User talk:Tenebrae/Archive 6

RFA

I think you should go for it. You're a good editor, and frankly, we could use you. Either way, pleasure to be working with ya :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It still has to be transcluded to WP:RFA. Personally, I think you should wait a month after this canvassing fiasco. The field of consensus is polluted. I heartily applaud your efforts at retracting the comments, etc. But, consensus not achievable now, only voting will be served. --Durin 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree — I think I have a lot to offer if you look at the totality of my Wikiepdia work — and I believe the words "fiasco" and "polluted" are perhaps more loaded than neutral. I fixed my inadvertent guideline mistake so quickly, many users will not have seen it, particularly those outside the U.S. As I said, it's important that this come up on the RfA debate, and I strongly urge you to add my error to the mix. I want to be judged fairly.--Tenebrae 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That it was removed does not help the effect on consensus garnering. I think it wonderful that you did remove those canvassing attempts. It speaks volumes of your ability to take criticism and respond appropriately. Finding Wikipedia:Canvassing on your own was good too. These are good things. I am not criticizing you for them. The problem is that even in removing the comments, these users will still see a message indicating they have a new message. If they look at the last diff, they will see you removed the comments. So, the consensus garnering field is still polluted by these statements. It'd be best to close this RfA and wait at least a week (but preferably more) and try again, when these comments are not current and the users who were canvassed have an opportunity to see the RfA never went live, so nothing to comment on and they will go about their business. Perhaps you do have a lot to contribute; that's fine. But, there's nothing that says you *must* be an administrator right now that waiting some time won't answer as well. --Durin 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durin has a point. Waiting a week or so would probably be a good idea, or at least a show of good faith. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'd just like this to be over with — and from the early returns, it looks like it'll be over soon! That's actually a relief since I didn't want this and was only acting out of what I felt was obligation.--Tenebrae 18:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My 'support' was removed... Eh. Delete that one and give it a clean shot later :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Surfer

I've semi-protected this as requested. But only for a week. If after a week, vandalism resumes at a high level, let me know, and I'll reset the protection. I don't think it should be indefinite until it can be shown that temporary semi-protection did not manage to control the vandalism. BTW, Discussions are underway about creating some criteria for when to use indefinite semi-protection. -- SamuelWantman 08:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary tag

No problem. I just found it myself the other day. I have a feeling it should be used more often. Bhissong 19:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help/advice

As a seasoned member of the Comics Project, I'm hoping you can help. I was trying to update the article for Agent Axis, but I've run into a sticking point. There were two Agent Axises (Axi?) in comics, one from Timely/Marvel, and one from DC. Shouldn't this be two seperate articles? If so, how do you split the article? Let me know what you think. Konczewski 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good suggestion. If the characters had a bit more background, it might make sense to split, but they are both pretty minor characters. Thanks for your help. Konczewski 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the Thing

I noticed you deleted my addition to the description of the Thing in the Fantasic Four. I think the addition is perfectly appropriate, especially given the descriptions of the others. Certainly no one can deny the Thing is known as much for his courage and fighting skills as he is for his strength! (Just as it is fair to have Sue Storm described as "Beautiful and intelligent" the Thing's courage and fighting skills should be mentioned!) I would appreciate it, if you feel this is not an appropriate addition, if you would discuss the deletion on the talk page, rather than merely deleting without discussion. I feel this is a question which should go to consensus rather than you merely deleting, and my readding. You are a good editor, and I am sure you did not mean to be rude, but I try to discuss deletions - of serious edits at least - before merely cutting. Thanks! Stillstudying 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your rfa

I'm afraid your request for adminship failed. You should try again in a few months. Sorry. Secretlondon 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an online chat I might type <comf> - I hope you get what I mean : ) - jc37 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're up to it...

There are still portions of the Whizzer RfC open for comment if there was anything else you had wanted to add there. - J Greb 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ethelbert.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ethelbert.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.

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. Ilse@ 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry and thanks!

Sorry ten, your application didnt turn out the way as we all (comics project members) expected. But rest assured when the right time comes, at some future date, we're all just be here, again, to back you up. Thanks much for your time. Peace †Bloodpack† 22:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

What I said, or meant to was, you edits conflicted withOUT the conflict box' so that I could fix it as it went. My initial revert included undoing the vandalism of changing hulk's name, and NOT undoing YOUR edits. However, repeatedly reloading and trying to fix the vandalism kept hitting YOUR edits, and somewhere in there, the stupid system 'skipped a groove' and undid the wrong stuff, leaving hte vandalism. As your FIRST message said, I wasn't interested in affecting your image sizing. ThuranX 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your very knowledgeable edits to Silver Surfer. It's hugely improved already. Canderson7 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Zuracech lordum 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More thanks

For reverting this. :) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak Japanese?

I have a page of text that needs translating and I wondered if you could help. --Basique 14:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions About Editing

I have a question about adding external links. There's a great resource for artist galleries at comicartcommunity.com and I'd like to add links to those galleries on the individual artists' pages. You sent a message to me about adding links because the site is "primarily" an auction site. I would love it if that were true. However, the gallery traffic is ten times more than the auction traffic. Our auctions are free for buyers and sellers to list with a meager two percent final value fee. It's obvious we're not making money off of the auctions, we do it as a public service to fledgling artists. The reason we were adding links to these artist pages is because we noticed many people utilizing existing links on wikipedia that we ourselves did not add. We're considered a valuable resource for artists' images in the comic community and I think our links would be a valuable resource to your directory. Thanks. --Tman930 18:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, our views differ on this matter. We consider the gallery to be a valuable resource for comic art fans. What is the next step to resolve our editorial dispute? Is there an admnistrator for this category? We only want to do what's best for wikipedia users.--Tman930 19:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder for Comics Notice Board

When you're done with a discussion or anything else that's been on the notice board, please remember to move it down to the Recent decisions section, instead of just deleting it :) -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I caught one of yours this morning :) It's no big. I think we started doing it this way so we could see if an issue had recently come up or not. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Skylarke

I honestly have no idea about that user or his issue with adding the site. The site (comicartcommunity) has a lot of users, and people have added links to the galleries on other artists' wikipedia pages before. It was never an issue before, so he probably didn't do it with the intention to defy the rules and policies. But then, I don't know him, so he might have. I have nothing to do with any of that, however. --Tman930 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whizzer, Blood Brothers, Galactus

" I am going to ask for an Admin's advice." - Looks around at my feet...
Kidding aside, you might want to mention this to User:Steve block. In my opinion, he's probably the best person to ask. He's been the "third party opinion" involving the user (and others) more times than I can count. And yes, please keep me informed. - jc37 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I've created Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian, and named you specifically as an "involved" user. Please add your statement there. References/diffs with explanations of why they are notable are most welcome. (I also cross-posted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Comics content related RfC for User:Asgardian, et al.) - jc37 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Third Opinion

I have been having problems with another Wikipedian criticizing my assessment of comics articles. As you have a good reputation as an editor for the wiki comics project, your assistance is required. This user (Richard75) has made it very personal by insulting me and is accusing me of vandalism, which I find highly inflammatory. His complaint is that my assessments of articles is too fast. I have been a comics reader for almost 25 years and I can read extremely fast. Rather than engage in a conflict with him, perhaps you could check a few of my assessments and provide another point of view on it. I have contacted the other user and advised him that I wanted a third party and that I am willing to stop making assessments until a third opinion is complete. Based on the accolades that you have received, I thought you would be the ideal person to settle this. Maple Leaf

I agree. Richard75 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your assistance. It is sincerely appreciated. All the best. Maple Leaf

Thanks for your help. I am sure that your constructive recommendation will solve the problem I raised. Thanks again. Richard75 18:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Buscema.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 12:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Good job

Good job on the edits to the SS article. Zuracech lordum 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected article

Admins can edit protected articles. Rich Farmbrough, 13:50 18 June 2007 (GMT).

