User talk:Tenebrae/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Tenebrae/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Simplified Ruleset
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Wikipedia Glossary
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango 123 (talk) 01:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Uploading images

Hi, Tenebrae. About uploading images: Wikipedia:Uploading images has all the information for the "how-to" aspect, but if you successfully uploaded two or three images before the (404) Not Found error message, it's probably best to wait a bit before trying again, as the server could possibly be experiencing temporary problems. Also, at the upload page, make sure to fill out every field of information along with a licensing selection. If uploading images still doesn't work after this, please let me know.

Oh, and I completely agree with you about the conservative comment at my talk page. The anonymous user 156.143.142.210 had been vandalizing Barack Obama ([1] [2]) and apparently became upset after his changes were reverted. His solution? A personal attack on another user. No, not childish or useless at all, wouldn't you say? ;)

Regards, Sango 123 (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I looked through your contributions, and you're doing some great work!

American comic book

As a contributor to the above article, would you mind looking through it and seeing if you can provide any references? The reason I ask is that at WPT:CMC we are trying to get more comics articles given Featured Article status. Thanks for any help you could provide. Steve block talk 15:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Don Rico, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

graphic novel lists

Mea culpa, I never got back to you about the list of graphic novels, sorry. Yeah, the lists you've made are a lot better in terms of definability, I just wonder if they should be split onto a seperate page is all. User:Steve block talk 13:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

redirects

Just as a heads up, when making a redirect page, don't have a space between the character # and the word REDIRECT. For example:

#REDIRECT [[target]] <-- good
# REDIRECT [[target]] <--- bad --Bachrach44 19:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake

Mediation? Over two reverts? That's the most premature mediation I think I've ever seen. I said I'd get the goddamned citations on Thursday. Would you please, instead of carping through unnecessary dispute resolution procedures, just put Template:Fact in front of the material you want sources on, uncomment everything out, and wait until Thursday like I, I thought rather poltiely, asked? I've been driving up the East Coast since 7am on Monday, I'm absolutely fucking exhausted, and I really just want to go to bed without responding to useless mediation requests and digging through websites. Since you seem hell bent on denying me this rather simple pleasure, I'll go find your goddamned citations, but point out that you can generally avoid putting tired volunteers in astonishingly shitty moods by being a bit less bullish about things and actually listening to them when they say things like "Let's leave these and I'll get them Thursday." Phil Sandifer 02:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Your language is uncalled for.

By the same token you ask me to wait till Thursday, you could have kept those paragraphs out till then. If there's a question about accuracy, relevancy, verifiability, common sense says better safe than sorry.

Please do not use language like that to me or others again. Wiki:Civility. --Tenebrae

Your spectacular failure to handle any step of this in an appropriate manner has, frankly, made me kind of angry. First of all, removal of information - especially the gratuitously oversized removal you undertook at first - without raising the issue on talk and letting some conversation happen is unseemly. Second of all, removal of uncontroversial unsourced material does not have wide acceptance for relatively obvious reasons - particularly when nobody disputes the accuracy. Third of all, when an editor asks you to specify what material you want sources on with a template that is designed to mark the information that is in an article and has sources so that any reader can see it and add sources, this is prboably not an unreasonable thing to do. Fourth of all, requesitng mediation after two reverts is absurd. Fifth of all, when reverting after an editor has made a token effort to fix the phrasing you're complaining about, simply removing 90% of the phrasing without comment does not give a sense that you are actually interested in compromise or working with other editors. Sixth of all, one generally leaves messages on talk pages, not userpages. Sevent of all, when you have done 1-6 and managed to piss off an editor, your requests for more civility might better avoid adding more straw to an already shattered camel spine if accompanied with, perhaps, some apology for the preceding. Despite that, your citation is in the article, the language is clarified, now please, try to be more helpful instead of needlessly escelating conflicts and not granting simple requests from your fellow editors, mmkay? Thanks. Phil Sandifer 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On every page of editing, it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." I'm sorry you feel the need to rant as you do above when someone asks reasonably and in detail not just for verifiable sources, but who questions the relevancy of a particular passage. I'm very surprised, after all my positive experiences with such requests on Wiki, to find someone losing his temper over someone daring to ask him about the relevance of something. I ask for mediation after two reverts because I believe three is the rule, and it was clear you would do a third revert. I'm sorry you don't like someone questioning you.

And actually, I did bring up all this on the Talk page -- where someone else questions the source and the relevancy of a particular passage.

