is the issue with adding it to the infobox? Looking at Wikipedia: Crystal Ball, it appears to be acceptable.

• Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
  • X-Men: First Class is notable since its the planned fifth installment of the X-Men franchise and it is certain to take place. A director has been hired, a release date has been confirmed, casting is currently taking place, crew members have been hired, and filming will take place in September.

• If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
  • Preparation for the movie is well-underway and the article for the movie is well-referenced.

So, why is it unacceptable to add the film to the infobox?-5- (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The concerns are:

• How WP:FILM deals with CB - The film is at the development stage, which seems fin for an article of its own. That doesn't make it fair game for in other areas.
• There is no guarantee that it will follow as part of the X-Men franchise and not be a reboot. Looking at the infobox parameter, it's geared to films set in a single continuity only, that is something that can only be guessed at until later in the development of the film. Or its release.
• The film is very likely to happen, yes. But it can still be derailed, even after filming starts. Again, looking at the parameter, the intent is to deal with existing, released material. Not what was once intended, what could have been, or what may be.
• This is a discussion for the article's talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also on that note: You are at WP:3RR - Work on it on the talk page before you reinsert. Period. - J Greb (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:10th Doctor companions.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:10th Doctor companions.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Morphing Rutan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Morphing Rutan.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Midnight Sons Template

Why do you keep changing the Midnight Sons template? The team has evolved over time and I'm a huge fan and know all the characters and storylines like the back of my hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfoldes (talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Zadkiel

Just thought I'd flag this - it is late and I'm going to have to do further checks later, but the content of Zadkiel (comics) seems to be a straight lift from the Marvel Universe entry [4]. The same editor has started other similar articles and they'd need checking. If it is is 100% copy violation and no one can come up with reasons they are notable then the articles will be awfully skimpy. (Emperor (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

I wasn't actually done with the article, but I have since made proper changes. I'm still updating the others.Jrfoldes (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A small suggestion on working that way - lifting in toto from another wiki and tweaking/improving - is to create a sandbox off of yout user page (such as User:Jrfoldes/Working space or Sandbox or Articl start from X-wiki) with a copy. State clearly where you pulled it from - the GFDL requires that - in the edit summary. Work on cleaning it up. Once you have it to rought Wikipedia standards, move it to the actual article title and add images - non-free image can only be linked for use in actual article space. - J Greb (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

One day I will get with the program. I'm getting there slowly but surely. Jrfoldes (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation is a big deal (it is one of the things that can cause a lot of problems) and I'd recommend never starting off by lifting a whole page somewhere else and tinkering with it - you should really start from scratch to avoid any hint of concern (concern that could get the page blanked or even deleted). Equally, with Shriker we have yet to reach a consensus about whether we can use content from Wikia (despite their licensing) and even if we did you'd need to make it very clear in your initial edit where the content came from, which you have failed to do (just providing a link is inadequate), something that makes the finer points of arguing about licensing moot - it needs to all go.

Also we tend to try and avoid using the same image as other encyclopaedias and guides, so the Deacon one in particular is out (although it could be argued they all are). Again you are better off finding something original rather than just lifting it from somewhere else. (Emperor (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Just a few things...

• Most, but not all Wikia operate under the same GFDL as Wikipedia. IIUC that allows the information to be pulled over if the original source wiki is acknowledged. The down side is that, again, most Wikia articles don't use cites for the included information. That is something that is a requirement on Wikipedia. Also, most Wikia don't bat an eye at the inclusion of editor speculations or slanting. More things that would have to be cleaned out before an article goes live.
• As you point out, using the Wikia as a citation source for a point in the live article is more or less a no-no since the Wikia are generally not considered a reliable source. If that is the only source, the article is deleation bait.
• Images are going to be a dicey issue. A scan from and issue from one of the Oficial Handbook of the Marvel Universe seriescannot be used. An image from a Wikia, if it is sourced to something other than the OHOTMU may be useable. But the image has to be sourceable as a self IDed scan or screen cap or a specific web page that directly displays the image. So sourcing an image to Marvel's home page when it is actualy from a subpage doesn't cut it.