Superhero def

Thanks. It's a real legal citation from a work of fiction - The Amazing Adventures of Cavalier and Clay. Great book if you haven't already read it.Ghosts&empties 20:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

batman and robin

look, i dont know what youre problem with me is, but the batman and robin page needs a plot. I am providing one. Im sorry if you dont like it. You revert it again and im reporting you.TheManWhoLaughs 22:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish you wouldnt hold personal grudges.TheManWhoLaughs 23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cc of reply

I am not. I'm sorry you believe I am. You can go my contributions page and see I edit widely.

You are continually reverting a page in a way contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines I have stated and give you links to. An admin has given you warnings and a block. I'm surprised and disappointed none of this seems to be having an impact. --Tenebrae 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude whatever you try to sound like youre not picking me out. me and you both know you are. The plot summary i made is fine. If you dont like it make one. Either way I dont care its gonna have a plot summary. IM trying to make the article better.TheManWhoLaughs 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

youre edits ARE done with malice. Anyone can look and tell. Youre trying to get me perma banned for some reason GOD knows what I did and its not gonna happen man. The plot is vital to the article. The one I left is good. If you want a better one then make one.TheManWhoLaughs 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havent made "abusive comments" Ive stated facts. Im sorry that youve been offended but if you didnt want to be accused, then dont do it. Youre the only one who has made bad comments. I have tried to remain civil.TheManWhoLaughs 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are stating your personal opinion, not facts. --Tenebrae 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youre the one making false accusations like trying to say you and a admin are fighting me when its abviously just you. Also reporting me to every thing on here for a false claim is uncivil also i moved it to the archive as its garbage. Ive remained very civil.TheManWhoLaughs 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cc of reply

Now you've crossed over into lying. User:Chaser, Chrislk02 and User:Yamla are admins. You are making claims against me personally when these admins and other editors are objected to your actions. Please accept the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, you may be in error here. So many people all pointing in the same direction has no impact at all? Please think about what I'm saying. Thanks. --Tenebrae 00:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I have argued with them in the past is not what were discussing here. Are aguement is about Batman and Robin. YOU are the only one to complain to me about this. The other admins and my beefs have been over since yesterday. To hear you talk about it its like they have all helped you today on the article when they HAVE NOT.TheManWhoLaughs 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as a matter of fact Chrislk02 and me have been talking today and he helped me out.TheManWhoLaughs 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this occasionally cap-letter tirade on the user's talk page. Anyone interested can also see some of the selectively deleted postings here. --Tenebrae 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if you would go to the archive there are almost all the comments except youre mots troll ones which i refuse to keep. Youre wrong this time guy let it go.TheManWhoLaughs 00:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An admin blocked User:TheManWhoLaughs indefinitely on June 24, 2007, as a sockpuppet of User:Wrestlinglover420 and apparently other accounts. --Tenebrae 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and on that note

my mission is done. Batman and Robin has a plot. I hope you dont let your personal feelings keep you from working with me in the future. TheManWhoLaughs 00:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I keep saying, it's not a matter of personal feelings. A bad edit that violates Wiki guidelines and standards of encyclopedic writing is a bad edit. Inabillity to take criticism from multiple editors and admins may be a personal failing, but my own personal feelings have not entered into it.
If you hadn't erased so many postings — which is ineffective in any case, since they're available via your History page — you would be taken as a more responsible Wikipedian. --Tenebrae 01:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dispute with TheManWhoLaughs

Please go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:TheManWhoLaughs. No more edit-warring. No more name-calling. Let's solve the content dispute.--Chaser - T 00:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone's post "snotty" [1] is probably not a good way to cool-down a dispute. May I suggest you cross out that word as a show of good-faith?--Chaser - T 02:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man, if I'd known you were bringing him up, I'd have chimed in. His attitude is awful when he can't get his way. H'e s got issues with his namesake's (joker) page, and hte infobox image there, and othing gets him to knock it off, he gets confrontational fast, and so on.He's not the only editor on comics pages I'd like to get clued in, either. Arcayne's driving me nuts. he shows up, sticks his nose in, and then acts like the only person who can see'the way' to solve things, ignoring the subtext of the conversations, the histories, and so on. Anyways, you're not alone, and should you need other editors to support your assertions that TMWL needs to be talked to, I'd be glad to go over other page histories to support it. ThuranX 06:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC):[reply]
Note: An admin blocked User:TheManWhoLaughs indefinitely on June 24, 2007, as a sockpuppet of User:Wrestlinglover420 and apparently other accounts. --Tenebrae 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small thing re Whizzer

The "vol. 1 vs v1" thing you brought up... the "v1" in the "Footnotes" section is being generated by the {{Comic book reference}}. It may be that the template needs to be put back to the format where it used "vol."...

The reason I bring this up is that I can't see where Asgardian is plopping in a "v#", so I don't see where this specific point on his talk page is coming from.

That being said, his edit does do a definite job on the reflist...

- J Greb 06:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

got it, see it, all good, thanks. ThuranX 19:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain America

Any luck on that covers thing? you've still got the weekend, just didn't want to go to adjust it and find you'd forgotten and needed more time. ThuranX 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's sunday afternoon. You haven't posted about this, so I'm guessing either Real Life socked you good, or you couldn't find anything to contradict what I found. Given that you seemed fairly accepting of my initial group of links and reasoning, and I don't think you'll be offended or upset, I'm going to make the discussed adjustments later tonight. If I hear otherwise from you at the CP talk or my own talk, then I'll hold off. Hoep your Real Life weekend's been good. ThuranX 20:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something I'd like feed back on...

I'm working on something with regard to Amphibian (comics), and potentially the rest of the related articles.

I've moved a copy of the article to User:J Greb/Pasteup while I'm working on it.

The upshot is, given the relatively short history of the characters, I'm trying to blend the PH and FCB into one section. Right now I've only gotten through the first character, but I'd like a few other editors to take a look and tell me if I'm onto something, blowing smoke, or somewhere in between.