You're angry someone asks for "goddamned citations"? Between that and your abusive incivility, I'm asking for more than mediation. -- Tenebrae 05:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You haven't edited anything mercilessly - you've just raised very broad objections, and removed huge chunks of things with minimal explanation. And to be clear, I am not stressed about your asking about the relevance. I'm stressed about almost everything else you've done, but not about that. I'm stressed that you ignored simple requests like to use Template:fact, to wait til Thursday, and even to stop leaving messages on my userpage. I'm stressed that you escelated to relatively high level dispute resolution over nothing, meaning that I have to spend time I'd rather spend doing other things. I'm stressed to see large chunks of my work simply removed from the article over minor quibbles when there are tags appropriate for leaving it in the article so that people can edit it. I'm stressed that you've not lifted a finger to make any of the changes you want yourself. These all have little do with questioning, and much to do with incivility on your part. In any case, I apologize for the language - I have driven from Florida to Connecticut over the past three days, and I am rather testy, and strangely unable to sleep. Regardless, I do think you have made this about fifty times more stressful than a simple request for sources needs to be. Phil Sandifer 05:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

ADDENDUM per [3]: "This account is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 18:26, 6 November 2013 AGK (talk | contribs) blocked Phil Sandifer (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (banned by the Arbitration Committee; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=580484625). --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Footnotes

Thanks for the instruction! Dyslexic agnostic 07:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Mickey Finn

You copy and pasted the content into a new article, which is specifically advised against the page move procedures, because it destroys the history of changes that is necessary under GFDL. Please use proper page moves in the future. I'm reverting your changes and putting the page up for deletion to fix this. Night Gyr 13:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Lobo

It's OK, I'm fine with the way the Lobo page used to be before I edited it (chronologically ordered). I just thought a more well-known character would have precedence. --Ace ETP 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Typo in your name

Hi user Tenebrae, I happened to notice that you typed your own name in the first line on the user page as Tebebrae. You might want to correct this! −Woodstone 15:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ron Wilson

The only person I saw on the Ron Wilson disambiguation page who may be more notable than Ron Wilson the hockey coach, is Ronald Wilson, but his page is on Ronald Wilson. The only reason I put it as Ron Wilson was because there was no page filled at Ron Wilson. However, it would be incorrect to merge the two separate hockey articles into one because they are two separate notable people. But if you must move the Ron Wilson page, let me know so I can change the links to it from other pages. Croat Canuck 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

West Virginia as the U.S. Collaboration of the Week

Hey Tenebrae, I recently nominated the West Virginia main article to be a candidate for the US Collaboration of the Week. As you're probably well aware, the article is in need of a lot of help and being the US Collaboration of the Week could improve it immensely. Please consider voting for West Virginia, as I know you've contributed frequently to articles dealing with West Virginia. Thanks! --Caponer 21:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

US Collaboration of the month

You have voted for [[{{{1}}}]] on the USCOTM. It was selected to be this months's collaboration. You are invited to help to contribute in order to improve [[{{{1}}}]] in any way possible.

Cmadler 14:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Larry Hama

Littering the Larry Hama article with "or original research?" comments was not appropriate. Just ask for citations, and leave it at that. Also, the fact that he served during the Vietnam War (even if not stationed in SE Asia) is arguably relevant, given that he later edited The 'Nam. Tverbeek 02:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone has the privileges needed to create a template tag, by creating a page such as Template:example and putting the desired code there. (That does require knowing how to write the code, of course.) Then put {{example}} in whatever articles you want that tag to appear in. But asking for a citation is essentially the same thing as calling something "original research"; either a citation can be found and added, or the material should eventually be removed as unverifiable. As for the Vietnam War/The 'Nam connection, I figure that as long as both facts are there in the article (and they are now), there's no need to connect the dots for the reader: they see that he was in the Corps of Engineers during the Vietnam War, and that he edited a book about the Vietnam War, and can draw their own conclusions about what that means. What was missing before was the connection between his service dates and the war dates (obvious to those of us of a certain age or above, but not to everyone), which is why I put that back in. Tverbeek 03:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Once an article has been posted for deletion, it's the prerogative of the admins to carry out the consensus of those voting and either delete the article or remove the notice. You can put the "cleanup" tag back on if you feel strongly about it, but I disagree: it's a pretty good article now, not an ungrammatical, badly-formatted, confusing mess like the "cleanup" tag is meant to indicate. Tverbeek 13:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Daredevil

Hi, Tenebrae. I'm glad you left a message notifying GodzillaWax, but currently, I don't believe there is anything that warrants admin intervention. Looking through his contributions, I find no violations of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA except for the edit summaries on these two diffs: [4] [5]. Your note on User talk:GodzillaWax should be enough for now, but if the editing gets hot and you can't resolve matters on Talk:Daredevil, please notify me and consider visiting the administrators' noticeboard. Thanks, Sango 123 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! :) Sango 123 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lighten Up

First off, you need to calm your nerd rage. Second, in your effort to revise Daredevil, you continually omit facts under the claim that they need sources. Fine. But do a modicum of research on these things to find the source before you remove them completely. You clearly have google at your fingertips, so use it. Third, Kirby is not recognized as a creator of Daredevil. At most he did a sketch on page 1. Marvel does not recognize him as a creator, so neither should wikipedia. Fourth, "style" is not in violation of wiki guidelines. Incoporate some into your work. My dig that you 'must write algebra textbooks for a living' is not a dig at writers. I happen to be one in real life, as shocking as that might be to you. I was suggesting that you are removing any element of readable prose with paint-by-numbers drivel. GodzillaWax 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To which I would reiterate, lighten up

In response to your attacks on my discussion page:

The two "insults" that have you enraged are that you a) may be suffering from nerd rage, and b) that your writing isnt good.

I am a nerd. You are a nerd. This is evidenced by the fact that we are arguing over a Daredevil encyclopedia entry. You are enraged. Nerd + rage = nerd rage. I am similarly undergoing nerd rage because your entries to the page are poorly researched and poorly written.

Which leads to my second "insult", that your writing isnt good. This can hardly be any more inflammatory than suggesting my writing has an inappropriate tone.

So Id say the scorecard is about equal right now.

GodzillaWax 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Youre Disagreeing With Yourself

You have yet to produce a credible source that can identify Kirby as a creator of the character. As you have pointed out on numerous occasions, this is an encyclopedia, not a place for conjecture. The universally accepted fact is that Lee and Everett created Daredevil. It is not wiki's job to speculate on whether or not this is 100% true. Youve got your footnote addressing the issue, why is that enough for you?

Which leads to the problems I have with you. Your changes are capricious. You constantly drop fact based statements that are currently unsupported rather than putting any effort into investigating them. This is like going to the Civil War entry and removing a sentence saying "The North won" because there was no credible source. The source is out there. Make an attempt to find it.

Moreover you then inject your own conjecture. Talking about artist changes coming about because of a "kirby run house of ideas" is no more fact than any of the changes you have made.

Lastly, you keep throwing up this 'inappropriate tone' banner and then making changes with worse prose.

If you were making constructive changes, then cheers thats what wiki is for. But you are maliciously changing things and removing facts because they dont suit you. In other words, you are being tyrannical.

To suggest that I should be removed from the page that I helped resurrect is laughable. You call me a fanboy but then refuse to admit any mistakes youre making. I think you should be blocked from this page for an amount of time so that you can cool down and analyse your errors.

GodzillaWax 20:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Fix Pictures

You seem to have broken a number of picture links on the Daredevil entry. Please be so kind as to fix them. I suggest if they are showing in your browser you clear your cache.

With warmest regards GodzillaWax 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: linkspam on comics pages

In regards to your question on my User talk page: link spam is placing off-site links to another site primarily for advertising purposes: Sometimes advertising to random passerby, and sometimes advertising to Google itself in an attempt to increase the site's PageRank with Google. Linkspam is usually pretty obvious: it won't be clearly relevant to the topic. Sometimes the information is relevant; if so it's usually more appropriate to link to the internal Wikipedia entry on the topic. That particular topic can have a single outbound link to the target. Hypothetical example: a link to the front page of microsoft.com on every single page that mentions Microsoft would be linkspam. A link to Microsoft's web page for Microsoft Project is appropriate for the Wikipedia page Microsoft Project. It's not appropriate for the Project management software. However, it would be appropriate to list a link to the Wikipedia page Microsoft Project on Project management software.

It's fair game to remove linkspam on the grounds that it's just not relevant enough. In the specific case of the edits I was making, the User:Badbilltucker was populating the comics entries with as much awards information as he could. With each edit he added a link to the front page of an online comic awards index. The link was particularlly bad because it was on lots of pages and went to the front page of the awards site; hardly a specific reference. Strictly speaking, I don't think Badbilltucker was engaging in link spam; I believe his claim that he was just using it as a sort of marker because he wasn't done adding awards (the awards index in question was sorted by award, not by person or comic). Indeed, when people asked him to stop making that link, I believe he did. However, a lot of his old edits persisted. I was going through purging the accidental linkspam. I have no idea if the links are still around, I've been away for a while. Alan De Smet | Talk 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop the Denigration

Noticed the further character assassination on Sangos page from you. I would encourage you to copy such things into my user page so as not to have the reputation of someone who Pearl Harbors others.

Most gracious thank yous, GodzillaWax 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone tag

Any editor may remove an {{inappropriate tone}} tag from an article if s/he feels it is no longer needed. You might want to leave a note on the article talk page explaining why, and when removing the tag itself, include an edit summary of something like rm inappropriate tone tag, see talk. Hope this helps. Sango 123 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Im Not Saying it Again Tenebrae

Knock it off with the personal attacks. I saw you badmouthing me again on the WikiProject Comics Page. Be a man and do it to my face or dont do it all. But this cowardly running around dropping insults stops now. GodzillaWax 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Response on his page:

==Don't threaten me==

Take stock of yourself and of the comments you make to people. We've all seen the insults you throw on the History page, fulminating about the "Virgin Brigade" and the "awesomeification" of your edits. Seriously, I'm asking respectfully and calmly for two answers, and I'm hoping, to use your own phrase, you're man enough to give them. The two questions are: Why do you think you have the right to insult people and call them names, or to characterize your attempts at editing with such self-aggrandiing and non-informative descriptions? -- Tenebrae 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem with page	Solution	Add this tag
Article needs improvement	List on Wikipedia:Cleanup.	`{{cleanup}}`, or preferably a more-specific tag.
Article needs a lot of improvement	List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.	`{{attention}}`
Article is biased or has lots of POV	List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.	`{{npov}} or {{POV check}}`