- J Greb (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My main concerns are:

* As with the previous discussion on Adolf Hitler (Marvel Comics), the lack of attribution in the edit summary and in the article is a real problem, this is required for the licensing of the content to be valid (as with splitting a page here and not linking back there - see also where articles are largely based on the 1909 encyclopaedia or a translation from a foreign language version where this is clearly flagged in the text on the article), without it we can't use it. Obviously, there are other questions about the quality of the original work which is usually not up to standard and it is usually worth starting from scratch but that is a side issue.

* My main concern on the image front was Deacon (comics) where the image is directly taken from the Marvel Universe (which for our purposes is the online equivalent of the OHTMU, some of the print versions are also online within the Marvel Universe structure). If we can't allow OHTMU images then we should be wary of using those from the wikified version (unless they come along later and add the same image to the one we are using or the image is the best one under our guidelines, like issue #1 of a series - which is rarely the case at the moment as it focuses on characters). Images on Wikia might be considered fair game as long as there is enough information to satisfy the FUR (like what issue it came from) but it seems a little lazy just to lift there picture and it wouldn't be a big problem scanning in a new image, especially as out image guidelines are pretty strict and the Wikia ones might comply. But again that is a minor secondary issue to the main one.

Hope that explains my reasoning. (Emperor (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Fair point with the articles. I was looking at how an editor could use the supposedly free-use article from a Wikia. It may be better to just start from scratch without looking at those then.

As for the images... File:Deacon new.jpg is a problem, period. Either it's a OHOTMU image (unusable) or it's a fan created mash-up of multiple non-free images (bad). As for images from Wikia, that is what I was getting at - if the Wikia file page provides the original source information, print and file, there isn't an issue. Right now there are about half a dozen or so Marvel image flagged at Category:Comics images lacking original published source/Marvel that we only source back to the Spider-Man or Marvel Database Wikia. I'm tempted to put those forward for deletion as unsourced. - J Greb (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Midnight Sons Template

Why do you keep changing the Midnight Sons template? The team has evolved over time and I'm a huge fan and know all the characters and storylines like the back of my hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfoldes (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi J Greb I do appreciate the time you took to get back to me. I'm still learning about photos, so it is all trial and error at this point. As for Navbox colours yes I understand completely. As for the deletion of various characters from the Midnight Sons navbox while I understand your p.o.v. some were indeed valid entries. Let's not forget the team expanded in Marvel Zombie 4, and added new enemies to the mix. Equally Midnight Sons Unlimited delved deep into the realm of the Midnight Sons and their villains and made it quite clear who belongs where. Yes I understand that a guest appearance by Spider-man (Midnight Sons Unlimited #3) does not a Midnight Sons make, but villains like Varnae who have repeatedly come out of the woodwork should qualify. Many of these characters/villains have had huge roles in storylines, yes even the Scarlet Witch. Jrfoldes (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So I made some changes to the Midnight Sons navbox. Everyone who is there has been a key player on the team and made huge contributions to storylines. Yes The Hood played a huge role in Marvel Zombies 4 as did Dormammu when he posessed Jennifer Kale. All heroes and villains are there and are members to the circle. As for the colour, sorry I'm at a complete loss if you want to change it to normal be my guess, if you know of anything cool that could fit a horror theme I would love that.Jrfoldes (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)* Ghost Rider (Danny Ketch) -- Founding member of the current team. Danny Ketch was attached to Noble Kale entity

* Johnny Blaze -- Founding member of the current team
* Noble Kale --Founding member of the current team, hinted at being member of past incarnations
* Vengeance (Lt. Michael Badilino) -- Member joins in Siege of Darkness