Thanks, - J Greb 10:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AstralMan_bySamGrainger.jpg

I have tagged Image:AstralMan_bySamGrainger.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. Videmus Omnia 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men

You got me there. I'd just assumed it was him, and I think it is, but alas, WP:V and all that. Alientraveller 18:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Alientraveller 18:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSNsportsNET

Tenebrae...I re-added msnsportsnet.com to the WVU page. Contrary to what you said...it is the official website for WVU athletics that is maintained by the univeristy. Thanks for fixing the misspelling in "Governors" though. --ScottyBoy900Q 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed your edits fixing the references...once again, good job, looks much better now.--ScottyBoy900Q 21:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning the compliment

Thanks for the good word on Stardust the Super Wizard. I've been trying to follow the recommendations, as I think they're the best way to avoid some of the stylistic blowouts I've seen over other articles.Konczewski 00:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dont

threaten me. You dont know who your messing with. Mind ya business.BlueShrek 02:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isnt a damn thing threatining about that youre the one who threatened me. I dont give a damn.BlueShrek 03:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy the Kid (Charlton Comics)

Nice job reorganizing this page. It looks a lot better. :) Stephen Day 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Marvel Super Heroes

I notice you're calling for an admin regarding The Marvel Super Heroes DVD page. That's probably for the best, as some sort of mediation was clearly required. Please keep me appraised of what he/she rules regarding the DVD information. I apologise if you considered my now-removed information listings regarding the DVDs on the discussion page abhorrent, but I believed that leaving your protected main page for the series alone was very important to you. That is why I simply listed the pertinent information on the discussion page and why I will continue to maintain my pledge not to touch the main page again without your express permission. Again, please keep me informed of the admin's decision, as I don't want to get either of us in needless trouble. 86.147.92.156 02:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC of my posting at User talk:86.147.92.156

I have been doing my best to try to explain Wikipedia's guidelines about verification and proper sourcing, and it has become very disconcerting to read your highly personal invective as if I had personally created these guidelines. I do, however, agree with these policies, as do other responsible editors. One of Wikipedia's prime tenets is no original research — that's the Golden Rule. Everything has to be sourced to an authoritative, credible source.

I understand you disagree with that. That's no reason to rail against one particular editor, and to use sarcasm and accusatory comments that truly comprises uncivil behavior.

I have asked, practically invited, you to register and to read the Wikipedia Five Pillars for a better understanding of how this noble experiment works. I ask you again, and I ask that you refrain from personal invective. You would not act this way in person, I'm sure.

If I can help you with links or information about Wikipedia consensus-building and basic guidelines, I will take the time to do so. In the meantime, please do not disrupt Wikipedia, including its talk pages. Thanks.--Tenebrae 02:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please let me put this in perspective for you; all I have been trying my hardest to prove to you, is that four simple DVD sets containing four out of the five series comprising this show actually exist and were released on DVD. You have consistently refused to add this information to your page even after I have actually provided proof that they do indeed exist and are on sale at no less than three widely recognized commercial websites. This information at best would take up one sentence on the whole of your page.
Now, I understand that Wikipedia disallows commercial websites as a recognized link, but what would be the harm of actually incorporating such a tiny one-line informative entry on your page mentioning these releases, bearing in mind that you currently know them to actually exist? A brief perusal already reveals no less than five citation needed marks on the page at the moment. Is not a link to the discussion page allowed to bypass your non-commercial website edict? All I am trying my hardest to do is simply make more Marvel fans aware that these four two-disc sets do actually exist, what might almost be considered a task as equally noble as the best of your Wikipedia ideals.
Considering that Disney once attempted to release a boxset and then cancelled their plans (again, all previously cited information), I would hazard a guess that there might be a few Marvel animation fans out there who would be pleased to know of the releases in question, even though they are R2 and in PAL.
If you will not even allow me to accomplish this one miniscule task, then I would suggest that some parts of your rules are inherently flawed, and I would sadly take this experience as the best incentive to not become a productive member of your society. 81.155.72.75 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC of my posting at User talk:Doceo

First of all, I apologise for the following elucidation's length, but I wanted to make things crystal clear for the record, as well as acknowledging specific Wikipedia guidelines to your satisfaction. I would have added this to the Marvel discussion page, but since my last entry was deleted I am assuming it is now under your direct protection. If you wish to move the discussion to my newly-generated talk page, you're as free as the next Wiki user to do so. As you can see, I have finally taken on a handle to better facilitate my communication with you on this matter.

I think that the crux of this problem is that waiting for any reviews of the Maximum Entertainment DVDs will prove to be a task long in the making. Although these episodes do date from 1966, these recent DVD releases are squarely being aimed at the low-end of the children's DVD market, rather than adult collectors. I myself only discovered their existence a couple of weeks ago, nearly a whole month after their release date. I usually consider myself pretty observant when it comes to releases of older Marvel animation, and these still passed me by for nearly four weeks, thus serving as an explanation as to why I'm so insistent the release information is correctly included on your Marvel page. That is to actually say, if I almost missed them, many other genuine fans are bound to miss them as well!

Currently, on your Marvel Super Heroes article, you have incorporated my citations literally by mentioning the Captain America DVD release only, which is in itself now ironically misleading considering my numerous mentions of Iron Man, Thor and Sub-Mariner also being on DVD. When I said "Captain America, in this example" in the discussion page, that actually meant that I was simply using the Captain America series release as an example; the other three series in question have all been similarly released as per my previous statements. Given that there are already five "citation needed" remarks on the page, and the fact that my information on the four DVD releases has been consistently rebuffed by you, despite me actually being able to substantiate it (albeit not to your or Wikipedia's acceptability), it is perhaps a little more understandable why I have taken this personally.

Even discounting the above, all four DVD sets were all given multiple non-commercial citations in my final, highly-detailed, reference entry that you excised from the discussion page (as is entirely your exclusive prerogative now, so I will not challenge your personal decision while you own the page). I do however object to your opinion that my final entry on the discussion page was a disruptive entry, since it was restricted to the ostensibly free talk page rather than your protected main article (and as such, seems to not fall under Wikipedia's strict definition of editing disruption as per the talk page guidelines).

Since I mentioned you by name on your Marvel talk page, I now realize it could have been construed as a personal attack. Therefore I would allow you to revise the entry and simply edit my brief opening paragraph should you wish to restore my breakdown of the discs for reference, along with BBFC certificates and the links to the cover artist's website as citations on the discussion page only. However, as I stated before, I will probably not belabour this particular point any further by "demanding" proof to back up this specific editing decision of yours, requesting information on the admin's findings (as you mentioned you would call in) or anything else that could be considered borderline-belligerent behaviour of the type you have already accused me of, so I will leave the matter of your Marvel Super Heroes discussion page alone.

Looking into the situation further with regards to Wikipedia's rules, as far as I can tell, my proposed single-sentence entry to your personal Marvel page would have come under category number 1 of the "Unsourced material" section on Wikipedia's citation page, unless I am grossly mistaken. Please correct me if I do not understand this section accurately either, as understanding more of Wikipedia's regulations will be key to enable me to make successful additions to other pages, including some outside of your direct jurisdiction, which I am keen (and hopefully literate enough!) to do, assuming a constructive resolution of this simple matter. I would actually like in the future to add more info to your Marvel page that can easily be cited, such as the name of the composer who produced all the stock music used in the series, but at the moment I actively fear you'll edit any of my further contributions into non-existence due to what I perceive is some abrasiveness from yourself towards me, even though I still genuinely fail to see any instances of objectionable language or syntax. If you have perceived any such objectionable behaviour from me, then I can only pre-emptively apologise.

