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. |
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 10 November 2005 to 10 January 2005.
It should be kept to one section; there is no need for a summary of each individual issue. I'm not the best at summarizing comic books, so anyone who could help condense needs to. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that each issue will likely get a summary, at least while the series is ongoing. Perhaps a later condensed summary will be called for when the series has concluded. I almost read the summary this morning before getting to my store to buy the second issue! Dyslexic agnostic 03:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
the royal flush gang is dead...i think thats the royal flush gang...this is just a nit picky question but do you think the whole lois touching power girl and her remembering all of the past is sort of like the house of m layla miller thing where she would reveal the real universe to the people in the house of m universe...just a comic geek question there since i figure you guys are comic geeks too.
I have trimmed the summary. My goal is that the summary will never be longer than the summary of Crisis on Infinite Earths, and is likely to, at many points, be shorter. This does involve a lot of guessing - there are things I just plain left out like the two Luthors, the Joker, etc. Basically, if I can't find a way to fit it into what appears to be the overall narrative so far, I left it out so it wouldn't seem like idle trivia. If someone wants to spin off the detailed summaries to Infinite Crisis Plot or something, I certainly won't be the one to AfD it. Phil Sandifer 19:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I take back my prior comments, and agree that we should avoid the issue by issue crap that emerged on House of M. The synopsis doesn't yet include issue two... we are all too afraid to tackle it... Dyslexic agnostic 07:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Something I think should be addressed is how certain elements of the Infinite Crisis storyline are being told "out of order". For example, the issue of Supergirl in which she says goodbye to Superman because she's heading off into space with Donna Troy came out about a week or so before JLA #122 which features Supergirl before her first meeting with Donna Troy, which apparently is set to happen in #123 (if I follow the plot correctly). There have been a few cases of this, especially regarding the appearances of the OMACs. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Poison Ivy? I don't remember this. Phil Sandifer 16:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Fel Andar, the former Villanious Hawkman, from Hawkman #49... can we consider him a Villain dead during a tie-in? DrTofu83 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph could use some source material or we should probably get rid of it. KramarDanIkabu [[User talk:KramarDanIkabu|(speak)]] 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is much bigger than the above. There's a general lack of encyclopedic content in this section, in addition to a host of unsupported assertions that need citations and, if possible, links.
Question: What is the encyclopedic value of reporting that rumors were swelling? Rumors are always swelling about anything and everything, and unless rumors have an impact that change subsequent events, they have no encyclopedic weight.
Question: "reports suggest"? What reports, firstly, and what do the reports actually say? Why not quote and provide a link?
Note: Sniping between companies is typical and not of encyclopedic weight unless it actually has some effect on the companies or the industry. Otherwise, it's just true gossip.
Question: There's suggestion of a causal relationship between Infinite Crisis and writers departing for another company. If these events are connected, say so and provide citation. If not, what relevance is this information?
There's more, but you get the idea. This isn't meant to denigrate the time and work contributors have put into this; it's admirable. I put (far too) much effort in my contributions as well. This is only meant to stimulate a way of thinking that automatically seeks to confirm facts and to self-question the relevance of a particular addition.
P.S.: Nothing has been removed from the article -- just commented-out, along with my questions. -- Tenebrae 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
The strong editorial investment in Infinite Crisis led to unusually high-profile sniping between DC and its primary rival, Marvel Comics, which rose to a level reported on by The New York Times [give citation/link here]. Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada went so far as to declare in an interview that DC's comics were "corporate" driven, whereas Marvel's were "creator" driven. [1]
I've switched your commenting out for using template:fact, as you should have done somewhere in the half dozen times I asked you politely to. I'll get citations on both of those tomorrow. As above, I have major problems with your proposed rewrite of the sniping section. The complaint about Brubaker and Loeb seems to me nonsensical - the point of the section is to discuss the degree to which Infinite Crisis marks a change in editorial focus and direction at DC. The departure of Loeb is very much relevent to that, even if it is not causal, because of it being a part of that changing of the guard. As for the "reports suggest" bit, I've now provided a citation. If you dislike the language, tighten it yourself instead of deleting entire paragraphs. However, I find myself increasingly baffled here - I've addressed your complaints in my edits, and you're just restating them and continuing to unhelpfully remove information in a way that really is quite inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 05:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don;t have one, but that's besides the case. It seems incredibly uncool to retract changes that are additive without any sort of discussion beforehand. It's just extra info. This is a piece of art, and aslong as someone isn't misrespresenting the factual elements (plot, characters used etc) then who cares? I've created a section called speculation. Moe it to the bottom of you want, but don't remove it. That just shows you think this article somehow belongs to you and you won't tolerate opinions you don;t agree with. This article is peculative by nature, so calm down. - unsigned by User: 68.161.86.144
Where's the typo?
