Talk:Larry Hama

Deleted hype

I deleted a section of self-aggrandizing and evidently self-written hype filled with such sentences as

==Legacy==

The significance of Larry Hama's work has yet to be fully recognized by his generation ... for the role it played in the molding of the generations to follow.

See: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Additionally, please see Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:No original research - Tenebrae 14:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the whole "legacy" section was an inappropriate strokefest, and the rest of the article frequently ventured off into "fannish celebrity profile" territory. I've given it a once-over, and while it could still use some work, I think it's a reasonably encyclopedic article now. Tverbeek 19:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the following sentence except for the factual material about how long the series ran:

Because it was a promotional tie-in for Hasbro's line of children's toys, the comic book series was not expected to last long, but ran for 12 years and 155 issues, from February 1982 to October 1994.

Without going into (more) detail (than this!), it's an unwarranted assumption to say a toy-based comic is not expected to last long. Aside from such successes as Rom: Space Knight, Transformers, Micronauts, etc., no toy company or publisher goes into such an expensive, time-consuming venture without as much expectation for success as any other comic. A sentence that with such built-in assumptions -- particularly in what was "an inappropriate strokefest" (in your true and hilarious words, which I'd have never thought of using) -- would really need some kind of support statement from an authority in a position to know. While this obviously wouldn't be the kind of thing an authority might admit if it were true, there's no evidence presented why it would be true except because the writer says. The weight of the evidence falls in the opposite direction, that for bottom-line reasons, both corporate entities woulod want the comic to succeed. Marvel may or may not have been expecting a net profit (some low-selling titles are carried for reasons of prestige, licensing opportunities, etc.), and we don't know whether Hasbro was subsidizing the series for promotional reasons, either by direct subsidy or indirectly by buying advertising space, but to say Marvel and Hasbro went in expecting to fail ("series not expected to last long") is too great a leap. - Tenebrae 14:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that the material was self-written? That's a pretty serious accusation to level at Hama. What is the evidence? Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"References" vs. "External links"

Hi, all. The reason I've changed "External links" to "References" comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!

1)

Complete citations in a "References" section

Complete citations, also called "references," are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading. Under this heading, list the comprehensive reference information as a bulleted (*) list, one bullet per reference work.

2)

External links/Further reading

The ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Where there is a references section, editors may prefer to call the external links section "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further reading section may contain items that are not online.

So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. — Tenebrae 14:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reason for deleting wikidate overlinkage

It's per Wikipedia style guidelines. This from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Avoid_overlinking_dates

Avoid overlinking dates

If the date does not contain a day and a month, date preferences will not work, and square brackets will not respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it. This is an important point: simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so. Make only links relevant to the context for the reasons that it's usually undesirable to insert low-value chronological links.

Usage of links for date preferences

• year only. So 1974 → 1974. Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic.
  
• month only. So April → April. Generally, do not link
  
• century. So 20th century → 20th century. Generally, do not link
  
• decade. So 1970s → 1970s. Generally, do not link (Including an apostrophe [1970's] is incorrect)
  
• year and month. So April 1974 → April 1974 Generally, do not link
  
• new year and month. So April 2000 → April 2000 Generally, do not link unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic. Presently, articles only exist for combinations from the year 2000 to current
  
• day of the week (with or without other date elements). So Tuesday → Tuesday. Generally, do not link.--Tenebrae 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Silent01.jpg

Image:Silent01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unconfirmed edit

Re: Hama ostensibly joining the G.I. Joe movie. First off, the citation incorrectly quotes the original source, which does NOT say he's a creative consultant, just that he's involved "in some capacity." Second, the original source doesn't say where it got that information. It doesn't cite a studio source, a production-company source, Hama, or anyone else. The original source is not a authoritative, established trade magazine such as Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, and given the unjournalistic vagueness of its "report," this is far below the threshold of a reliable source. Without some specific attribution, confirmation, this appears to be some website reporting a rumor. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick google for "larry hama creative consultant" yields a number of results - I also remember seeing it mentioned in one of the videos promoting the film itself. Did you do the same and determine that none of these sources are valid in your eyes? PermanentVacay (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Image change