In any case, I think at this point, even with proof from Amazon, Play.com and Sendit (although they obviously cannot be cited in the context of your article), I do inevitably grow increasingly fatigued by my attempts at enlightenment on this particular matter. You are obviously extraordinarily dedicated to your own Marvel Super Heroes page, have an impressive encyclopaedic knowledge of most of Wikipedia's rules, and are surely in Wikipedia's top few percent of expert page editors/owners.

Given your dedication to the various pages you own, and your understandable personal reticence to acknowledge the existence of the DVDs in question, due to Wikipedia's guidelines, I believe it would probably be better for me to concentrate my future energies into stimulating the creation of third-party reviews (not self-published sources, I might stress!) of all four Marvel DVD sets on other websites. Hopefully, whenever such reviews emerge (barring anything unforeseen), they will be of an acceptable enough quality for you to possibly allow their citation on your Marvel page, and you can finally relax knowing that your page will be adequately up-to-date! I can only hope that such reviews appear at least within the next 12 months or so, and certainly before the DVDs start becoming harder to find for prospective fans, especially those from outside the UK.

I also sincerely hope that you take on board at least some of my admittedly long-winded exposition regarding such a comparatively trivial matter, and that you can work towards your own consensus regarding this issue on your Marvel page in the absence of any formal reviews on other websites. I similarly have no desire to file a WP:RFC or even possibly raise the spectre of a WP:OWN should any more of my comments regarding your protected Marvel Super Heroes articles, or indeed the obviously now-protected MSH discussion page disappear, and potentially get such a prolific and constructive comicbook page owner such as yourself into trouble over such a small matter. Therefore, hopefully you can eventually clarify your stance on Wikipedia discussion pages publicly on this discussion page, or on at least one of the comicbook-related pages you own (if not all of them, with a standard disclaimer or similar). I am truly trying to help both Marvel fans in general, and your own Wikipedia standing.

However, I still ultimately insist that the total prohibition of non-commercial links is detrimental with regard to certain DVD and other such releases, in that with the absence of a review or standard ISBN number, their very existence is effectively unable to be proven, given who chooses to own each article in question. This is even though such previously established commercial websites happily display the very same products for prospective paying customers. I certainly wouldn't want to see Wikipedia plagued with needless links to such websites, but the fact remains that some releases never get reviewed due to various factors marginalizing them, and thus some alternative acceptable arrangement badly needs to be found in such circumstances in order to verify such items' existence to a level satisfactory for vigilant page owners such as yourself. Doceo 16:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE says "Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations, which provide source information for specific statements.". Which suggests general sources links should be included but all more specific references should used inline (a big pile of links in references especially when they are specific is not very helpful). The changes I made were to bump them down to exeternal links and it'd be better to reintroduce them back as references using WP:FN to link into the areas they explain.

For example Wolverine and Deadpool the "reference" is this link [2] which doesn't verify any information and is suitable only for further reading (if that - it isn't very helpful for the entry at all). Digging I find [3] which is slightly more useful and could be used as a reference for some details but should be done inline. Equally if you look at Saint Sinner (comics) (and the other Razorline titles) the links are nearly all very general (links to Clive Barker fansites, etc.) and would require further digging. For example I have struggled to find anything relevant on Revelations - the closest thing I could find for Saint Sinner is [4] which is about the TV series. Most of those links are barely adequate as external links and really don't measure up to what is required for a reference section.

So following WP:CITE I'd suggest if you can find more specific links that actually verify the information in the entry then add them in as inline citations where possible. I see you have reversed by edits and I don't feel that is the best route to improving the quality of the entries. If you disagree with what I have said I'd be happy to seek second opinions from the comics project. (Emperor 12:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

However, the links are far too general to be used as refernces - you can't expect a user to go digging around a site trying to find the section you are refering too and trying to guess what specific point the page (if they find it all) is refering to. For example, you can't just throw in a link to the DC site as a reference on the Superman entry. This might be clear to you when you added the references but coming to it "fresh" those links are almost useless as references.
On an related note I concede that the Lazarus Churchyard link might be better off as a reference but it isn't a general reference and if it is going to go in the reference section then it needs to be inline. (Emperor 13:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I am not suggesting removing the reference section - it is a handy resource when used right. What I'm saying is that in the Razorline entries a lot of those links are very poor for the purposes of verifying the information given in the entry, hence my switching them to external links. If you feel any are specific enough to work then feel free to move them to a reference section but they need to be deeper links than the ones given.
Thanks for the Lazarus Churchyard tip, however, I have only lightly editted it. If you think it needs cleanup then feel free to tag it. (Emperor 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Even if I'd solely created and editted Lazarus Churchyard I'd not be bothered if someone tagged it up for further work (that imply WP:OWN issues and I only get concerned if the edits are making an entry worse not better). With any tagging if the issues aren't clear a note on the talk page would be nice. I have only editted that entry in passing but I have the trade somewhere and if there are problems I can take a longer look at it.
Using your example, you'd still want to provide as specific a link as possible. So for a general link on Alan Moore I wouldn't link to the 2000 AD front page [5] I'd link to his profile [6]. It makes WP:V easier and removes the user having to guess what you are ferring to. For some of those references (as mentioned above) I can't find anything relevant (for the Saint Sinner all I can find is something on the TV series) - I migh be looking in the wrong place but it comes down to guesswork. I'd happily go through and redo the links to show you what I mean. (Emperor 20:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The citizen from beyond the rainbow bridge

I'm swamped in real life right now, so I didn't quickly respond to Asgarian's message on my talk page, which he probably should not have left at a time when it could be construed as evading a block. Taking a few days (which will probably be weeks) without editing on Wikipedia is refreshing. It's useful to step back for perspective on how absolutely nothing that affects Planet Earth will go wrong if I don't edit some articles and if I stay out of the current chapter in what is now a ten-month dispute over editing style. Yeah, it would have been best if he had not mentioned a solicitor (is he British?), but my feeling on that is like the advice I gave him: Let it roll off like water off a duck. Remember it, but don't poke that bear (yeah, I'm mixing metaphors) ourselves by bringing it up. This is a weird, weird situation, and everybody needs to be careful to use language aimed at demonstrating their attempts at objectivity should an admin unfamiliar with the situation eventually arbitrate things. Anyway, thanks for dropping by my talk page. Yours, Doczilla 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put that on your user page? Oops. Sorry about that. Doczilla 00:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Pandolph

As a disinterested third party, you're welcome to remove the PROD tag from the article. Joyous! | Talk 00:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a big problem to recreate either Pandolph's article, or the one on Barkeater Lake. Of course, if you have additional information to expand either one, that would be great. If not, you might consider combining the two short articles into one longer one. Joyous! | Talk 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic novel