Actually, I think you guys need to chill out a little. The best way to settle disagreements is via the talk page rather than constant reverts. At this point, it seems like the edit war is just spilling over to this talk page. Can I suggest we start this discussion over from the beginning here? A D Monroe III 21:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Did you guys really get this guy blocked? I hope you didn't, because if so, you kind of proved him right. I put a REVISED version of the change he wanted in the new DISPUTED area. If oyu can live what what's there already, there's no reason you can't live with what I've added. And if the other guy can't, THEN you;d be justified in rippin him a new one. Till then, can we stop the pissing contest? it's offfensive to those of us with more gentle natures.
I dont know aout being locked, ut I can live with that change i saw earlier if that 16 year old little prick will "allow it."
As surprised as I am that this rather acerbic young man apparantly has no life and is ale to sit around all day and revert changes, I'm even more surprised that his ONE (aliet lengthy) sentence has caused allof you such a heart attack. It's in a section clearly marked as DISPUTED with a statment that I feel is VASTLY more inappropriate for this article. And even HE's said he was willing to take a truncated version in a disputed section. ut, I'm sorry, like the 16 year olds some of you are, you insist and insist and insist. Leave it alone.
How do you source speculation? The source is the original crisis and the apparant direction of the new series. It's an interesting statement. OIt's one sentence and it's staying in.
Sorry Phil, I don't buy that AT ALL. We have an entire series, Crisis on Infinite Earths, to draw parallels with, as DC obviously wants us, as readers to do, and thus we canmake some intelligent surmises. But if the guy can live with it, and it means an end to half hourly revisions, then its good. And as a reminder, the statement was intended to stand only until it was verified one way or the other, as an interesting bit of spculation in an article that by its very nature is speculative.
Sorry Phil, again, as it has been stated elsewhere by others, that rule applies to issues of person, place and events in the real world. Comics and any art form is, y its nature, open for speculation if there is a basis for it. And there is.
151.196.39.142 06:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. IF the dude started speculatin that, oh I don't know, Supes and WW would be killed and replaced with funny animals, I'd stop and say, hey, there's nothin gained from that, ut I think pointing out that one previous Crisis series was seemingly designed to address a major flaw in the DC universe and that this one might follow suit is a legit speculation and does shed light on the suject. Especially when the guy is willing to comprimise a paragraph into one sentence in an area marked "disputed."
I disagree. I think Wik policy on art topics is flexible. The ariticle on Van Gogh goes into more than just raw dates and titles.
This from the article on starry night: ""Its purpose seems to be to direct the eye towards the sky (the tree)". This is speculation, plain and simple, based on an examination of the art. The art itself is the source. Which is what he (I presume he) did. 151.196.39.142 06:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
How is that statement a prediction? It is pointing out what is possibly a valid connection artistically bwteen two related works. And why can't a speculative statement be included until the series proves or disproves it? And that sentence in the Starry Night article is totally based solely on the artwork. Why would someone ELSE have to notice it first before it can be included in the Wiki article? Why not include it if it's simply self-evident?
151.196.39.142 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how that contridicts anything I'm saying. I pointed out an article on an art peice that had an INDEPENDENT moment of speculation related only to the art. The guy saw the tree, and made a staement of specualtion about it. These are comics, not reality, peices of art. Sorry that you like the "jackbooted fascist" way of dealing with things. 151.196.39.142 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I pointed out an EXACT quote, IN CONTEXT, in another article that completely refutes your point, and you accuse me of...well, I don't know, because you can go to the article yourself and see that the statement is quoted accurately, and in context and is, as I said, a totally independent specualtion made by the writer. So I don't know what it is you;re trying to say other than, apparantly, that your way is the only way, which seems completely opposed to the mandate of this site. 151.196.39.142 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, now who's stamping their little feet? Clue: tweren't me. 151.196.178.112 16:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I can live with the current placement and edit of my contribution.
Thank you to whoever did that.