Hi. I thought I was making a reasonable change - updating the image in the infobox to a better crop, and a more recent image. My change was immediately reverted here[1] stating that I had to discuss it here first, using "we" in some sense I don't quite understand - it says this: "We don't unilaterally change infobox images without discussion on the article's talk page". Is there a policy that states this? Who is "we"? I have been editing wikipedia for some time doing exactly this sort of thing regularly, and no one has complained before. Anyway, what is the objection to the new image? Thanks for any input. PermanentVacay (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the new image is better. Not sure why your change was reverted. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Image was washed-out and showed less of the subject that existing image. Wikipedia guidelines say it's up to the editor to justify his/her edit. And for major changes, such as to an infobox image, particularly of a living person, Wikipedia values discussion and consensus. No one should be afraid to discuss his/her edit, and Wikipedia has no deadline. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that an Infobox image cannot be changed "unilaterally" since such edits fall under WP:BOLD, and I can assure you all that I have changed a number of photos unilaterally, without calling for a consensus on each and every one of them. Mind you, I have sought discussions prior to changing pics, but only instances in which I was genuinely unsure if the one I produced was a better fit than the one already in the Infobox, as I wanted to maintain some sense of objectivity. However, when I feel that my photo is clearly not better than the pre-existing one (and this has happened), then I leave it alone. The key criterion, therefore, is which photo is better, and if it appears to be something that people might disagree on, then yeah, discussion is a good idea.

With respect to these two photos in question, the newer photo is out of focus, more poorly lit, Hama is not facing the camera, and the water bottle and finger at the bottom of the photo are a bit distracting, so I cannot imagine how anyone could think that it is "better" than the prior one. The only criterion PermanentVacay states in favor of his pic is that it's "more recent". This is not a valid criterion, unless the subject has undergone some visible change in appearance in the intervening time. Obviously, Larry Hama has not undergone any such change in the less than two years between the two photos. Nightscream (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I just realized I never stated here why I think the new image is better. (1) it's a close-up of his face, so you can see it more clearly. (2) he looks more animated and is not simply posing for the camera. (3) it's a newer pic. (4) the lighting is less harsh. I have several other pics I took at the event - there was actually some discussion of changing the picture on this article because some people did not like it that much. I picked this one because he looks most animated in this. PermanentVacay (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been "open for discussion" for several days, and we only have 4 votes - 2 on each side. One of each side's votes are apparently from the people who uploaded the respective pics. Is there any way we can get more input on this matter? PermanentVacay (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a valid rationale for why a darker, blurrier photo with the subject not facing the camera is more appropriate for the Infobox than one that's clearer, sharper, and features the subject posing for the camera? If not, then what do we need more input for? Nightscream (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the way you phrased that is precisely why we need more input - and because someone agrees with me that it's a better picture (the first person to comment here, in fact). I did not resort to asking you things like "do you have a valid rationale for why an older, harshly lit photo with someone else's head in the background and the subject's arm holding a pen for autographs awkwardly placed in the frame, where the subject has an expression that states 'I was just told to pose for a picture, sigh, how long will this take?', that also serves to promote a commercial institution (Midtown Comics) is a better picture?" because I wanted to have people state their own opinions without either of us trying to persuade them one way or the other. PermanentVacay (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Image clarity, lighting, facial expression, etc. are valid criteria by which portrait photos tend to be judged in general. The elements you point out in my photo (with the possible exception of the guy's head) are not.

The photo does not serve to "promote" Midtown Comics any more than yours serves to "promote" LaGuardia Community College. Comics creators are often found at book signings and conventions, which are indeed commercial events, so naturally, that's where most of the photos of them (and BLP subjects in general) on WP are taken.