This seems an awfully small thing to dispute over, but in what sense is "working on" a vague term? Would we not describe a novelist as working on a book and not understand what was meant, would we not describe a directing as working on a film and not know what was meant? I don't see the need to be so precise as "wrote and drew", especially when no other work's creation is described in such a manner, it just feels off. It's not something I'm going to edit war on, but I really don't understand what the issue is. I mean, in what sense is working on not what he actually did, and in what sense do you separate what he did into two separate forms, writing and drawing? When the two are split it is very easy to make the distinction, but when there is one creator working on the idea it becomes something of a redundancy to use both terms, as if implying that the creation goes through two processes, that of being written and then that of being drawn. Meh. Like I say, I'm not really interested in going any further over this, I just don't get it, I don't see what was so wrong in the first place. Steve block Talk 19:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving The Mocker

Regarding your request to move The Mocker (comics) to Mocker (comics): It is not necessarily true that we never use “The” in article titles. If The is part of the usual or official title of the subject, or is more commonly used, then it should be included in the article title. See The Lovin' Spoonful and The New York Times. I know nothing about The Mocker—is he usually referred to as The Mocker or just Mocker? If someone were discussing him, would the person say “Mocker did that” or “The Mocker did that”? ●DanMS • Talk 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Moved your comment here to keep the discussion on this page. You can reply here.
Hi, and thanks for getting back to me! While the character is referred to as The Mocker, other characters such as The Joker, The Flash and The Avengers appear as Joker (comics), Flash (comics), Avengers (comics), etc. I was looking to keep things consistent. Should The Joker, etc., entries have the "The"? We'd have to change hundreds of entries at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. Thanks for any help/advice. --Tenebrae 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point about the other articles and keeping consistency. However, I would have used The in most of your cited articles. I took at a look at Joker (comics) and found that the or The is used before Joker in 95 percent of the usages on the page. It seems to me that the page should have been titled The Joker. You never refer to him as just Joker. I would move all of the aforementioned articles, but you would probably raise a storm of protest if you proposed it. I think The Mocker should stay where it is, but I am not going to fight about it. If you decide to propose moving the articles, I would support it. ●DanMS • Talk 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is also The Authority - if you see the talk page that was redirecting to "Authority (comics)" which made no sense. The seems to have been an idea that we should remove "The" from titles but it isn't required (as in the examples above and, e.g., The Guardian). I think the critical thing is that "The Authority" is the name of the actual title. If The Mocker was just a character then I'd go with ditching "The" but if there was an eponymous title called "The Mocker" then you might have a case. Just my fourpenneth. (Emperor 01:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for all the input!
I guess starting with The Mocker (comics) and going forward, I'll stick with the "The" in such cases. And so's not to open a can of worms in the WPC, I'll leave it to the admins among us to change the likes of "Avengers (comics)" to "The Avengers (comics)"! Or should we bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics? Oy, what have we gotten into?!   :-)   --Tenebrae 13:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* time to get greedy...

Ok how did you get your awards?? Just well trying to set some sort of goal for myself so I don't well get lost in all the wiki-politics(is that even a word?) and quit.Phoenix741 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:this is NOT me asking for one.Phoenix741 23:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response to response

I don't think you can devalue them seeing as how there really is no value to them. I think they are just used to show that people are doing good work and you know keep it up. Kinda like if someone just kept editing and editing but got no recognition, they might ask what is the point of this and quit(again NOT asking for one).O and about the nudge, No problem.Phoenix741 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and Wikipedia:Barnstars should help with the research.Phoenix741 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, did you find anything out, I am curious myslef 8-/.Phoenix741 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Minor Agents of SHIELD Page??

Not sure if you have been looking at the Talk:List of S.H.I.E.L.D. members but it seems are image idea was crap, what do you think?Phoenix741 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Brothers

Speechless. You've reverted the article again, you're placing the exemplars above the manual of style and you don't seem to be working out what is best for the article in question. We have a policy which states we can ignore rules to the betterment of the encyclopedia, and in my opinion my version better suits the official guidelines and policies than the version you are reverting to. The exemplars were written a long time ago by a handful of users, myself included, and are being badly misinterpreted at any rate; they don't dictate that an article's publication history consist of a list of the comics a character has appeared in. The goal at Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedic treatment of a given subject. That's all I'm really interested in doing. I'm not interested in discussing bright clear lines and what this or that article merits, I'm only interested in seeing all article eventually improve to featured article status and comply as best as possible with the manual of style. The new manual of style on writing about fiction supercedes the exemplars, which were never intended to be slavishly followed, but I am after all, only one editor, I refuse to edit war and I will allow the wiki process to work as it does. For me, Wikipedia is not a project where one edits each article so that they comply with some dictat. For me it's about improving each article according to its needs. I think blindly enforcing standards is just another form of WP:OWN, to be honest, and I can think of more pressing issues facing comics articles than whether they meet the outdated exemplars. I for one would be more worried that they tend to fail four of the five core content policies. Take it easy, see you around. Steve block Talk 15:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not angry. As to the rights and wrongs of ignoring guidance, WP:IAR is described by Jimbo as being the first policy. I don't really want to get into a long discussion over all of this, I'd rather just walk away. I'm not an admin, I'm just another user and I'm happy to let time settle the issue. Cheers. Steve block Talk 16:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that being an admin makes absolutely no difference when it comes to content disputes in which I am involved. I was made an admin back in the days when it was deemed no big deal, and all it meant was that the community trusted you to do the right thing. I hold firm to that, and I believe part of that is not using the fact that I am an admin to mean anything when I am in a dispute which does not concern the admin tools. Since this instance does not concern the admin tools, I am not acting as an admin but am just another user. Steve block Talk 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I know you dont like me but as one editor to another can you help me set up a archive?BlueShrek 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks alot.BlueShrek 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joker intro

Looks great to me! ThuranX 22:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Buscema.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 00:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC).
I'd like to begin, so have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Buscema. Andre (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Gervais Meets...

I initiated a discussion at Talk:Garry Shandling#Ricky Gervais Meets... revisted about reverting this material. Thanks!  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There – I think I did good. Thanks for the patience.  ∴ Therefore  talk   20:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV report

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. In this case, it was because 86.156.173.11 was several days old and there were no warnings prior to instances of vandalism.--Chaser - T 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your messages

Don't worry about informing me for each one added, If you think the rationale is OK, detag the image page and instances as well as striking/removing the relevant entry in the compact list I put on the uploaders page :) Sfan00 IMG 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

review please?

User:ThuranX/Sandbox can you take a look at the two templates, and leave me comments either under each, or on the sandbox talk? thanks. ThuranX 14:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thor edits

Read the book. First he bring back Asgard then the cops come and then the owner of the land comes. He tells Thor he must purchase the land which Thor does with the wealth of Asgard. Dont EVER remove factual information please.Wrestlinglover420 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol dude calm down.... he does have every right to remove it
1) there is no reference tag.
2) why didn't you put that other stuff with the cops in there, that way it would of made more sense.
Phoenix741 17:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem

Hey do problem, usually I would of stayed out of it, but when he said dont EVER remove factual information I was like that just made me mad. 8-P Phoenix741 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Banner.

