User talk:Curly Turkey/Archive/2011

Japanese Language Proficiency Test

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Japanese Language Proficiency Test. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Please desist of modifying the article if you have been reverted.

• Discuss it on the talk page and get a consent before. pmt7ar ^(talk) 12:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:ChesterBrownPayingForItCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ChesterBrownPayingForItCover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I added the rationale. Acidtoyman (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CongressOfTheAnimalsCover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CongressOfTheAnimalsCover.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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Pepso2 (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will note for future. Pepso2 (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Weathercraft

No, it is not proper protocol to work on an article and then assess it yourself. We'll let it go this time, but in future, you'll know to ask someone else if you want an article you've worked on assessed. Homoaffectional (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Chester Brown

Hey, I just want to thank you for doing such an excellent job expanding all the Chester Brown articles. Ash Loomis (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JimWoodringCongressOfTheAnimalsCover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JimWoodringCongressOfTheAnimalsCover.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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Crumb self portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Crumb self portrait.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Information added. Sorry about that. Acidtoyman (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Aardvark-Vanaheim, inc comics

Thanks for your edits / help in updating the articles relating to Aardvark-Vanaheim. The nav bars will come in handy, and the table for the phonebooks is a nice way to sort it out. Margaret (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ChesterBrownSelfPortrait.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ChesterBrownSelfPortrait.gif. 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. We hope (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Crumb self portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Crumb self portrait.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. We hope (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cerebus112 113cover.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cerebus112 113cover.gif. 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Curly Turkey. You have new messages at Skier Dude's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just FYI - if you don't have time, there is a bot that will do this, usually within a week or so. Skier Dude (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh...I'll just leave it to the bot, then, so I don't screw it up. Acidtoyman (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:CrumbGenesisPage1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CrumbGenesisPage1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Whitespace

• Ah, I see. As noted on the page for Auto-Ed, the removal is mainly to try and standardize the articles so that they can be used for different things. Help:Whitespace notes that whitespace is not always desirable, but may be; you have given a good reason, so I will rollback my edit. However, you were right to be cautious because rollbacking other editors is supposed to be used only for blatant vandalism; rollbacking yourself is fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature

Hi. While I do like your new username, your signature is immense. Would you please consider amending it so that it doesn't take up quite so much room? --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was nice for the few hours it lasted... CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Autobio comics

There already is a page for Autobiographical comics, so I seriously doubt that there would be any benefit in a page on "autobio comics". Looking at your proposed article I'm not seeing anything that isn't already or couldn't be said in the existing article. If there is some distinction you want to try and make between the two, it's probably original research, and at the very least it would be a minor difference that would be better covered in a small section in the existing article. If you are determined to create a page on "autobio comics", then you should be prepared to explain why it is beneficial to wikipedia for it to exist.

Per WP:BRD I don't see any issue with my moving Chester Brown's autobiographical comics. The new title is clearly the more commonly used designation. If you object then you can post on the talk page and see if there's community support for moving it back. TJ Black (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that this is a sore spot for you, so you should probably step back from Wikipedia for a while so you get some perspective on how to contribute constructively. I thought we were having a constructive dialogue, but your latest comment on my talk page proves that you're way too committed to your viewpoint to be objective, though I'm still going to assume good faith and try to talk to you rationally. There is zero benefit to the project to having two separate articles on the same topic that differ only by title. If the existing article is flawed (and I am not defending its current state, despite your implication that I am), the proper course of action is to fix it, not create a separate article more to your liking. If "autobio" is the more commonly used term, then it should be easy for you to get consensus to change all related articles and links to that term. In spite of reading autobiographical comics for decades, I'd never heard that term before a couple of days ago, but I certainly don't know everything and never claimed to. But leaving a bunch of redlinks in articles or created a walled garden of articles that use your preferred terminology is not constructive or beneficial to wikipedia. If you can't see that, then please step away from wikipedia until you can have some perspective. TJ Black (talk) 23:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You've blanked your talk page, so I'm copying from your history why I said here:

Hi, I noticed you've changed a bunch of autobio comics links to autobiographical comics links.

I'm not objecting to the change so much as the assertion: " 'autobio' is a little used term for the genre, move to more common term".