The fact that the photo is "older" is also irrelevant, since there is no change in appearance between the two photos, a point you did not respond to. Why you think having the most recent photo possible is more relevant than things like the photo's quality, I don't know, but that's why I pointed this out above, hoping that you would respond with your thoughts on the matter. Had I known that you would react by dismissing all photos not taken this month at not-for-profit events, I might not have bothered asking. But if you wish to dismiss everything I've said without responding to it directly, then by all means, feel free to invite other opinions from the Comics Project into this discussion. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's this combatative position here that I find so difficult to deal with. I present my reasons as to why I think the new photo was better, and you simply state that each of them is "not valid", while you state all of your reasons for the old photo are "valid criteria by which portrait photos tend to be judged". I disagree, as I thought I have stated - and the person who first posted here who also prefers the new photo must disagree with you as well, in order to prefer the new photo. I don't appreciate the sardonic accusations that I am "dismissing everything [you]'ve said without responding ... directly", and it's yet another example of why I want other peoples' opinions - I think we have both pretty clearly stated our opinions and I think it's also pretty on what issues we disagree, none of which are truly objective. Since I asked several times how to get outside opinions and haven't really been told, I'm going to look into it now and see what happens. Thanks. PermanentVacay (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In addition, LaGuardia Community College is a not-for-profit organization, so I think there is some validity to my point here. You misunderstand though - it was not actually a criticism of your photo. It was actually just my attempt to describe your photo in a way similar to the way you described the new photo. PermanentVacay (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Doing a Google search here [2] I found this RFC procedure, which I hope is the correct one. PermanentVacay (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We are having a discussion of which of these photos is better suited for the infobox in this article:

• 
  2011 pic "Larryhama2011"
• 
  2009 pic "LarryHama5.23.09ByLuigiNovi"

Any input would be appreciated here - I'm not sure I followed the correct procedure here so any input on that would be appreciated as well - on my Talk page if not here. Some of the merits of both of these pics, as well as two votes for each of them, already occur above this RFC. Thanks. PermanentVacay (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You did not describe my photo in the same way I described yours. As I mentioned above, I utilized points of comparison that are generally used by the community (and by anyone, really) in gauging portrait quality, such as sharpness versus blurriness, lighting, etc. You did not do this. Just because you don't want to hear this does not mean that one who brings them up is being "combative".

Why does wanting other people's opinions have to be mutually exclusiveness from having a discussion amongst ourselves? The fact that you want others' opinions means you can't respond to any of my points? Why? Why does it have to be only one or the other?

So how well-lit or blurry a photo is are not objective criteria by which the overall quality of a portrait is gauged? Really? How so?

I think RfC's tend to be for more weighty matters; I was thinking that inviting other editors who are part of the Comics Project to join this discussion would be more appropriate. I left a message on the Project talk page here. Nightscream (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I felt I did address your concerns, but we seem to be having a failure to communicate. We both present what we believe to be better qualities for each of the photos, and I feel that the differences are quite subjective - does one want harsh or soft lighting, for instance? I don't feel that any progress can be made because our differences appear to be fundamental, and it's unlikely either of us would be swayed into changing our stylistic preferences for the kind of photo we'd like to see in the infobox. I think it confuses the issue, and it just feels like the argument wheels are spinning and we are not getting anywhere. Can we please just let other people weigh in? I think we both know why we like each of the photos, and it feels somewhat pedantic to start saying things like "in the 2009 photo, the camera's focus seems focused on his arm, and his face is slightly blurry", as these important details, but deciding how to sum them up into an "A or B" decision is not really an objective matter - most people will know right away which photo they prefer in the infobox without having the pros and cons of each photo explained and argued to them. PermanentVacay (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Nightscream. Compared to the 2009 photo, the 2011 photo is awkwardly cropped, has a distracting object in its frame, and visibly shows color and pixellation artifacting from having been taken in low light by what looks like a comparably low resolution digital camera. That it is more recent than the other is irrelevant, because it has no effect here on the information either picture presents, and notwithstanding PermanentVacay's claim that the face is in better focus in the 2011 image, I can't see any greater facial detail in that one than in the 2009 photo, perhaps in part because of resolution and lighting issues. If all else were equal, the non-posed quality of the 2011 one might be an element in its favor, but it's not enough to overcome the other issues; it simply doesn't do anything else better than the 2009 one. Re: the background, profit vs. non-profit venue is simply irrelevant. The nondescript paneling in the 2011 image doesn't tell you anything about place, while in the 2009 photo the fact that he is sitting at a table in a comic book store (the image does not tell which store, not that it matters) holding a Sharpie actually relates to what he does and why he is notable. postdlf (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I also agree with Nightscream. The 2009 image is sharp and not blurry, bright and not shadowy, and shows a fuller image of the subject. The difference in his age/appearance between 2009 and 2011 is non-notable, and the difference in locale is non-notable. The Nighstscream image is the better image. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• I can by this via the RfC. Would a crop of Nightscream's photo be acceptable for the infobox? I did quick one in Photoshop and can upload it so you can judge if you would like to see it. The full portrait can be used elsewhere in the article. My preference is for head shots in BLP's,but it's just a matter of taste. I think cropping older photo eliminates at least one stated negative - the promotion of a particular business. Just a thought. Seaphoto^Talk 21:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a business is seen in the photo, or mentioned in the caption, is not a negative. It is simply an incidental. So long as that is not the primary intent or effect of its appearance or mention, it is not a problem. I do not like headshot-only pics, nor would I want to go around and crop every single Infobox photo in every comic creator article (and amend the caption as well), simply to censor mention of the location where the photo was taken. Some detail as to where the subject was photographed, particularly when it's relevant to the subject's occupation, is a good thing, not a bad thing. Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Nightscream. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Army Corps of Engineers