Hey just wondering do you know who made the banner for the talk page, I am trying to make one for the View Askew Project and well I need a tutorial 8-P Phoenix741 01:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah

I didnt take a tone with anybody i gave him a proper warning just like i would give anyone who vandalised a page.Wrestlinglover420 06:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but....it was not vandalism.Phoenix741 12:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was you removed factual information.Wrestlinglover420 14:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how per say did he know it was factual? See you got to see it from his point of view, you added info, but you added it with out a reference, so he had no idea if that was what actually happened or not. So to him you were the vandal. Next time just add a reference, and you should be good.Phoenix741 14:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its called Good Faith. He vandalised the page i properly warned him end of story its done and over with anyway.Wrestlinglover420 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact: I have not ever vandalized a page. Anyone interested in Wrestlinglover420's incivility and accusations toward other uses, please see the blocks and the admin warnings on his talk page. --Tenebrae 00:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superman

I undid your edit to Superman. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars#Comic_book_characters where it says:

  • The opening sentence should be formatted in one of the following two ways:
    • "{Name of character} is a fictional character who appears in the comic books published by [[publisher]]. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year})."
    • "{Name of character} is a comic book superhero who appears in the comic books published by [[publisher]]. Created by {creator(s)}, he/she/they first appeared in {Name of series} #{issue number} ({year})."
Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru 16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you'd reply back. You're a member of WP:CMC, your project's goal is to strive for consistency with all comic book characters, I'm in "awe" that you tell me to fix those pages when you don't instead offer to assist. I'm considering joining your WikiProject BTW, I've contributed to many comic characters, I've only created one DC char. page. If you didn't notice yet, Phoenix741 made an interesting change to Superman that I did not think of at the time. Thoughts? Concerns? Lord Sesshomaru 15:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What?Wrestlinglover420 00:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please stop carrying on, on my talk page. I can see from the subsequent posts and your blockage below that you might have an anger-management problem. I'll stay from your talk page if you'll please stay away from mine. Thanks."

This makes no sence.Wrestlinglover420 01:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever.Wrestlinglover420 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MSH-Submariner 1966TVtoon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MSH-Submariner 1966TVtoon.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 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For being a good buy??

lol sry just needed to point that out. Anyway, thank you very much for the barnstar, it does mean alot.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 20:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LisaRinna-NickFuryTVM.JPG

I have tagged Image:LisaRinna-NickFuryTVM.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. BigrTex 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

polishing

Hi ten! the Punisher article has been through a lot of changes. I would greatly appreciate if you can once again do some polishing on the article. Thanks! †Bloodpack† 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FamousFunnies n1(1934).jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FamousFunnies n1(1934).jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that rationale. Since that image is in two different articles, the rationale needs to explain why it needs to be used in each of the two articles. I added an explanation for the articles the image is in, but you may want to look at what I wrote and tweak it some. The stronger the rationale, the less likely someone else will challenge it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Avengers41.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Avengers41.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Moe ε 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations R Us

Here is all the info I dug up concerning the citations requested. Every time I try to add the source, some other info is dropped. I think this page (and Kane's) is done. I'll meet ya at the Captain Marvel site. Need I mention that the BIG RED CHEESE is my second favorite character?

1. Gardner Fox "Bat-" arsenal attribution: "...Complete History", Daniels p.31 

          "                             : "Batman and Me," Kane/Andrae   p.103

2. NATIONAL (DC Comics) no byline policy: "Showcase Presents:Batman vol. 2 Credit page\intro 

   "Until the 1970s, it was not common practice in the comic industry to credit all stories."
    
   (Personal note: this was true but Marvel gave out bylines,although they were often mis-leading. Charlton allowed artists to sign their name and in the late 60s, DC did the same. However, I think it was Jack Kirby who said the main rationale for comic book companies' refusal of giving out bylines is because they didn't want to reveal their talent pool to their competition and even forbade "moonlighting".)

3. Finger's use of "giant props": "Batman and Me," Kane/Andrae p.119-120 

          "                    :     "Steranko's History..."        p. 49

4. Finger names "Gotham City": "Steranko's History..." p. 45 Bernard ferrell 17:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Issue Project‎

In two edits on that entry you say the following about Strannik:

  • "pls note that edits by subject of article or creator of a work are discouraged and should be done judiciously) " [7]
  • "You are the publisher and are hyping your product. Do we need admin intervention?" [8]

And I was wondering what the evidence was for this claim. Thing is it was me who asked them for help with that entry (and some others they might be interested in). I haven't seen any patterns suggesting they are the publisher of that title as their edits are of a wide range of comics and Russian entries. Obviously that doesn't prove anything and if there are WP:COI issues I'd like to keep an eye out for any problems that might occur. Thanks for any help you can provide. (Emperor 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'm fairly sure there isn't anything suspicious going on but I'll keep an eye out just to be sure.
FYI: my understanding of the Project suggest your edits are the correct ones (which ironically might argue against their being connected to the publisher - the publisher would be expected to get it right ;) ). I'd need to see a good source before I'd go with another interpretation. (Emperor 01:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Just for the record, I am not the publisher, nor have I ever claimed to be one. Furthermore, I am not affiliated with the publisher in any shape or form. Quite frankly, I'm surprised Tanebrae ever assumed that. --Strannik 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Romita

Since when does one delete something he doesn't understand? You can either leave a message in the article talk page or in my talk page mentioning the disputed fact so I can rewrite it in case there is some ambiguity (there was). John Romita has done some way more in his later years than what was there. I'll be glad that you leave the information while I and others can look for more to be added. I added the name to the expand article in the Comics project board to bring attention to it. --Leocomix 06:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X2

Hi man. The talk page shows significant support for X2:Xmen United. Can you explain why you've moved it? IMDb's not the best source, and I've seen the United title in plenty of places. The DVD cover lists it as X2 Xmen United [9]. Unless the company's internal title varies by product, I'd say that the movie itself is reasonable source for keeping it at the fuller title. Thanks man. ThuranX 05:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly good for being bold. I also changed the other X-Men articles to correspond. Alientraveller 09:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Barker sites

A year ago 85.210.225.157 simply spammed these links into about fifty article. No content was added, simply the highly promotional link about the link having a archive of fascinating comment. In Clive Barker's article...fine. In the fifty other articles they were spammed into...no. IrishGuy talk 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up...