I'm in the process of writing a page on autobio comics. I'm not going to change the links back until I'm done, but I do want to point out that "autobio" is a well-established term in alternative comics, distinguished from regular autobiography by its generally revealing or confessional nature. The term has been used at least since the 1980s and gained widespread acceptance within the alternative comics community in the early 1990s. The Comics Journal recently ran a long article called The ABCs of Autobio Comix, which shows that the term is still current. Frank Santoro wrote last October that "autobio comics are a genre with their own conventions and tropes". The term has been applied frequently to the works of Robert Crumb, Harvey Pekar, Chester Brown, Joe Matt, Adrian Tomine, Dennis Eichhorn and a host of others. A Google search for "autobio -autobiography comics" returns 153,000 hits---and this, of course, is ignoring all the articles that contain both the words "autobiographical" and "autobio" (which means any article that starts with something like "Autobio comics are comics of an autobiographical nature that......." This also means the Comics Journal article I linked to above got excluded).

Changing links is one thing (probably correct, as they were red links), but don't you think it's better to attempt to get a consensus before actually moving a page? Especially a page that has been actively worked on in the last couple weeks. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that "autobio" is actually the term that is used in the alternative comics community. I gave you quite a few examples of its actual widespread usage above, so I don't see how you've come to call that original research. If you think the page I've started isn't substantial, well, yeah, that's why it's in my sandbox (and why I'm not objecting to changing the redlinks—I only disapproved of changing the Chester Brown's autobio comics page, and your false claim that "autobio" is little used).

The Autobiographical comics page is a complete mess—it's completely unreferenced (been tagged for that since April 2008), it's in list format (tagged since September 2010), and doesn't seem to have any reason to exist or rationale. Comics from different languages and cultures are thrown together as if they're somehow related, but the only relation is they happen to contain autobiography. There's a candidate for "original research" if I've ever seen one. I don't understand why you would support the use of such a problematic page, and then accuse me of original research when I've actually pointed you towards references above. The funny thing is, the page I'm working on that isn't nearly complete enough to let out of my sandbox is already more referenced than the Autobiographical comics page which has been there since August, 2004. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 21:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I blanked my talk page since this is a pointless discussion that I have no desire to continue. I'm sorry if you feel that I ignored your "objective facts" but I'm at a loss as to what those are. You gave one link to one article from The Comics Journal that uses the term in the title ONLY. You posted some google search results, but as you surely know, Google results are not considered compelling evidence, and anyways a search for "autobiographical comics" returns six times as many results as your search. But why is any of this relevant? What is it that I'm ignoring? There's nothing to respond to. I encouraged you to seek community support for your changes. How am I stopping you from doing that?

I'm also sorry if you feel I accused you of something you never said, but I'm at a loss as to what that is. "The strangest claim you keep making is that I wanted you to stop changing the redlinks"? I never said that, at all, in any way, shape or form, so I'm baffled. I hate to say it, but none of what your saying seems to have any grounding in reality. I'm sure that will just upset you more but that's the truth.

I also can't understand why you won't consider just merging your changes into the existing article. Not only is it the practical thing to do, it's the correct thing to do. Why would you rather create an argument that exists entirely in your own head rather than contribute constructively? It's mind-boggling.

I don't support the changes you propose, but you're free to pursue community consensus for these changes. In fact, I encouraged you to do so. If this is the preferred terminology it should be trivially easy for you to get support for your changes. There's nothing for us to continue to discuss. I've been nothing but supportive and helpful towards you and your efforts. If you can't be objective and work with other editors, please step away from Wikipedia for a while. TJ Black (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

More blanking:

?

I never objected to changing the redlinks. I went to great pains in both my posts to this talk page that I never objected to your changing the redlinks. If it's a "sore spot" for me, it's because you're accusing me of saying things I've never said. Who wouldn't be sore about that?

I'm not bothered if you don't agree with me, but I've certainly seen no evidence of you trying to have a reasonable, constructive dialogue. I see you completely ignoring (not disagreeing with, but ignoring) any facts shown to you (links to articles, hard figures), and then burying any evidence that a "constructive dialogue" ever took place.

The strangest claim you keep making is that I wanted you to stop changing the redlinks, when in fact I explicitly agreed with the change in both my posts to you. The fact that you've blanked the talk page strongly suggests to me that you are not trying to have a "constructive dialogue", and the fact that you are unwilling even to acknowledge the the objective facts I was providing you: links and figures. If you disagree with them, then disagree with them, but don't go around accusing people of saying things they've never said. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what outcome you're hoping for here, but your subsequent behavior seems to confirm my initial suspicion that you're not really capable of being objective on this issue, nor are you very experienced WRT wikipedia editing and consensus building. Your latest comment on my talk page is even more irrelevant than your previous comments and makes it clear that you've built up in your mind the idea that there's some major conflict or disagreement here. There isn't. Clearly it was a mistake to try and actually address your points, that just seems to have angered you more. And you can stop making a big deal out of my blanking my talk page. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do; the suggestion that I'm trying to hide something "incriminating" is ridiculous since anyone could look at the history. Not that there's anything "incriminating" in this completely absurd discussion.