68.161.133.116 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can't live with it. Too hung up on Wikipedia policy, I guess. Until and unless there's some historical consensus about the meaning of a work of fiction (or failing that, some published analyses arguing different interpretations that we can cite), the only appropriate way to deal with "what it means" is to identify the topics it's dealing with and leave it that. So we can say that this series is "about heroism". That's a verifiable fact, because we can all point to balloons where the characters actually talk about it, and agree that they are in fact talking about it. DiDio's also stated that it's a theme, so that's pretty well confirmed. But who's right and who's wrong (Senileman? Batpsycho? Anyone?) and what the possible message about heroism we're intended to walk away with (Grim-n-gritty is bad? Nostalgia isn't what it used to be?), is open to speculation (and may never be settled). If we have to resort to the word "possibly", we're not citing facts; we're guessing. And guesses are not verifiable facts. So let's stick with the bare facts we can agree on, and leave out the speculation and opinions that we can't. Tverbeek 14:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Those themes ARE confirmed in articles about the story in Wizard, moron. It is about heroism, and nostalgia vs. grim and gritty. It's also plainly evident from the story itself! Aren;t you 16? Shut up then like you do in real life. 151.196.32.61 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
it is clear that one of the little pricks hemming and hawing over 1 lousy sentence has decided that if they can;t have things their way, they're going to just vandalize the whole article and make vague and slight effeminate threats. I don't really care. That one sentence will keep being put back into the article until it's disproven. It is a fair speculation and the simple fact that one of you losers feels the need to scream and shout and vandalize just proves that I was right all long. This has always been solely about you having a little club, unlike your loner loser real lives, and not wanting to make room for others' opinions. You people are pathetic. Thankfully, I'm, even more pathetic than you guys and will gladly fight tooth and nail fo rthis change for the rest of my life, ans since i excercise and eat right and you are all probably overweight and scream at the sight of a barbell, it'll be longer than you. enjoy
\ Hey thanks for proving my point, but don;t worry. I'll find someone with an older account. Don't worry. Well, you should be worrying about the guy who vandalized the article, but you aren;t are you? Hmmm.... 151.196.32.61 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course he can, it was Tverbeek, you imbecile. Jeez.
151.196.32.61 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Why the hell would I vandalize the article with a paragraph implying that my own contribution was bad? Thta makes no sense! 151.196.32.61 17:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Snowspinner, we (the normal Wikipedia community) thank you for the page protection against unregistered users. This frees many up to continue to improve Wikipedia, rather than spending hours simply defending against 151.196.178.112, 68.161.86.144, and others. Thanks again. Dyslexic agnostic 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Little did I expect that I'd see this new semi-protection feature in action so quickly. Not a day too soon, I guess. Tverbeek 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I would note, however, that I think many were happy with this paragraph at the top of the editorial planning section, which appears to have been removed from the protected version:
Even though the page is not protected from established registered users, I thought I would confirm whether I should reinsert now, or whether we are better off leaving the subject for now. Perhaps the issue iks best covered once Infinite Crisis has run its course. Dyslexic agnostic 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate: I still think that bit should be included. There is evidence that Infinite Crisis is (so far) dark and gritty, just look at the unusually high death rates in it and the leadup to it. (Speaking of which, what's with the speculated deaths, shouldn't they be taken out too?) By the point when I attempted to make a compromise, I suspect that people were reverting simply because the text had been readded so many times, not because of its actual content, which doesn't really make it right, or better, then the anon who kept readding his deleted text. Maybe if you had just discussed this (or was there discussion that I missed?), the anon wouldn't have gone on and vandalized the page and people's userpages like he did. -- Pentasyllabic 20:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
That's how consensus works? I'm aghast.
"the fact is, either the reader of this page KNOWS the story (>99%), and therefore can form their own opinion on dark and gritty, or they don't know the story (<1%), in which case telling them you surmise the story is dark and gritty doesn't really do anything for them" Then why included ANYTHING at all, why have an article at all? This is a non-argument. This has been a complete case of shutting out new voices. I too think that bit should be included, its a fair appraisal and it puts IC SO FAR in relation to Crisis. I like how there was no arbitration, just blocking. No wonder he went apeshit. One of the more experienced users should have stepped and said "Hey, why don;t we take ti down for now and let mediation settle it."
Atomiceo 15:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It was a reasonable and informative and 1 sentence. In my opinion, you mishandled the situation and contributed to the problem afterwards because you were more interested in "stamping your foot", as you accused others of doing, than in building a consensus. I have also read the rules, and I do think that there is room in an article about a fictional peice of art for specualtive analysis if its sectioned off, there seems to be merit, and its short (the staement in question is all three.) Since no one seems to be that interested in actually making this site a place of consensus, I'll be moving the issue to arbitration, and I will be giving my humble opinion that the people given the most resposnbility and power used one but not the other.
Atomiceo 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how you can read WP:NOR and think that unsourced speculative analysis is welcome in Wikipedia articles, on any topic. We can report what other analysts - published elsewhere - have said if we provide citations, but we cannot offer our own thoughts and ideas. If it's not a verifiable fact, and you can't attribute the statement to a credible external source (making it a verifiable fact that so-and-so wrote it), it shouldn't go in. Period. Now, at one point whatshisname sneered that something had been stated in Wizard (as if we would all know that). If true, and if he'd bothered to cite that as the source ("According to an article in Wizard magazine..."), that statement might have been OK. But the very clear consensus was that his statements, as he insisted on presenting them, were not acceptable. Tverbeek 17:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yo,
What's up with talking about future publications as if they already happeneded. (Using "was" to discuss a comics event publishing in summer of 2006). I think if this is supposed to be an evolving encyclopedia of knowledge that is being used NOW, it might be better to go ahead and change tenses to the future (WLL be publsihed) and change them when summer of 2006 actually rolls in. I mean, there are enough people watching this page to that.