Noticed your edit summary on the Superman article re the first Reeve's film... I believe that the article for the film got move to ":The Move"... - J Greb 08:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Image:Devilina2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Image:Devilina2.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 02:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Database Project

Please stop

As others have noted on this page, Wikipedia disallows links to other wikis, such as the Marvel Database Project. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples, which state, among things, "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." --Tenebrae 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tenebrae,
Thank you for leaving me a message about this Wikipedia policy.
In the same spirit as Wikipedia, I believe that the Marvel Database Project is indeed a reliable source. As an aside, I see dozens of links to Marvel.com's wiki, as well. Their wiki is far less complete, and on the whole I believe less accurate.
I request you reconsider the removal of those links as they contain valid and relevant additional information. At the least, I ask that we discuss this topic with other Wikipedia members, as I believe there would be support from other members of the Comics Wikiproject.
Would you consider further discussion?
Kind regards,
--JamieHari 00:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree. If you'll notice, they aren't using the Wiki as a SOURCE; they're saying "If you 're interested in more info than the Godawful 'notability' policy lets us post, go here." Even on official policy pages they mention that you should throw up a link to an external fanwiki (look how many times Wookieepedia is mentioned in official thingies). I'm going to readd the link on, because it's in my Watchlist, the Hobgoblin page, and I *will* take it to an admin if I have to. Thanos6 01:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaman Dispute

Hello, Tenebrae. I was referred to you by fellow WikiProject Comics member Maple Leaf to see if you may be able to assist in a dispute over the Aquaman article. You see, I was under the impression that they wished me to create a separate page for the new incarnation of the character, Arthur Joseph Curry. When I created the page, other users illustrated to me that I had misunderstood them and reacted in a very hostile manner. I then stood behind my decision for the split when Maple Leaf brought to my attention that the Aquaman article itself was relatively large by normal article standards. A user then reverted the change and re-merged the articles, regardless of the glaring size issue.

I would appreciate your input and assistance in this manner. The main discussion is happening on the talk page for the Aquaman article, and your intervention as a respected member of the WikiProject would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! --CmdrClow 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly, I appreciate it! --CmdrClow 03:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice PBH edit. I sat for an hour building one on Friday, but after looking at the preview for it, I realized it would probably be too bold in light of the recent re-merge I did. You didn't seem to pull as much as I did, I pulled just about everything about each series' dates and creative teams, and reworked that, but it's a great start. thanks a lot. I was planning to redo that in the coming week, and sandbox the new version for discussion, but I'll support your bold edit even more, cause one, no stepping on toes, and two, no time spent, LOL.
I read your post-mortem, too. I don't think I was too bite-y, and I don't think my sarcasm was too much, but YMMV. I mostly found his attitude about the whole thing to be disingenius, and I wasn't alone in seeing that he seemed to ignore consensus, as you'll not from talk. that he then cherry picked support also irritated me, and others. Anyways, it's done now, and he hasn't seen fit to edit war on it, so I'm glad to keep pushing for a stronger article.
I'm actually interested in seeing if after we get the article down to about 30K, if we can't go through a Good Article review. He's a famous, top tier DC character, despite his spotty publication history, and well recognized. He doesn't need to have an FA, but ought to be a GA(I think most of the JLA and most of the Avegners individual articles should be GA quality, due to their high recognition in pop culture). ThuranX 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nah, it's all good. By the way, the DC tempalte I asked for review of went live a few days ago, and amazingly, it's quite stable. (although Erik did point out i totalle forgot Watchmen, LOL. GO take a look at it.Template:DC Comics filmsThuranX 06:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Hulk

Good last edit. I was trying to find a previous version that made sense, but you found a better one. Careful on labeling edits "dualing fan...". Your edits could be labeled similarly. Lastly, it was a good point you made about Black Bolt, etc. The general reader does not know who the other characters are simply by reading the article, but they should be able to link back the their respective entries to get further reference. However, I think your changes are still good ones. 24.9.20.149 07:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make another revert on the article -- otherwise you could end up blocked for violating 3RR as well. I still have one left -- I'll revert when he's blocked. Gscshoyru 18:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

This page indicates that non-free content is never to be used in any template. The infobox is by definition a template. It is possible that the page itself is supplanted by other policies elsewhere. If it is, please make the appropriate adustments to the page itself. Personally, though, given the phrasing of the statement, it seems to me unlikely that there are such supplanting policies. John Carter 19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FightStories_pulp_v2n4.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:FightStories_pulp_v2n4.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 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 02:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur and the Minimoys

Hello, regarding the diferences between versions.. i found that someone copied and pasted a text i was discusing in a blog. The text was not intented for the wikipedia, I tried to fix ti, but i think it still does not work. I want to put something better, and more apropiate. But i have two problems. One is my english is not up to the task, and the other hand i am not shure what is the correct aproach. One is the plot that is deleted, and the other the list of the main scenes cuted and reedited. Both things may be interesting to the readers, specially since most of the people in other countires hass seen the uncut version. Also i want to thank you for cleaning my edits. I am taking into accocunt your obsrvations. Nanahuatzin 22:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oops

No worries - I suppose the best thing about wikis is you always have a second pair of eyes on everything. Good spot on the blog - I'll keep a beadier eye out in the future (as I should probably have spotted those earlier - again how useful the second set of eyes can be ;) ). (Emperor 03:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. You've removed lots of ELs based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples, namely "Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources." However, ELs are not sources, they are further reading links. Otherwise how do you explain the hundred of articles linking to Wookiepedia [11] and Memory Alpha [12]? They are Wikis, as such, they violate policy. Why won't you try and remove those? --217.129.169.136 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to point out the same thing. As EL, they are acceptable. I think the debate worth having is whether or not we need two DC wikis linked, as we're not the place for those site to compete. One seems to be ONLY the Timm/Dini animated DC, so there the question is, does the article linked matter? if it's a stub there, and they're just dropping EL's to get traffic, then it can go. For example, Two-Face's page there's substantial. It's unsourced, but that wiki may have different standards. ThuranX 16:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia:External links says open wikis are to be avoided except in very narrow circumstances that would certainly require consensus agreement among editors. --Tenebrae 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Wiki is not acceptable as a reference. But an external link is not necessarily a reference. We use external links all the time as "further reading" on sites which may be more topical, have different POV policies, or host media not allowed under our free content policy. The external link policy is intended to prevent certain types of abuse and the inclusion of links which do not add to the article. The relevant line in this case is "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Is the DCAU Wiki "substantial"? You can check its Special:Statistics. There are 3,000 pages, 850 articles, and 200,000 users. While it's not Wikipedia by a longshot, I'd call that substantial. Do you really want to make the argument that a wiki that big is a 2-bit project not worth of linking? —dgiestc 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see him saying that. I see him saying he's not sure this one adds to all the pages it's being linked to. Any character seen anywhere, even those never named but determined by what would be a SYNTH vio(see Waverider over there, for example), are included. That can be seen as a sign of instability and excessive crufting. I wonder how many of those 850 articles would completely fail Notability or be redirects here. For that matter, how many of that 3K count are redirects there? Further, there's the question of redundancy. There's a DC Universe Wiki as well. Does Wikipedia really need to become a directory of links to each of the half dozen or more Comics/Cartoon wikis going on? I think not. I think that ONE link to the DC Universe wiki is enough. In fact, I think the entire projects should merge, but I know that can't happen. It's not notable, nor 'extended reading' to find an unsourced stub full of guesswork. I don't think we need them here. ThuranX 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional opinion if you'll have it (just saw the mass revert and was going to ask why... since we're beyond that point I'll chip in 2¢ or so).
Looking at the guideline that Tenebrae cites, a few points are salient:
  • The primary section starts "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:" It doesn't have the "very narrow circumstances" qualifier, but each item does seem to speak to why/how/when the pages should be included in an EL.
  • Point 2, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms 'factually inaccurate material' or 'unverifiable research'", does look like we should be applying the standards that Wiki has when adding ELs. In that case, if the page in the DCAU wiki, DCU wiki, or MU wiki does read as fan-synth, it fails the criteria for inclusion as an EL. Note that this would have to be on a page by page basis.
  • Point 13, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", which seems to be the crux of the argument. It would be nice if the guideline spelled out the thresholds better, but it looks like this can be taken two ways: is the wiki, as a whole stable and supported by a lot of hands, or is the particular article page. I think both should be looked at, but the specific page is paramount. If a page has a history, and since it's a wiki we should be able to see this, of either contentious editing or just one or a very, very few editors providing the text, it becomes suspect.
  • Restrictions point 1 is also important. If there is a question, any question, about the linked wiki's use of non-free images, it should be avoided until it is shown that it has a clear copyright/trademark policy.
- J Greb 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copying over from the TfD as I think this is the critical point here (at least for me):
WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #13 states we should avoid "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." So even for an external link the inclusion of this across a wide range of entries (which a template is designed to facilitate) would require a consensus decision from the Comics Project that the wiki is considered stable and has enough editors. (Emperor 19:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
One thing I have noticed is that Tenebare often switches the "external links" section to "references" which can often leave some links note qualifying for inclusion e.g. [13]. As I say the DCAUW probably fails WP:EL without a consensus but it could be an issue with some wikis (and other things not being explicitly being used as references). (Emperor 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've started a discussion on wikis as external links within the comics project here. (Emperor 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia policy