If you do plan to continue with creating your article and the other edits you're proposing (which is entirely what I've been discussing all along, in spite of your attempts to make this about something else) I suggest you start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics to see how the community feels about it, since it is a major change in the domain of comic-related articles on wikipedia. I doubt they'll be any more convinced by your "proof" than I am, but that's not relevant to this discussion. Moving a single article to a title that's inline with the currently accepted usage is NOT a major change, and harassing another editor repeatedly because you dislike the change is NOT constructive.

Before you fire off another angry comment about whatever offense you think I've committed, please take my advise and step back for a bit and calm down. You are creating a conflict where none exists. It is far better to work within the existing structure and to try and collaborate with other editors rather than getting confrontational every time someone makes an edit you disagree with. There is nothing more to discuss here; if you continue harassing me I'll have to take this to ANI. TJ Black (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What I actually wrote:

1. I never asked you to make any changes. I pointed out your claim that "autobio" is a term not widely used, and I provided you with sources to prove that it is, in fact, widely used.
2. I never made any claim that "autobio" is in any way a substitute for "autobiography", but that it is a widely used term for a particular subgenre of autobiography, so pointing out that Google returns a lot of results for "autobiography" completely misses the point. My pointing to Google was only meant to show that, yes, in fact, quite a number of people use the term "autobio comics". No more, no less—no lines to read between.
3. I never asked for your support in anything and never asked you to change anything. I was only pointing out the error in your edit summary, which you seem to have taken as a personal attack.

My first post to you started with:

I'm not objecting to the change so much as the assertion: " 'autobio' is a little used term for the genre, move to more common term".

I don't know why you insist that I've meant anything more than what I've actually written, from start to end—to the point where you say I should step back from editing Wikipedia because of it. I haven't attacked anyone, I haven't started an edit war...just what is the motivation for this? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I see an awful lot of anger from TJ Black, and I don't see anywhere where what I wrote could be construed as anger. Absolutely bizarre. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there's much possibility of productive outcome, but I'll point out that from the very beginning, I said repeatedly that I didn't care about the terminology and only cared about the genre distinction you were trying to make. That is 100% clear in every single post I made both here and on WP:CMC. You misrepresented my statements repeatedly, and in particular in this one you again claim that I'm beating some dead horse and making off-topic comments about terminology. Let me be perfectly clear: it was never about the terminology. At no point in our discussion did I care about the terminology. At no point in our discussion did I make an issue of the terminology. That is 100% clear in my comments. It is also 100% clear that the comments from other editors on WP:CMC were about the genre distinction, not terminology. For you to misrepresent mine and other editors' comments in such a blatant way suggests that you are either delusional or a highly dishonest individual. TJ Black (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For you to invade my talk page after banishing me from yours to whine about an issue I've already (and repeatedly) given up on is beyond my comprehension.

What do you hope to accomplish with ad hominems like "either delusional or a highly dishonest individual"? I've given up. Repeatedly. I repeat, I've given up. You've won. Why is winning not enough?

P.S. I repeat, I've given up. Please let me know when I should give up again. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

STOP THIS NOW. It serves neither of you any good. Curly Turkey gave up. I urge you to stop replying to each other. I'm tempted to block whichever of you two replies next. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Your signature.

Hi, Curly. I noticed your signature is incorrect. If I click your user name in your signature, it leads to non-existent CurlyTurkey. You missed a space between the first and last name. Cheers. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your note

That was a very classy and gracious thing to say, and it's much appreciated. I try not to take remarks made in the heat of the moment too much to heart, and as I'd noted in the discussion, I appreciated your kind words about my being able to disagree while showing tact. These discussions do get very heated at times; it's understandable that we're passionate about the subjects we love to write about. It took me at least a couple of years before I learned that what works best is keeping calm and writing short posts (since people don't like to read long ones, and thus will skim and not get one's full point).

That's learnable — having class is something one has or you doesn't, and from my perspective, you have it in spades. I look forward to seeing more of your work in WPC. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Curly: Doczilla is one of the Project's best and wisest contributors. I've worked with him a long time. Stay calm, take his advice to heart, and remember the better angels of your nature. You've a lot to offer. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be glad to. There comes a time, especially when you're clearly making an effort, for the other side to drop it and move on. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dave Sim

Hi, Curly. Thanks for posting on my page. Certainly, if Sim himself has said he considers Cerebus a 6,000 page serialized novel (as dubious as that claim might seem, personally speaking), then my opinion is that of course we can put that claim of his, cited, into the article — though I wouldn't put it in the lead any more than I would any other hype-y claim someone makes about their own work. What I objected to was its placement in the lead, its lack of citation, and its lack of context, all of which can be remedied. (I was, by the way, a great fan of the Cerebus comic back in the '80s, and still have several of the old collections.)

The other part about his "increasingly sophisticated and experimental art" seemed remarkably overheated, and I would have to say not so notable as to warrant placement in the lead -- virtually every good comics artist gets increasingly sophisticated and often experiments as he becomes more adept. If we say that for him, then why not say in a hundred other comics-creator articles? This comes down to a matter of context and, as always, citation — there's certainly room for critics' and historians' comments about his art and writing style, in the context of a discussion about that topic. But unless he's universally noted for his experimentation, like Picasso or Dali, he's just doing what all good artists do.

I've heard it a million times, and it's true: Context is everything. Please let me know what you think; I'll be busy for the next several hours, but I did want to get back to your right away. With regards,--Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I. Am. So. Impressed. With the depth of your research. I'm humbled. I truly am. While I hadn't looked into it the 6,000-page novel claim specifically, I'm amazed at myself for not being familiar with it as an accepted part of pop-cultural and academic work. I'm certainly way familiar with Douglas Wolk from The New York Times — despite all my widely published work, I'll never be of the caliber of a Douglas Wolk. Why this claim hadn't been cited in the article God only knows. I guess I would phrase it something like, "Sim has called the complete run of Cerebus a 6,000-page novel,[cite] a view shared by several academic writers[cite] and comics historians."[cite] Or however you would phrase it; I just wanted to get what I think the important points are.

Don't forget that the lead is a summary of the article, without citations necessarily, and that whatever's in the lead should appear, with cites, in the main body of the article.

It is true, I haven't read Cerebus since the point where the ostensibly heroic character was throwing babies out of buildings to die horrible deaths. If it became exceptionally experimental after that, to become a critically notable part of his work, then by all means find a neutral way to phrase it, with appropriate cites. The lack of citations had been a sticking point.

I have to say, we met during a moment of respectful disagreement, and since then I've gotten to look very forward to your reasoned discussions and level of scholarship. Bravo, my colleague. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've seen that a number of your uploaded images have been removed over fair-use issues. Let me know if I can help with supplying appropriate fair-use language and such. Be glad to. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying about Sim. He's an important figure, but not a very nice person. And I couldn't agree more about the state of writing these days. I appreciate the idea of "citizen journalists," but it demeans the profession. We don't have "citizen surgeons" or "citizen architects."

Your level of research skills brings a lot to WikiProject Comics. I can see you've edited sporadically from 2006 till late fall, and then began doing more. I hope we get to benefit more from the quality of your work. And it's a certainly been a pleasant experience collaborating with you on edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oog & Blik

You just reverted to a self-redirect [1] [2] See Double redirect.

Try deleting it maybe? -B1KWikis (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Kampung Boy

Hi, using {{Reflist|3}} and other fixed-column lists would not solve "white-space issues". On your screen, 3 columns might seem soothing, but a reader with a 1600 px width would see a large white-space (and larger for even wider resolutions). Columns for fixed-width lists remain that size, whatever the width of the screen (more columns appear on wider screens). It might be better to adjust the width size, like so, if you encounter a fixed-width reflist rather than change it to fixed-column. Jappalang (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LadyChatterlysLoverChesterBrownCover.jpg

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Ed the Happy Clown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Ban, Yummy Fur

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Floyd Gottfredson Library/Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse

Curly, you had the following text: "The strips have only been sporadically reproduced—mostly in Europe—since first being published, and the Fantagraphics volumes were the first attempt at a comprehensive, definitive collection."

Forgetting to log in (so you only saw my ISP), I changed it to: "The strips have only been sporadically reproduced—mostly in Europe—since first being published, and the Fantagraphics volumes are the first North American attempt at a comprehensive, definitive collection."

And then you changed it back.