I think the authors of this article should review the statement that Larry served in the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) during the Vietnam War. Given that the USACE is a Federal (not military) agency, largely devoted to large scale infrastructure projects, I think the author is mistaken that Larry served with them in Vietnam. My bet is that the authors confused the USACE with the US Army Combat Engineers, which is a military Combat Arms branch. I recommend that the authors or editors, remove the "Army Corps of Engineers" statement from the article until Larry's appropriate unit and occupational specialty in the Army can be definitively verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corto Waltese (talk • contribs) 01:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The unsourced statement you are referring to was added on April 23, 2005 by an anonymous editor: [3]. No further edits from that IP have been recorded. Feel free to correct or modify the statement as you deem appropriate. — Myasuda (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the edit. I eliminated the term "Corps of Engineers" from the statement, leaving the term as "United States Army". I believe this is an appropriate way to characterize his service in Vietnam. -C_W — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corto Waltese (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC) --Corto Waltese (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Verified" Facebook account?

Hi. A primary source that I added was removed here [4]. The comment says "Sites with self-published user-generated content, such as unverified Facebook accounts, cannot be used as sources under WP:SELFPUB/Wikipedia:USERG. Secondary sources are needed for this type of material.". My question is - this is Larry Hama's official Facebook account. How do I go about "verifying" it? I didn't see anything about that in the supplied links. Thanks! PermanentVacay (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Although Twitter has a method of labeling its accounts as authenticated, Facebook does not, so the only way to do it would be if there were another reliable source, such as an official website, that linked to it. However, please take note of the full edit summary:

Sites with self-published user-generated content, such as unverified Facebook accounts, cannot be used as sources under WP:SELFPUB/Wikipedia:USERG. Secondary sources are needed for this type of material.

To be fair, I should've put the word "and" in between the phrases "self-published" and "user-generated". Even if the Facebook account were authenticated, it's not a good idea to rely on the subject's self-published material for information on their own works. This is why I followed that statement with the practice that secondary sources are needed for that. I tried doing a Google search, but couldn't find one. Nightscream (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh ok. Can you show me the policy that states that bibliographical information can only be obtained from secondary sources? I must have missed it - which isn't a hard thing to do. PermanentVacay (talk) 05:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles usually rely on secondary sources for information, as indicated by WP:PSTS. While some information may come from primary sources (such as personal information, where the subject grew up, date of birth, etc.), information that may be self-serving or which could be seen as promotional or aggrandizing should not come from the subject themselves. This is part of WP:SELFPUB, WP:NOTADVERT, etc. If a given work is significant enough, then there should be secondary sources for it. Nightscream (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. Forgetting that the facebook account isn't verified at the moment, what part of WP:SELFPUB or WP:NOTADVERT does a simple announcement violate? In addition, are you implying that works that are deemed 'insignificant' should not even be included in the article? I would think that they should be in the main author's article, but they shouldn't get their own article. PermanentVacay (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In the case of SELFPUB, the first half of Bulleted Point #1, and in the case of NOTADVERT, the first half of the second sentence of Bulleted Point #5. Nightscream (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see it. The first thing you mention it "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". I don't think this is unduly self-serving _or_ exceptional - it's simply information. As for the second, "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable", looking at the context, "article topics" refers to the main topic of the article. We're not talking about an article about The Stranger, so what is the relevance here? Thanks again. PermanentVacay (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Because material that is unduly self-serving or exceptional isn't information? You're implying an Either/Or where none exists.