Darkhold Redeemers

* Modred --Member joins in Midnight Massacre
* Victoria Montesi -- Founding member of current team
* Sam Buchannon -- Not added into Wiki yet, but founding member of the team
* Professor Louise Hastings  -- Not added into Wiki yet, but founding member of the team
* Jinx --  Not added into Wiki yet, but joins in Midnight Sons Unlimited

Nightstalkers

* Blade -- Founding member of current team
* Frank Drake -- Founding member of current team
* Hannibal King -- Founding member of current team

Other Members

* Caretaker -- Founding member of current team, hinted at being member of past incarnations
* Daimon Hellstorm -- Joins team in Marvel Zombies 4
* Dr. Strange -- Responsible for creation of current incarnation of the team. Officially joins in Siege of Darkness
* Jennifer Kale -- Joins team in Midnight Sons Unlimited, viewed as full member in Marvel Zombies 4
* Man-Thing  -- Joins team in Midnight Sons Unlimited, viewed as full member in Marvel Zombies 4
* Morbius -- Founding member of the team and current team leader.
* Strange -- Joins team in Siege of Darkness
* Werewolf By Night -- Joins team in Midnight Massacre

Unofficial Members

* Brother Voodoo -- Assisted team on numerous occasions, and being member of team comes with being Sorcerer Supreme
* Blazing Skull -- Was the focus of an entire issue of Midnight Sons Unlimited, hinted at being member in past incarnations
* Scarlet Witch -- Has assisted the team on numerous occasions but never became member
* Sister Sara -- Like her grandfather she is a Caretaker and it is among her primary duties to advise the team
* Shriker (Jack D'Auria)  -- Caretaker had him join the team, mostly to keep an eye on Dan Ketch.  I have no problem moving him to allies.

Villains

* Blackheart -- Villain who has been working off the scenes
* Blackout -- Grandson of Lilith and member of her army
* Black Talon (Samuel Barone) -- Primary villain in Marvel Zombies 4
* Centurious -- Responsible for the events leading up to and including the Siege of Darkness. Hinted he may have belonged to the team in a past incarnation.
* Chthon -- There wouldn't be any stoylines such as the Midnight Massacre if it were not for him. Equally was discovered he was trying to be reborn through VIctoria Montessi during the Siege of Darkness
* Deadpool (Zombie) -- Primary villain in Marvel Zombies 4
* Dormammu -- Villain who frequently harass team. Has sworn revenge.
* Dracula -- Recurring villain
*The Hood -- Villain from Marvel Zombies 4. Has declared revenge against the team.
* Lilith -- Main villainess in Rise of the Midnight Sons
* Mephisto -- Responsible for many of the problems the team encounters
* Simon Garth --Main villain during Marvel Zombies 4
* Varnae -- Has repeatedly made attempts against the team. Swore revenge.
* Zarathos -- Main villain of Siege of Darkness stroyline

Allies

* Stacy Dolan -- No wiki entry yet, but acts as human liaison to the team, Prominent role in Siege of Darkness
* A.R.M.O.U.R. -- Government agency who currently oversees team

The big problem with using the template is a lot of those articles don't mention the Midnight Sons (Centurios, for example) so adding the template would mystify the average reader - it may be clear and obvious to you but the articles aren't aimed at the expert fans.

We do try and avoid listing villains as this can easily get out of hand, unless the team/character have a very clearly defined rogue;s gallery, like Batman, for example. I'd also question the need to ad the Darkhold Redeemers or the Nightstalkers as they are just affiliated groups due to the crossover storylines. It seems better to deal with the connections within the body of the relevant articles where these connections can be put in context and properly sourced. (Emperor (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free image File:Roy of the Rovers 1997.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Roy of the Rovers 1997.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Note

A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion [5] – ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 08:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Current Avengers roster

Hello J Greb! Just thought I'd let you know if you don't already, that there's a discussion on the talk page for the List of Avengers members article, regarding the best way to display who is currently an active member. If you have time, please consider adding your opinion to the discussion under the "Current Roster" section, so that we can come to a consensus. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Choice of infobox image

Howdy. Would you mind if this file is used in Batman: Under the Hood instead of this file? The second file appears to have some artifacting going on in the "Batman" and "Red Death".--Rockfang (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that the newer file could have, and should have, been uploaded over the older one - it isn't a content change but a "I found a cleaner version".