I'm not sure what to do here: I'm David Gerstein, co-editor of the Fantagraphics Gottfredson series (...contact me through my website, and I'll verify this!), and I know the Christian Science Monitor (your source) is simply wrong about the past history of complete Gottfredson reprints. Most recently, the following complete Gottfredson reprint appeared in Italy in 2010. I worked on that edition too, and it's even the source for some of Fantagraphics' background articles:

https://coa.inducks.org/publication.php?c=it/CAT

But there were earlier complete reprints produced in Italy in the 1980s and 1990s, and in Germany in the 1980s. Quality varied, but all the strips were there, or else almost all were. How do we tell Wikipedia that the CS Monitor is wrong? Ramapith (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Colours on Template:Japanese-Canadian relations

I don't understand why people blank their talk pages. I'm copying and pasting this here for my own reference. For the record, Alarbus' message when comitting his comment was "waste of time", and looking through his conversations with others, he seems to display the same aggressive attitude towards others. He never did explain what his "zebra striping" comment was supposed to signify. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you explain why you changed the colours on Template:Japanese-Canadian relations? I don't want to revert it if you had a reason. The comment "fix zebra striping" and the link you provided didn't help me understand at all. User:Curly Turkey 09:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The old version looked terrible, has insufficient contrast for accessibility (WP:ACCESS, WP:COLOUR). The zebra striping is the bands on each row, and WP:HLIST is about proper structure and, again, accessibility. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-11-21/Technology report#Horizontal lists have got class. And your sig is in violation of WP:SIG. Alarbus (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you compare your revision with the previous one, you'll notice that not only do they both have zebra striping, they have the exact same zebra striping, so I still don't understand what your "zebra striping" comment was about. WP:HLIST was obvious, and I didn't question that, so you didn't need to explain it to me. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:YummyFurMoviePosterUnmade.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:YummyFurMoviePosterUnmade.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on getting me banned

As I'm sure you know, the end result of your meltdown on the autobio issue is a permanent ban for me. Doczilla has completely bought your version of the story - that I unprovokedly sought you out and started attacking you, "squabbled" with you during the discussion in spite of walking away after a couple of responses (implying that I was sock puppeting, as the history clearly shows my lack of involvement). In the future you might consider what sort of consequences exist when you misrepresent other's statements and tell outright lies about them. TJ Black (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Underground template

I read HLIST to understand your revert. However, some names are now missing from the template. Why did that happen and how can the names be restored? Pepso2 (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I found and corrected the problem. Pepso2 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Albéric Bourgeois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Québecois

Raoul Barré (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to American

William Garnet "Bing" Coughlin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Springfield, Pennsylvania

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Ontario flag

No, I have not proposed the Ontario flag I designed outside of here at Wikipedia. I would love to promote the flag to become the new flag of Ontario, if there was a support base for a change of Ontario's flag.--R-41 (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited John Wilson Bengough, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grip and Québecois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Image help

Hi, Curly. I'll be glad to take a look. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you mean the image at Ed the Happy Clown, it looks perfectly fine. (It's also a good choice to illustrate the Censorship section.) Maybe there was cache thing with the browser? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Joe Shuster Award

Hi. I appreciate all the attention you're paying to various comic creator articles, but regarding your addition of the Joe Shuster Award winner category to articles such as Stuart Immonen, David Finch, Francis Manapul, Darwyn Cooke, Karl Kerschl and many others, Wikipedia, as I assume you know, cannot accept unsourced material or original research. This includes material lacking cited sources, or obtained through personal knowledge or unpublished synthesis of previously published material. Please do not add such material with providing a citation of a reliable source. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not looking closely enough at some of the articles; Perhaps in seeing all the ones that were not sourced, I became a bit lazy in my assumptions about your edits, and should've looked more carefully to see that some were sourced. Sorry about that. However, regarding Cooke, Eaglesham and Guerra: There were two mentions of Darwyn Cooke winning a Shuster Award. The one I saw was the first one, for 2005, and it was indeed not sourced. Only the second one (which I didn't see initially) was sourced. The citation for Dale Eaglesham's award was a dead link. The original citation for Pia Guerra made no mention of the award.

In general, however, and in response to you suggestion that it would have been better and more helpful to readers to just source the material, yes, I agree. This is why the editor adding or favoring the inclusion of that material should do so. Dumping information into an article, which may or may not be true, and saying that some other editor has to clean up after you by sourcing it, is in my opinion--and pardon me for having to say this--lazy, discourteous, and unfair. Editors like me already do a lot of work here on Wikipedia, and yes, that includes sourcing unsourced material that I sometimes find, but I can't source all of it. What I do source already creates a tremendous workload as it is for me, which you can see by looking through my edit history. The Jeff Smith and Peter David articles are examples of articles that contained unsourced material about awards that I went and sourced--though in the case of the Peter David article, I initially removed it before coming back to it to source it, to say nothing of the large amount of work I've done on lots of other comics creator articles like Mike Diana, Chris Claremont, Gene Ha, Geoff Johns, Brian Michael Bendis, Judd Winick, etc. Is this not enough? Because if it's not, then the logical extension of what editors like yourself are saying is that I have to source all of it, and I'm sorry, but no, I do not. You do. You want the material in there, you source it. Don't you think it's a bit more fair if each editor is responsible for sourcing material that he or she adds or wants to keep in an article? Do you really think it's fair if a large number of editors dump material of unknown quality in an article, and expect someone else to clean up after them? Doing this places an enormous aggregated research burden on the committed editor, and almost none on the adder of the material, which is hardly an equitable arrangement. When people ask me if it would not have been better or easy to source the material, I can't help but respond, "Yeah, so why didn't you do so?" Every day I have to go down my Watchlist, and revert several additions of unsourced material, usually from anonymous IP editors, often one-off or newbie editors who I assume mean well, but don't understand the site's policies and guidelines, and have no interest in learning. I'm sorry if you say you were planning on sourcing those categories, but I didn't know that; if you had did the sourcing when you added them, or maybe even let me or someone else know about this, I couldn't held off a bit; In the future, can we coordinate our activities, and include citations with the material we add to articles? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you were saying I could have sourced them, and my above answer indeed applies to that. It does not imply nor imply that you said "should" have. Again, I'm sorry if I misjudged your intent, but 99.99999% of the time, the editors who add unsourced material do not exhibit any apparent intention to source them later, and I'm not about to start asking each and every one of them if they intend to do so, as it would only slow down the process even further. I don't think there's any reason why I should've thought that such a massive addition of material would've been followed, but if I was wrong, you can just hit "undo" and add the cite with the reverted material (or in the case of the articles to which I made additional edits, just re-add the category with the citation). Adding a category, after all, is a simple cut-and-past job, and hardly a lot of work. It's hard for me to keep track of all the new editors I encounter, but I'll try to remember your name and stated m.o. the next time I see an edit by you that initially adds material without an source. I can't make any guarantees, since I genuinely have trouble remembering some editors that haven't interacted with alot or in a long time, but if I may make a suggestion, you could just add the source with the addition of the category to avert this miscommunication in the future. Nightscream (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see this matter framed in that way, because regarding the first choice, I didn't know you adding them "hastily" without citations (I thought you were adding them without cites at all--again, my error), and regarding the second, I don't often remove material that's already cited, as this was an aberrational error on my part. I will say, however, that I do not subscribe to criteria like "dubious" or "likely to be challenged", since those criteria are vague, subjective, and in the case of the latter one, circular. But anything that may exhibit a complimentary, aggrandizing or promotional aspect, or conversely, anything that is negative, controversial, sensitive, etc., should be sourced, even more so than material that isn't any of of those things, for reasons that I think should be evident. This is why I take particular attention of things like awards or honors in articles (though other things as well, like dates of birth, aspects of the subject's personal life, etc.) In a discussion I had about this matter on Jimmy Wales' talk page, someone (I don't recall if it was Jimmy or one of the other participants) suggested that something like "Christmas falls on December 25" doesn't need a cite. I agree, and think that anything that does not fall into that narrow range of material should be cited. I mean, isn't an article, and Wikipedia, just plain better for users if it includes such cites than if it doesn't? Nightscream (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

just wondering if you find something unsourced isn't what why we have tag? it doesn't have to be taken out right away and seems like a waste to do so if someone else might have the time to find a source. it's kinda lazy to just go around removing everything just because someone didn't think it needs a citation. Bouket (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Seth (cartoonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palookaville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

my comment

it was a question for anyone who wants to say anything about it. i thought he was talking about removing all unsourced info in his responses to you. i would say it to him too but not sure if it would help. Bouket (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

this user seems to makes a lot of mistakes and does not seem to feel responsible for them. Bouket (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunday Funnies

We were writing at the same time. But I had put in an hour of work and didn't want it to get lost because of the "edit conflict" (twice). But when I pasted in my copy, your ref kept giving me an error message. I couldn't solve the problem, so I used other format for "The Beat" ref. /// "The Sunday Funnies" is the only source for what is in the issue. It's too new. Pepso2 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)