Thoughts?
Atomiceo 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The only thing I can find in the article that matches your description is the reference to Decimation, which it says "spawned events for the Summer of 2006". Decimation's started already hasn't it? Which means that it has presumably already done at least some of its spawning, with the results coming in 2006. It's an awkward reference, but it's grammatically correct. Tverbeek 17:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Atomiceo 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Did I do this right? I put in a request for arbitration on this matter to Fred Bauder.
I feel very strongly that while the newb certainly did some things that weren't right, I noticed that
a) his statement didn't get a fair shake right from the start.
b) the only real vandalism, a wholesale marring of the page, came from an anon who was AGAINST the statement, obviously someone who was frustrated that the original posters, as well as some others, didn;t have a problem with the truncated 1 sentence version and decided to have a little fun. Using this vandalism as an excuse to block the page is opportunism and chicanery, plain and simple.
c) the anon who posted the statement constantly offered to go to mediation. a more epxerienced user should have moved ahead with that.
d) and mostly, and I don't say this lightly, I think Phil totally did everything to make the situation worse and not a thing to make it better.
Being a sysop can't just be about deleting contributions and blocking pages. For this site's mandate to mean anything at all, it's got to be about consensus. I think Phil's tactics were about anything BUT consensus.
We'll see.
Atomiceo 15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for information about how to request assistance with resolving disputes, including mediation or arbitration.
I did try to communicate with the anonymous editor regarding dispute-resolution, asking if he was really interested (it sounded more like an idle threat), and if he had responded affirmatively, I would have done the "paperwork" for it. He did not, instead proceding to evade the 3RR block (which exists for this very situation: to give an overzealous editor a "time out"), promising to find a way around the article protection, and generally acting with contempt for Wikipedia rules. If you can convince him to engage constructively through Wikipedia channels (he also says he draws for Marvel, so maybe he knows you?) that'd be great. Tverbeek 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Tver, I don't know the guy and I didn;t see where he claimed to draw for marvel, what title? Regardless, I think that the change as truncated was a fair comprimise, and I feel that you and some others are doing a little back peddling to cover up for some innaporopriate behaviour on all sides. No one in this situation is blameless. But again, in my opinion, the sysop is most responsible because he had the power and authority to mediate an equitable compromise. I was very excited when I discovered this site and its mandate, but the way people have proceeded (and again, today, a deletion of a contribution of MINE with no warning, not moving to another section, nothing, just deletion) is distressing and needs to be looked at. Mediation is in progress.
Atomiceo 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Please consider reinstaitng COMPLETE art credits in some place on the article. And please stop cosndiering yoursefl such an expert that you can just delte changes without discussion.
I have no problem with listing the complete credits at the end of the article in a seperate section for credits. If other comic articles aren;t doign thatm, then I encrouage them to do so. If this is meant to be an informative artcile, surely the complete credits are valuable. As a comics artist, the idea that the writer and penciller are the only authors worth mentioning in whats supposed to be an encyclpedic article is pretty vile (no personal aspersion meant). It may be true that comic fans tend to forget the inker and colorist, and it certainly works to the penciller's advantage, it is, nonetheless, factually incorrect.
Atomiceo 17:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
So because it's unfeasible to credit every issue of action comics wer can;t credit every issue of a 12 issue series, meaning 12 extra lines? Atomiceo 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You know what, one of the first things the resolution dispute article says is to not simply delete items when there's a disagreement.
I still see no reason why these pages cannot err on the side of more info. It;s a web page. There is no limit reasonable limit to the amount of info that can be put on.
Twice has my addition of full credits been deleted without a single reasonable reason. "Writer and artist, that's it!" Indeed! It's clear that a small clique can totally monopolize an article and that you guys have a pre-set idea what this article is supposed to be and there is room for a dissenting viewpoint. I'm out, you can have the site, it's all yours.
Atomiceo 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Under Returned, it says that one of the returned is "Earth-Three Alexander Luthor, Jr. (Infinite Crisis #1, but appears to have been posing as Lex Luthor of Earth-One even earlier)". Unless I missed an issue, I didn't get that implication; there are definitely two Luthors running around, but Alex is hanging at the North Pole with Lois, Kal-L and Superboy. This is backed up by the fact that Alex Luthor is behind the crystal wall in issue one, right? The idea I got from Villains United was that two Lexes survived the original Crisis. Anyone have better info? Did I miss something? Simnel 16:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Uncle Sam, Pariah, Royal Flush Gang killed... all immortal, yet all presumably dead. Anyone else see a pattern here? Dyslexic agnostic 08:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
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. |
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 10 November 2005 to 10 January 2005.