I reverted the articles to before replacing the already existing links with the template, while you removed links posted with good faith. I don't think it's your place to remove ELs, especially when you unduly rename the ELs section to References, which is a completely different thing. --PicketyFence 12:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is discussing whether those links are inappropriate or not. The discussion revolves around a template. The links you removed where there before the template. Before template; after template. --PicketyFence 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're contradicting yourself. Right here you removed one external link under the auspices of the sources policy. Moreover, you left two links to two open wikis ([14] [15]). Why were those left behind? --PicketyFence 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me...

Pardon me, but I've never been blocked, as you asserted. There was a spurious/harassing message left by a throwaway account on my talk page. Please reconsider your comment. —dgiestc 07:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Comic book references" template

There's a link for it here after the main table. It's also in the WikiProject Comics templates and Category:WikiProject Comics articles (which seems redundant...). So it is accessible ;)

And directly for {{Cite comic}} (it was recently moved).

And it should be fixed now.

One thing, and I've gotten to the point where I don't what to bang my head on a wall over it, at least one editor is of the mind set that "not all comic book series that share an exact title have volume numbers." His view comes from the though that a book needs at least a years run to qualify and he's using fan/hobby sites to back it up. When I looked up the definition of the word from various sources, couldn't find an industry one, they read that the "year" was a general, but not needed, item.

This template is going to force the use of volume numbers or bread confusion.

- J Greb 18:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

I've looked at the project exemplars they all use the word "References". In terms of {{reflist}} vs <references /> the issue with reflist is that it the text is too small (even for a comparatively healthy adjusted eyesight like mine). However if there is a compelling reason to use {{reflist}} now is a good time for me to find out about it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:50 11 September 2007 (GMT).

The distinction is, I supposed, between things that have been referred to for creation of the article and things that are references for further information. WP is certainly not consistant, a;though a glimmer can be seen in the fact that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings) uses "notes" as well as references. Certainly in an ideal world footnotes of content would be distinct from cites, but as you know we do not have the means to fotenote citeations properly yet (in terms of different pages in the same work for example). Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions expands on this point. Unfortunately I would find it very hard to make SB decide which footnotes are cites and which are content - note that this task only affects articles where there are footnotes and they can't be seen. I think humans will have do dcide if they ultimately belong in a "notes" "references" or "notes and references" section. Rich Farmbrough, 20:20 11 September 2007 (GMT).
Yes I do undestand that some articles are so extensively footnoted that tho keep the bits after the footnotes in reach the footnotes need to be squashed. I have always thought this a reason to put those bits right at the end (contrary to current MoS) in which case the size is not important - unless you wnat to scroll down to the categories. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24 11 September 2007 (GMT).

I think that the 16,000 articles with hidden footnotes need the footnotes making visible pretty quick. Referencing and citation are probably WP's biggest issue at the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 20:26 11 September 2007 (GMT).

It's not converting any links. There needs to be a <ref> style entity, which would be expressed as a footnote in the article (or of course several). And there needs to be no markup that will allow the footnote to be expressed - i.e. something like this [1]. Rich Farmbrough, 23:30 11 September 2007 (GMT).
  • There should never (will never, unless there's a bug) be two references sections as a result of this task.
  • Imagine you had set up an article with one or more footnotes, and someone removed the footnotes section. That's the type of article targetted here.
  • If you see a comics article that you think should have "footnotes" header rather than or instead of "references" just change it. There shouldn't be many.
  • Note that for techincal reasons this process is "three pass" - it's not just me or the bot being obstinate if things get changed more than once.
  • Look for example at Torchy (comics)- before the change the footnote to "Bill Ward: 50 Fabulous Years of Torchy Checklist" is embedded in the article, but there is no place for footnotes so it doesn't show.
Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 07:20 12 September 2007 (GMT).

Re: Buscema

Skyelarke has agreed to drop the italics that have been bothering you. Let's try to proceed civilly with the rest of the mediation. Andre (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DetectiveComics1.jpg

I have tagged Image:DetectiveComics1.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. Videmus Omnia Talk 13:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Airboy-Heap.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Airboy-Heap.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 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditko

Cheers. The multi-part Rand essay is heavy going and while it is a speculative as a theory it is interesting and could even explain some of the mysteries in background. Worth adding but I avoided summarising it as the reader will have to make up their own mind (and it might take up quite a bit of space to do it justice). (Emperor 22:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The Hulk, a shapeshifter?

In regards to your edit here, is it just me or is the explanation of the shapeshifter category vague? Perhaps it can be specified better, as it reads: "Fictional characters with the power to change their shape, often assuming or impersonating the identities of another..." I was under the belief that Bruce Banner / The Hulk was an example of this, Banner constantly shapeshifts into the monster, that's why I added that category a few days back. What should be done here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Twelve (comic)

I have declined the speedy tag as it does not meet the CSD criteria. Please do not restore it. Once an admin declines a speedy, you are welcome to use WP:PROD or WP:AFD, but you should not restore it. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

There is always Wikipedia:List of administrators.  :-) — Coren (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ here is some useful info you can't see

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi