Talk:Al Gordon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removing Speedy Delete nomination[edit]

I am removing the Speedy Delete tag. This article is on Al Gordon the comic book artist. Tha article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gordon was on Al Gordon the musician. This article has not been previously deleted, and the speedy deletion nomination therefore fails. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC from Talk:Al Gordon (comics)[edit]

I note that you seem to take a great interest in the article Al Gordon (comics), and have added or tried to add much material that could be construed as promotional or self-promotional. Adding links to a subject's social media pages is not generally accepted, and violates WP:ELNO10. (Please see.) As well, your reverting to material that another editor has removed while citing the pertinent Wikipedia policy can be considered edit-warring, which can have potentially serious consequences. Please do not continue adding social media or other promotional links to articles. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • The reason I "take great interest in the article Al Gordon (comics)" is because I'm me: Al Gordon. The article is about me. My Facebook page is mine and according to The ELNO # 10 that you quoted - it says there is an exception: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject." Both of these Links are fairly official since they're mine. Although I'd like both links since they're so different... If you have a problem with there being two (2) Official Pages... I'd rather have the Flickr since it is a Gallery of my work.

Are you the from Tenebrae from comicbookresources?


  • To (talk) I was hoping to hear from you by now.
Hi. Just saw your message on my talk page. If there's no other official site for Al Gordon, then linking to an official social-networking page is acceptable. Linking to two is generally considered promotional, and if you are indeed Mr. Gordon (since there's no way to tell on Wikipedia; I wish we had a verification function like Twitter), it would be self-promotion and a possible violation of conflict-of-interest policy.
However, you are correct: On closer examination, none of the current ELs appear to be official sites. In that case, it would be acceptable under ELNO to add a social-network page. You pick. And if I may, we really should have had this conversation before you reverted.
I wasn't aware there was a Tenebrae writing for ComicBookResources. Small world. Happy holidays. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Hi again:

I find it amusing that you would assume someone in their right mind would want to impersonate me. Very odd indeed.

It seems to me you are enforcing a Rule that doesn't exist. Can you tell me where on the ENLO page that it says I'm only allowed "one (1) Official External Link?"

All of my links are intended to give Information or Compliment the Article, for example, by showing a Gallery. None of these sites are selling anything.

I've noticed a lot of other pages have quite a few Official External Links… "Justine" Beaver has a FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.… Adam Hughes has his Official Website and Deviant Art… Major Lazer has an Official page, MySpace, Twitter and YouTube… Jim Lee has DeviantArt, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube…

Can you show me, officially, where it says that Living People are always only represented by a Single External Link?

Albabe (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I assume since I have received no retort from Tenebrae, that I may replace the links on the article about Al Gordon.

Albabe (talk)

I'm not Tenebrae but I can answer some of your points. You will definitely see articles that break guidelines. That just means that all of us volunteers are just stretched thin and haven't caught up to them yet. It's not always fair but everybody does the best they can. It's kind of like the guy you see get away with speeding while someone else gets a ticket.
It can be hard to learn all the complicated guidelines here. My personal suggestion is to go very slowly and carefully when it comes to editing a page about yourself. In that situation it's often best to ask a more experienced editor before making a change yourself or even to ask the other editor to make the edit for you. I know that might sound overly complicated but editing your own article without violating Wikipedia's guidelines is a very tricky situation. I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
I'd also reccommend taking any disagreements to the talk page of the article. Wikipedia can get a little hectic with so many editors all working on the project at once. If we all just undid each others edits whenever we disagreed every article would be like a crazy game of ping pong as each editor undid the others' changes and reimplemented their own! Instead the reccommended thing to do as soon as somebody undoes one of your edits is to open a discussion on that article's talk page and talk out the disagreement. For example I see disagreement about how many images to use and about which external links to use.
Hope that helped some and welcome to Wikipedia. Cloveapple (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed some promotional edits at Al Gordon (comics). I would strongly suggest that the subject of the article refrain from editing it. This is an encyclopedia article and not a fan page, and if the subject feels that the conflict of interest guidelines are unfair or inapplicable, I would invite him to speak with an admin.
If these promotional edits continue, I will have to post a notice at the Conflict of Interest Noticeaboard to request admin action.
Please continue this discussion at Talk:Al Gordon (comics) for the purpose of centralization. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted the interaction about this page from my Talk page to make things as clear as possible. -- Albabe (talk)

I don't see why his official flickr should be removed --Guerillero | My Talk 02:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's already got his Facebook page. ELNO10 says when there's no official page, we can link to a social-media page instead, not multiple pages. Then it becomes promotional linkspamming. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Cloveapple. I really appreciate your feedback.. and especially your tone and demeanor.

I'm sure some of the articles that break guidelines are because of stretched volunteers... No doubt about it. But that wasn't my specific point. Tenebrae said specifically that there can only be one Official External Link. I looked through the ELNO Guidelines and saw nothing about there only being allowed One External Link. And as I've said, I looked around and there are virtually countless Articles with more than one link. I posted a few (above).

      • Thanx Guerillero. I don't either. I've already quoted The ELNO # 10 that Tenebrae quoted - it says there is an exception: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject." I'm certainly no Wiki Expert but that seems fairly clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albabe (talk • contribs) 04:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops Albabe (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing other Wikipedia articles that may be in violation of policy is not an argument generally accepted. Secondly, ELNO says "a" link to "an" official page: singular.
And on top of this, Wikipedia admins take a very, very dim view of article subjects adding multiple links to their own sites. Read WP:COI. This self-promotion you're exhibiting is solely for your own benefit and does not further the goals of this educational encyclopedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Citation-Needed for Tarzan 2012[edit]

Here's the citation you requested:

http://www.darkhorse.com/Comics/17-998/Dark-Horse-Presents-10-Thomas-Yeates-cover

"I'll be back..."


Albabe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

External links[edit]

Okay, here's what I feel is a fair compromise.

The entries on Al at the GCDB, etc, those are obviously fine.

Interviews with Al - we can't include every interview ever. If the interview can be used as a source, that's good.

Official site - this is tricky. Really, I don't think we should have both Al's Facebook page and his Comicon page. Ideally there'd be an official Al Gordon site that stood on its own, and referred to Facebook and Comicon, but right now there isn't. Which of those pages is more recently updated? Use that one.

As for his Flickr page -- if Al wasn't an award-winning visual artist, I'd feel differently. But he is, so a link to his Flickr page is wholly appropriate. DS (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanx for all the feedback, DS. As per your suggestion I've added my Facebook page as my "Official Page" until I can get a Blogspot or WordPress up and running.
  • I've also added my Flickr page as my Gallery as per your suggestion.

Albabe (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that another editor is giving input; I'd like to see more editors weighing in. In the meantime, however, there is NO consensus for going against ELNO and adding multiple social-media links. The guidelines say a social-media link may be used when there is no official site ... not multiple links. And his being "an award-winning visual artist" is irrelevant; everybody in Wikipedia is suppose to be notable — that's de minimus. I'm sure every other visual artist would like to have links to all his or her social-media pages. So would every writer, every company, etc. That doesn't excuse enhanced self-promotion or make it right or proper. If Al is so concerned about promoting himself, he should get himself a website rather than trying to exploit Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think social media links ought to be kept to an absolute minimum, but I don't think for a visual artist, Flickr really counts as a social media link like Facebook or Twitter (etc.) do. I certainly wouldn't want to see Wikipedia pages overrun with social media bullshit, but think that DS's solution seems reasonable. People who want the social media links can usually find them spammed over every damn official website on the planet. The Flickr link actually lets you see the artwork in a reasonably straight-forward manner. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree with Tom Morris in that in cases like these, Flickr shouldn't really count as a social media external link. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Tom --Guerillero | My Talk 02:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Flickr page is there. Nobody's removed it. And while WP:ELNO10 makes it clear that multiple social-media sites are disallowed, ELNO11 additionally notes that blogs and personal web pages (other than an official site) and the like are disallowed. A link to an official page is allowed. Flickr is what the consensus wants, and that's what's there — in addition to his Comicon.com page! Any more than that violates ELNO, and Gordon's relentless pursuit of self-promotion violates WP:NOTADVERTISING as well. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I am going to throw aside my normal cover of civility my inner wikigryphon is exploding.) Will you please stop beating a dead horse and biting Tenebrae like crazy. You have four admins here backing the idea to allow the flickr page in addition to the facebook page. Ignoring the external link guidelines is the correct thing to do in this case. One extra link isn't going to break the wiki and does not turn this page into an advertisement. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't believe self-promotion is reason enough to ignore a guideline. And may I say, I'm very disappointed that you bring up that four admins are commenting, since you're commenting as editors, not as admins. Admins are not supposed to suggest that their opinions carry more weight when you're commenting as editors, which is what you are doing now.
Ignoring a guidelines is kind of a big deal, and if self-promotion is a good reason to do so, that's a very slippery slope. Assuming self-promotion is not a good reason, what's the rationale? Are five External links really so few that we have to ignore a guideline? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that "WikiGriffs ... occasionally band together--sometimes with each other, sometimes with other WikiFauna--to hunt down vandals and WikiTrolls...." Aside from violating tag-teaming, the implication that I am a vandal or a troll is hugely insulting and uncalled-for. What kind of thing is that to suggest, for goodness' sakes? I don't deserve to be called those things. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Like WikiOtters, WikiGryphons are very friendly and love helping new users and are devoted to guiding them and setting them on the right track (if they aren't already). While WikiGryphons don't snap as easily as WikiOtters, they're definitely not pushovers as they can knock a bullying user to next week with a swipe of a talon." Is the section that I was referencing --Guerillero | My Talk 19:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can understand how one might first notice the topic sentence under "Behavior", which is what I did.
But you know what? I'm feeling threatened and I don't like that feeling. Short of getting involved in a long and time-consuming process, there's really not much I can do if someone is going to swing the "admin" club when acting as an editor peer. I'm very disappointed that anyone would do that, but I'm not going to fight it.
If you're stating as an admin that self-promotion is a proper and valid reason to ignore ELNO guidelines — and let's remember that it's the subject himself dying to add as many EL links as he can, not a disinterested outside editor — then what choice do I have but to withdraw? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx to all the above for their comments and consideration. I am really not trying to cause any trouble. As per DSs suggestion above, I'm exchanging the Comicon.com page for the FaceBook page. Thanx again! Albabe (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Help Please[edit]

I noticed a citation on this article. I found a solicitation that provided the information needed for the citation.

I researched it here at Wiki and thought I was doing this right... but after I cited the info needed to substantiate the claim the citation was questioning, and adding that info to the Talk Page... I then removed the citation weeks later. Then someone put the citation back saying "do not remove citation requests. That is not how Wikipedia works."

I thought I did it correctly. Can anyone help me do it right?

Albabe (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics disallows solicitations to be used as reference sources. Find a journalistic source, such as ComicBookResources.com, that states what you'd like to have cited. And, no, we do not remove citation requests; we find a citation or we remove the claim. See the core policy WP:VERIFY, among many other policies and guidelines.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, solicited material may change before it's actually released (case in point, "Emerald Twilight"). So it's safer to wait until the material is actually available to consumers. DS (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh< That makes sense. Thanx, folks. My bad. I thought it was one of those things that had to be attended to real fast or it would be deleted.
There's just so much to read and understand here in terms of editing Wiki... Most of my contributions are to Musical Stuff (It's the only thing I have a degree in... which, of course is why I've worked in Comic Books for a zillion years), and I guess there are different guidelines to different subjects.
Thanx again.
Albabe (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Release citation for the Tarzan Citation Request:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=user_review&id=4428

Albabe (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, Ms T.
Albabe (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation added.albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 22:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "citation" is a link to a site where you buy the comic. That's a violation of WP:ELNO and of WP:NOTADVERTISING, the same as if a book author would put a link to his book's Amazon.com page. Another example of using a Wikipedia page for WP:COI self-promotion. Find a disinterested, journalistic, 3rd-party review or news story — NOT an order-form page for your comic. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand_Comics_Database[edit]

I don't believe that Grand_Comics_Database should be used as an source for this, or any other, BLP because I do not think it meets the requirements of WP:RS.

I have opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Grand_Comics_Database. Shaz0t (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

The article today said "Alan Gordon (born June 22, 1953)" with a ref to this;

Miller, John Jackson (June 10, 2005). "Comics Industry Birthdays". Comics Buyer's Guide. Archived from the original on October 29, 2010. Retrieved December 12, 2010. {{cite web}}: Text "John Jackson Miller" ignored (help)

I dispute that that is an appropriate reference, so I will remove the date of birth.

Please feel free to discuss below. Thanks. Shaz0t (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your deletion. You haven't provided any reasonable explanation why the Comics Buyer's Guide is unreliable for Gordon's date of birth. If you somehow get unblocked, please pursue dispute resolution channels such as WP:3O, WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N. Thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why Shaz0t didn't think the Comics Buyer's Guide is unreliable for Gordon's date of birth? albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 21:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Length of bibliography section[edit]

We don't normally give full bibliographies per WP:NOTCV. Instead we select the most important works. But I'm unfamiliar with the area to do a selection myself. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and I'm not a fan of long biblios myself. I'm not sure, however, that we "don't normally give full bibliographies." First, a bibliography, by definition, is not the same as a c.v. or a resume, and listing only "the most important works" is subjective POV. Having the full bibliography of the living Philip Roth does not violate WP:NOTCV. Nor does having one for the late Jack Kirby. Having a comprehensive list of an author's books or comic books seems an encyclopedic necessity, in fact. Would we only include the subjectively "most important" of Shakespeare's work? Even he wrote a couple of minor, little-performed plays.
I'm sure I could list any number of author articles with full bibliographies; in fact, it's hard to imagine such an article without one, be it Tom Wolfe or Thomas Wolfe.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Al Gordon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al Gordon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Gordon&oldid=1202387045"