I'm tempted to split the difference later this evening when I've got the time and merge the file histories. Which would put us where we should be, I think...

- J Greb (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Until you merge the file histories, I'm going to put this file back into the article because it looks better and actually has a rationale placed on its page for that article.--Rockfang (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Madelyne Pryor Image

I've posted a new suggestion for the infobox image at the Madelyne Pryor article here. Please leave a note and let me know what you think. --Peter Farago (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete the video games section of Dormammu

Do not delete the video games section of Dormammu. He appears in: Marvel Ultimate Alliance: Cameo Background of Doctor Strange Loadscreen Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds: Playable & Boss Character —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKazama (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Avs38.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Avs38.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with an RfC

I'm sorry to ask: The rules for establishing an RfC appear to require that two editors first go the talk page where the dispute lies and try to mediate first. I'm simply notifying you and a couple of other veteran neutrally that there is a dispute at John Buscema. Thank you for any attention to this brewing edit war, a repetition of one from 2008. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do, yes, and I appreciate the head's up and your well-stated comment on my talk page. I don't think you mean recuse myself, but to be judicious and to ask for help and additional input when needed. I guess at this point Scott Free and I both stop editing John Buscema until the RfC runs its course. I'll ask him politely if this is acceptable.

These kinds of things can be dispiriting. On the other hands, the professionalism you and such fellow old-timers like BOZ and Emperor display is something I quite respect. I can't even imagine the kinds of disagreements that admins voluntarily deal with on a daily basis. I may help provide information — which I love — and occasionally try to improve on guidelines, but the admins are the ones helping tame the frontier and contributing the most to doing the single most important thing we can for this wonderfully egalitarian encyclopedia: give it credibility. Without that, it's ultimately never going to be what it could and should. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the review lock... it goes a little beyond being judicious. It's similar to an Admin being an involved editor on a page that's fully protected to defuse an edit war. They have to stop editing the article or the non-Admin editors have every right to scream foul. As a Reviewer and the one that's called the RFC, you have to be aware that if you edit the article and the change is auto approved (which I think is how the system is set up) Scott would be with in his rights to be miffed. His edits, ATM, are going to have to be reviewed and approved. You may want to propose edits on the talk page and also point out edits that slips through that you think are improper or dead wrong.

- J Greb (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My being still new at this trial, I'm feeling my way through. Here's what I've just placed at Scott Free's talk page. Please let me know if you think anything here is untoward, and I'll certainly change it. Thanks again for taking all this time to help.

BEGIN

An admin has placed John Buscema on the list of articles being given a two-month "Reviewer" trial, in which a reviewer OKs non-routine edits. As I have been appointed a reviewer, I would like to avoid any appearance of conflict-of-interest, no matter that the edits I would make would be the same as I would otherwise. Therefore, I would respectfully propose we each leave the article as it stands, and that neither of us edit it while we let the RfC run its course. This seems the least contentious path. The article isn't going anywhere, and while you may want to add your edits, I'm sure you'll agree that at the moment there is nothing in the article that either you or I actively objects to.

END

--Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin action of involved editor

I have concerns about your implementing the review function on the Buscema article. First of all, there's various conflict of interest concerns considering that you're an invovled editor in the dispute and secondly, it was apparently done upon informal request by one of the parties in the dispute and thirdly, the function is apparently intended for edits that are considered "vandalism, inappropriate, or contain clear errors". I do not see that how that would apply to this situation. You are cordially invited to reconsider your action.--Scott Free (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, I'm looking at the current back and forth on John Buscema which is you and Tenebrae. You two are the editors involved in arguing over the content of the article at this point. As far as my involvement in that article: I haven't been as far as edits on the article go - October 4, 2009 and March 4, 2007 being my last two edits to it.

As far as input, yes, I did voice opinions and ask questions during the 2008 RfC which set the tone of the article. Since there was a consensus reached there it should hold until it is shown that consensus has changed. And there is an obligation of all involved, all, to respect and maintain what was hashed out there.

With regard to requiring review, it is also a mechanism to limit editing in lieu of discussion. Yes, you can edit the article to your heart's content, but the casual reader will only get the last stable, reviewed version. This is preferable to actually locking the article down if one or more of the editors insist on keeping their version of the article up and limit debate to the edit summaries. Along those lines:

• I put it under Reviewer required because of the conflict on the article and lack of use of the talk page. Not because Tenebrae asked for it.
• Tenebrae was given a heads up to watch his editing because he has been given the "Reviewer" flag by others. His edits to the article would likely bypass the need to be reviewed. Something that would be unfair to you.

Lastly, if Tenebrae's assertion holds up that you are either reading information into the citations you are using or knowingly using cites that in now way support what you are adding, then the edits do fall into the realm of vandalism. Worse, it undercuts the ability of other editors to assume good faith in all of your edits.

Sorry, but I think the above confirms that you are an involved editor in this dispute, and have lodged a complaint here --Scott Free (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as a question: Are you going to self identify given the user names given in your refs there, or are you ging to wait a complain if someone else does it? - J Greb (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

J Greb, this is not what Level 2 pending changes is for. Edit wars warrant either full protection (so as not to give a reviewer an unfair advantage), or those who edit war are blocked. Please reverse your Level 2 pending changes. Risker (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My missunderstanding then... It seemed the "review required" locks were also eventually intended as a half step in nudging editors away from using editing to argue over content and to hash those problems out on the talk page.

I'll pull the "lock" template and sorry for my misunderstanding about this tool's intent.

- J Greb (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, J Greb. To be fair, now that it exists, nobody seems to be quite sure what the point of Level 2 pending changes is; anyone with reviewer status can edit the article without their edits being reviewed, and most editors who've been here more than a few months and made more than a few hundred edits are pretty well eligible for that status. I do see that there are issues with this article, and will point out that the Arbitration Committee does retain jurisdiction on its past decisions, even those that have "expired", so you might want to consider if a request for amendment is appropriate in this case. Risker (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and Template:Infobox graphic novel

Hi.

I've mentioned the above wikiproject and template as well as a whole category of templates at:

• User talk:Moonriddengirl/RfC#Concrete issues redux

which is a sort of workshop for an RfC (or multiple RfCs) concerning the whole issue of colour use, and wikiproject authority. I see you've been heavily involved in this and am letting you know; a few other interested parties, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Messaline solar system.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Messaline solar system.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Captain America First Avenger concept.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Captain America First Avenger concept.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Messaline.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Messaline.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Messaline landscape.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Messaline landscape.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments needed

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.

Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.

Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my DC animated universe character lists edits with no rationale

The massive, massive edits that you overtook were/are incredibly choppy. They don't refer to the voice actors in full now. They are not cleaned up entirely now because not enough oversight or care has been taken. I don't by the excuse that "things should be left in the "other media" sections of character articles. What's the point then to create a list in the first place if you're going to blindly cherry pick what you think is "suitable"!? I find that extremely nitpicky and shallow. TMC1982 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What difference does there being "carbon copies" of the "in other media" (it's not like a strict copyright is being violated) sections make!? The character lists as a whole are about a strictly, "centeralized" point of information (i.e. one particular TV series or film). That would be like saying that just because something is located one way, it isn't entirely justified to spread its usage elsewhere when otherwise needed. It would be extremely pointless to purely list a character's name without any sort of proper overview. TMC1982 (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)