It should be kept to one section; there is no need for a summary of each individual issue. I'm not the best at summarizing comic books, so anyone who could help condense needs to. KramarDanIkabu (speak) 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that each issue will likely get a summary, at least while the series is ongoing. Perhaps a later condensed summary will be called for when the series has concluded. I almost read the summary this morning before getting to my store to buy the second issue! Dyslexic agnostic 03:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
the royal flush gang is dead...i think thats the royal flush gang...this is just a nit picky question but do you think the whole lois touching power girl and her remembering all of the past is sort of like the house of m layla miller thing where she would reveal the real universe to the people in the house of m universe...just a comic geek question there since i figure you guys are comic geeks too.
I have trimmed the summary. My goal is that the summary will never be longer than the summary of Crisis on Infinite Earths, and is likely to, at many points, be shorter. This does involve a lot of guessing - there are things I just plain left out like the two Luthors, the Joker, etc. Basically, if I can't find a way to fit it into what appears to be the overall narrative so far, I left it out so it wouldn't seem like idle trivia. If someone wants to spin off the detailed summaries to Infinite Crisis Plot or something, I certainly won't be the one to AfD it. Phil Sandifer 19:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I take back my prior comments, and agree that we should avoid the issue by issue crap that emerged on House of M. The synopsis doesn't yet include issue two... we are all too afraid to tackle it... Dyslexic agnostic 07:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Something I think should be addressed is how certain elements of the Infinite Crisis storyline are being told "out of order". For example, the issue of Supergirl in which she says goodbye to Superman because she's heading off into space with Donna Troy came out about a week or so before JLA #122 which features Supergirl before her first meeting with Donna Troy, which apparently is set to happen in #123 (if I follow the plot correctly). There have been a few cases of this, especially regarding the appearances of the OMACs. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Poison Ivy? I don't remember this. Phil Sandifer 16:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Fel Andar, the former Villanious Hawkman, from Hawkman #49... can we consider him a Villain dead during a tie-in? DrTofu83 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This paragraph could use some source material or we should probably get rid of it. KramarDanIkabu [[User talk:KramarDanIkabu|(speak)]] 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is much bigger than the above. There's a general lack of encyclopedic content in this section, in addition to a host of unsupported assertions that need citations and, if possible, links.
Question: What is the encyclopedic value of reporting that rumors were swelling? Rumors are always swelling about anything and everything, and unless rumors have an impact that change subsequent events, they have no encyclopedic weight.
Question: "reports suggest"? What reports, firstly, and what do the reports actually say? Why not quote and provide a link?
Note: Sniping between companies is typical and not of encyclopedic weight unless it actually has some effect on the companies or the industry. Otherwise, it's just true gossip.
Question: There's suggestion of a causal relationship between Infinite Crisis and writers departing for another company. If these events are connected, say so and provide citation. If not, what relevance is this information?
There's more, but you get the idea. This isn't meant to denigrate the time and work contributors have put into this; it's admirable. I put (far too) much effort in my contributions as well. This is only meant to stimulate a way of thinking that automatically seeks to confirm facts and to self-question the relevance of a particular addition.
P.S.: Nothing has been removed from the article -- just commented-out, along with my questions. -- Tenebrae 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
The strong editorial investment in Infinite Crisis led to unusually high-profile sniping between DC and its primary rival, Marvel Comics, which rose to a level reported on by The New York Times [give citation/link here]. Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada went so far as to declare in an interview that DC's comics were "corporate" driven, whereas Marvel's were "creator" driven. [1]
I've switched your commenting out for using template:fact, as you should have done somewhere in the half dozen times I asked you politely to. I'll get citations on both of those tomorrow. As above, I have major problems with your proposed rewrite of the sniping section. The complaint about Brubaker and Loeb seems to me nonsensical - the point of the section is to discuss the degree to which Infinite Crisis marks a change in editorial focus and direction at DC. The departure of Loeb is very much relevent to that, even if it is not causal, because of it being a part of that changing of the guard. As for the "reports suggest" bit, I've now provided a citation. If you dislike the language, tighten it yourself instead of deleting entire paragraphs. However, I find myself increasingly baffled here - I've addressed your complaints in my edits, and you're just restating them and continuing to unhelpfully remove information in a way that really is quite inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 05:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don;t have one, but that's besides the case. It seems incredibly uncool to retract changes that are additive without any sort of discussion beforehand. It's just extra info. This is a piece of art, and aslong as someone isn't misrespresenting the factual elements (plot, characters used etc) then who cares? I've created a section called speculation. Moe it to the bottom of you want, but don't remove it. That just shows you think this article somehow belongs to you and you won't tolerate opinions you don;t agree with. This article is peculative by nature, so calm down. - unsigned by User: 68.161.86.144
Where's the typo?
Actually, I think you guys need to chill out a little. The best way to settle disagreements is via the talk page rather than constant reverts. At this point, it seems like the edit war is just spilling over to this talk page. Can I suggest we start this discussion over from the beginning here? A D Monroe III 21:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Did you guys really get this guy blocked? I hope you didn't, because if so, you kind of proved him right. I put a REVISED version of the change he wanted in the new DISPUTED area. If oyu can live what what's there already, there's no reason you can't live with what I've added. And if the other guy can't, THEN you;d be justified in rippin him a new one. Till then, can we stop the pissing contest? it's offfensive to those of us with more gentle natures.
I dont know aout being locked, ut I can live with that change i saw earlier if that 16 year old little prick will "allow it."
As surprised as I am that this rather acerbic young man apparantly has no life and is ale to sit around all day and revert changes, I'm even more surprised that his ONE (aliet lengthy) sentence has caused allof you such a heart attack. It's in a section clearly marked as DISPUTED with a statment that I feel is VASTLY more inappropriate for this article. And even HE's said he was willing to take a truncated version in a disputed section. ut, I'm sorry, like the 16 year olds some of you are, you insist and insist and insist. Leave it alone.
How do you source speculation? The source is the original crisis and the apparant direction of the new series. It's an interesting statement. OIt's one sentence and it's staying in.
Sorry Phil, I don't buy that AT ALL. We have an entire series, Crisis on Infinite Earths, to draw parallels with, as DC obviously wants us, as readers to do, and thus we canmake some intelligent surmises. But if the guy can live with it, and it means an end to half hourly revisions, then its good. And as a reminder, the statement was intended to stand only until it was verified one way or the other, as an interesting bit of spculation in an article that by its very nature is speculative.
Sorry Phil, again, as it has been stated elsewhere by others, that rule applies to issues of person, place and events in the real world. Comics and any art form is, y its nature, open for speculation if there is a basis for it. And there is.
151.196.39.142 06:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. IF the dude started speculatin that, oh I don't know, Supes and WW would be killed and replaced with funny animals, I'd stop and say, hey, there's nothin gained from that, ut I think pointing out that one previous Crisis series was seemingly designed to address a major flaw in the DC universe and that this one might follow suit is a legit speculation and does shed light on the suject. Especially when the guy is willing to comprimise a paragraph into one sentence in an area marked "disputed."
I disagree. I think Wik policy on art topics is flexible. The ariticle on Van Gogh goes into more than just raw dates and titles.
This from the article on starry night: ""Its purpose seems to be to direct the eye towards the sky (the tree)". This is speculation, plain and simple, based on an examination of the art. The art itself is the source. Which is what he (I presume he) did. 151.196.39.142 06:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
How is that statement a prediction? It is pointing out what is possibly a valid connection artistically bwteen two related works. And why can't a speculative statement be included until the series proves or disproves it? And that sentence in the Starry Night article is totally based solely on the artwork. Why would someone ELSE have to notice it first before it can be included in the Wiki article? Why not include it if it's simply self-evident?
151.196.39.142 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how that contridicts anything I'm saying. I pointed out an article on an art peice that had an INDEPENDENT moment of speculation related only to the art. The guy saw the tree, and made a staement of specualtion about it. These are comics, not reality, peices of art. Sorry that you like the "jackbooted fascist" way of dealing with things. 151.196.39.142 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I pointed out an EXACT quote, IN CONTEXT, in another article that completely refutes your point, and you accuse me of...well, I don't know, because you can go to the article yourself and see that the statement is quoted accurately, and in context and is, as I said, a totally independent specualtion made by the writer. So I don't know what it is you;re trying to say other than, apparantly, that your way is the only way, which seems completely opposed to the mandate of this site. 151.196.39.142 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, now who's stamping their little feet? Clue: tweren't me. 151.196.178.112 16:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I can live with the current placement and edit of my contribution.
Thank you to whoever did that.
68.161.133.116 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I can't live with it. Too hung up on Wikipedia policy, I guess. Until and unless there's some historical consensus about the meaning of a work of fiction (or failing that, some published analyses arguing different interpretations that we can cite), the only appropriate way to deal with "what it means" is to identify the topics it's dealing with and leave it that. So we can say that this series is "about heroism". That's a verifiable fact, because we can all point to balloons where the characters actually talk about it, and agree that they are in fact talking about it. DiDio's also stated that it's a theme, so that's pretty well confirmed. But who's right and who's wrong (Senileman? Batpsycho? Anyone?) and what the possible message about heroism we're intended to walk away with (Grim-n-gritty is bad? Nostalgia isn't what it used to be?), is open to speculation (and may never be settled). If we have to resort to the word "possibly", we're not citing facts; we're guessing. And guesses are not verifiable facts. So let's stick with the bare facts we can agree on, and leave out the speculation and opinions that we can't. Tverbeek 14:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Those themes ARE confirmed in articles about the story in Wizard, moron. It is about heroism, and nostalgia vs. grim and gritty. It's also plainly evident from the story itself! Aren;t you 16? Shut up then like you do in real life. 151.196.32.61 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
it is clear that one of the little pricks hemming and hawing over 1 lousy sentence has decided that if they can;t have things their way, they're going to just vandalize the whole article and make vague and slight effeminate threats. I don't really care. That one sentence will keep being put back into the article until it's disproven. It is a fair speculation and the simple fact that one of you losers feels the need to scream and shout and vandalize just proves that I was right all long. This has always been solely about you having a little club, unlike your loner loser real lives, and not wanting to make room for others' opinions. You people are pathetic. Thankfully, I'm, even more pathetic than you guys and will gladly fight tooth and nail fo rthis change for the rest of my life, ans since i excercise and eat right and you are all probably overweight and scream at the sight of a barbell, it'll be longer than you. enjoy
\ Hey thanks for proving my point, but don;t worry. I'll find someone with an older account. Don't worry. Well, you should be worrying about the guy who vandalized the article, but you aren;t are you? Hmmm.... 151.196.32.61 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course he can, it was Tverbeek, you imbecile. Jeez.
151.196.32.61 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Why the hell would I vandalize the article with a paragraph implying that my own contribution was bad? Thta makes no sense! 151.196.32.61 17:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Snowspinner, we (the normal Wikipedia community) thank you for the page protection against unregistered users. This frees many up to continue to improve Wikipedia, rather than spending hours simply defending against 151.196.178.112, 68.161.86.144, and others. Thanks again. Dyslexic agnostic 17:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Little did I expect that I'd see this new semi-protection feature in action so quickly. Not a day too soon, I guess. Tverbeek 18:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I would note, however, that I think many were happy with this paragraph at the top of the editorial planning section, which appears to have been removed from the protected version:
Even though the page is not protected from established registered users, I thought I would confirm whether I should reinsert now, or whether we are better off leaving the subject for now. Perhaps the issue iks best covered once Infinite Crisis has run its course. Dyslexic agnostic 17:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate: I still think that bit should be included. There is evidence that Infinite Crisis is (so far) dark and gritty, just look at the unusually high death rates in it and the leadup to it. (Speaking of which, what's with the speculated deaths, shouldn't they be taken out too?) By the point when I attempted to make a compromise, I suspect that people were reverting simply because the text had been readded so many times, not because of its actual content, which doesn't really make it right, or better, then the anon who kept readding his deleted text. Maybe if you had just discussed this (or was there discussion that I missed?), the anon wouldn't have gone on and vandalized the page and people's userpages like he did. -- Pentasyllabic 20:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
That's how consensus works? I'm aghast.
"the fact is, either the reader of this page KNOWS the story (>99%), and therefore can form their own opinion on dark and gritty, or they don't know the story (<1%), in which case telling them you surmise the story is dark and gritty doesn't really do anything for them" Then why included ANYTHING at all, why have an article at all? This is a non-argument. This has been a complete case of shutting out new voices. I too think that bit should be included, its a fair appraisal and it puts IC SO FAR in relation to Crisis. I like how there was no arbitration, just blocking. No wonder he went apeshit. One of the more experienced users should have stepped and said "Hey, why don;t we take ti down for now and let mediation settle it."
Atomiceo 15:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It was a reasonable and informative and 1 sentence. In my opinion, you mishandled the situation and contributed to the problem afterwards because you were more interested in "stamping your foot", as you accused others of doing, than in building a consensus. I have also read the rules, and I do think that there is room in an article about a fictional peice of art for specualtive analysis if its sectioned off, there seems to be merit, and its short (the staement in question is all three.) Since no one seems to be that interested in actually making this site a place of consensus, I'll be moving the issue to arbitration, and I will be giving my humble opinion that the people given the most resposnbility and power used one but not the other.
Atomiceo 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how you can read WP:NOR and think that unsourced speculative analysis is welcome in Wikipedia articles, on any topic. We can report what other analysts - published elsewhere - have said if we provide citations, but we cannot offer our own thoughts and ideas. If it's not a verifiable fact, and you can't attribute the statement to a credible external source (making it a verifiable fact that so-and-so wrote it), it shouldn't go in. Period. Now, at one point whatshisname sneered that something had been stated in Wizard (as if we would all know that). If true, and if he'd bothered to cite that as the source ("According to an article in Wizard magazine..."), that statement might have been OK. But the very clear consensus was that his statements, as he insisted on presenting them, were not acceptable. Tverbeek 17:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yo,
What's up with talking about future publications as if they already happeneded. (Using "was" to discuss a comics event publishing in summer of 2006). I think if this is supposed to be an evolving encyclopedia of knowledge that is being used NOW, it might be better to go ahead and change tenses to the future (WLL be publsihed) and change them when summer of 2006 actually rolls in. I mean, there are enough people watching this page to that.
Thoughts?
Atomiceo 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The only thing I can find in the article that matches your description is the reference to Decimation, which it says "spawned events for the Summer of 2006". Decimation's started already hasn't it? Which means that it has presumably already done at least some of its spawning, with the results coming in 2006. It's an awkward reference, but it's grammatically correct. Tverbeek 17:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Atomiceo 17:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Did I do this right? I put in a request for arbitration on this matter to Fred Bauder.
I feel very strongly that while the newb certainly did some things that weren't right, I noticed that
a) his statement didn't get a fair shake right from the start.
b) the only real vandalism, a wholesale marring of the page, came from an anon who was AGAINST the statement, obviously someone who was frustrated that the original posters, as well as some others, didn;t have a problem with the truncated 1 sentence version and decided to have a little fun. Using this vandalism as an excuse to block the page is opportunism and chicanery, plain and simple.
c) the anon who posted the statement constantly offered to go to mediation. a more epxerienced user should have moved ahead with that.
d) and mostly, and I don't say this lightly, I think Phil totally did everything to make the situation worse and not a thing to make it better.
Being a sysop can't just be about deleting contributions and blocking pages. For this site's mandate to mean anything at all, it's got to be about consensus. I think Phil's tactics were about anything BUT consensus.
We'll see.
Atomiceo 15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for information about how to request assistance with resolving disputes, including mediation or arbitration.
I did try to communicate with the anonymous editor regarding dispute-resolution, asking if he was really interested (it sounded more like an idle threat), and if he had responded affirmatively, I would have done the "paperwork" for it. He did not, instead proceding to evade the 3RR block (which exists for this very situation: to give an overzealous editor a "time out"), promising to find a way around the article protection, and generally acting with contempt for Wikipedia rules. If you can convince him to engage constructively through Wikipedia channels (he also says he draws for Marvel, so maybe he knows you?) that'd be great. Tverbeek 16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Tver, I don't know the guy and I didn;t see where he claimed to draw for marvel, what title? Regardless, I think that the change as truncated was a fair comprimise, and I feel that you and some others are doing a little back peddling to cover up for some innaporopriate behaviour on all sides. No one in this situation is blameless. But again, in my opinion, the sysop is most responsible because he had the power and authority to mediate an equitable compromise. I was very excited when I discovered this site and its mandate, but the way people have proceeded (and again, today, a deletion of a contribution of MINE with no warning, not moving to another section, nothing, just deletion) is distressing and needs to be looked at. Mediation is in progress.
Atomiceo 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Please consider reinstaitng COMPLETE art credits in some place on the article. And please stop cosndiering yoursefl such an expert that you can just delte changes without discussion.
I have no problem with listing the complete credits at the end of the article in a seperate section for credits. If other comic articles aren;t doign thatm, then I encrouage them to do so. If this is meant to be an informative artcile, surely the complete credits are valuable. As a comics artist, the idea that the writer and penciller are the only authors worth mentioning in whats supposed to be an encyclpedic article is pretty vile (no personal aspersion meant). It may be true that comic fans tend to forget the inker and colorist, and it certainly works to the penciller's advantage, it is, nonetheless, factually incorrect.
Atomiceo 17:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
So because it's unfeasible to credit every issue of action comics wer can;t credit every issue of a 12 issue series, meaning 12 extra lines? Atomiceo 18:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You know what, one of the first things the resolution dispute article says is to not simply delete items when there's a disagreement.
I still see no reason why these pages cannot err on the side of more info. It;s a web page. There is no limit reasonable limit to the amount of info that can be put on.
Twice has my addition of full credits been deleted without a single reasonable reason. "Writer and artist, that's it!" Indeed! It's clear that a small clique can totally monopolize an article and that you guys have a pre-set idea what this article is supposed to be and there is room for a dissenting viewpoint. I'm out, you can have the site, it's all yours.
Atomiceo 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Under Returned, it says that one of the returned is "Earth-Three Alexander Luthor, Jr. (Infinite Crisis #1, but appears to have been posing as Lex Luthor of Earth-One even earlier)". Unless I missed an issue, I didn't get that implication; there are definitely two Luthors running around, but Alex is hanging at the North Pole with Lois, Kal-L and Superboy. This is backed up by the fact that Alex Luthor is behind the crystal wall in issue one, right? The idea I got from Villains United was that two Lexes survived the original Crisis. Anyone have better info? Did I miss something? Simnel 16:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Uncle Sam, Pariah, Royal Flush Gang killed... all immortal, yet all presumably dead. Anyone else see a pattern here? Dyslexic agnostic 08:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)