Information on the things for which a subject is notable should be supported by secondary sources, as indicated by WP:PSTS, as I've pointed out above. Things that have a promotional or aggrandizing element, such as upcoming works, awards won, schooling, etc., shouldn't be based on primary sources, since articles should generally not be based on materials published by the article subject himself. I notice that you haven't falsified this point, so why are you being so pedantic about this? Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just really don't see how it's unduly self-serving or exceptional. I believe I already stated that. I don't appreciate being called pedantic, and I don't think it's a helpful thing for you to do, so instead I'll ask someone else to explain the policies to me. Thanks for your time. PermanentVacay (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call you pedantic, but I was describing your behavior in this particular discussion.

Why are you focusing on the phrase "unduly self-serving or exceptional" in one of the policies, but not the language of the other one, PSTS, even though I've pointed that latter one out repeatedly? Is there some reason you seem to be emphasizing one policy that you can interpret to your liking, but ignoring a policy that you can't? Do you dispute what PSTS says or not? Nightscream (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Because I had assumed that you had mentioned the policy because it was relevant. So, it makes sense to discuss the policies separately... and actually, you said I was being pedantic, not acting pedantic, so I believe you did actually call me pedantic. It is this continuing argumentative tone which I am trying to avoid, so can you please let me just seek an outside person to explain to me what I'm missing? PermanentVacay (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's stopping you? I just want to know if you're not satisfied that material like the one you brought up should be supported by secondary sources, and if not, in what way you feel PSTS does not indicate this. But it's not like I'm preventing anyone else from joining the discussion. Nightscream (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It does not seem clear to me from the text, no. I stated my reasons above but you haven't addressed them. PermanentVacay (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't addressed your arguments? Seriously?

Um, no. This is false on two levels.

First, you have not stated any reasons for disputing PSTS. You have responded to the issue of SELFPUB and NOTADVERT, but not PSTS. (If I'm wrong, and I've overlooked this, please point out to me or quote where in this discussion you even referenced PSTS, let alone provided reasons why that policy isn't applied as I said it is.

Second, your statement that I have not addressed your reasons for disputing is false.

In your October 2, 16:57 message, you stated "I don't think this is unduly self-serving _or_ exceptional" and "it's simply information." I responded to both these statements. In my October 3 00:52 message, I responded to the latter by pointing out that saying "it's just information" is a False Either/Or Fallacy, implying that material is either self-serving or exceptional, or just information, and that by extension, self-serving material cannot be "information". This is a non-sequitur, since all material that is coherently written for some purpose is "information".

I responded to the former point by pointing out that things that such as upcoming works, awards won, schooling, etc. could be seen as having a promotional element to them. This is why it's best to have secondary sources for them, so there's no accusation that the information in the subject's article is coming from themself, thereby leaving the article vulnerable to charges of objectivity or promotion. I personally have no problem with primary sources used for things like dates of birth, where one grew up, etc. But an encyclopedia is more reputable when it relies on sources that are detached a bit from the subject for information on their works. For an upcoming comic book, for example, I rely on sources like Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, iFanboy, etc. For upcoming books, I try doing Google searches, or use sources like Entertainment Weekly or similar sites.

For your part, your only response to this was to simply repeat your original statement, by saying in your October 3, 4:10 message, I'm sorry, I just really don't see how it's unduly self-serving or exceptional. So your statement that I have not addressed your arguments is not only false, it's actually a description of your behavior.

I'll ask you again, what part of "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.", which is stated by WP:PSTS, do you dispute? Nightscream (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

PermanentVacay asked my opinion on this, and I agree with Nightscream--this is material where an individual person's autobio can sometimes exaggerate , and if there is any possible question, it is very much better to have it referenced with third party sources. For a prominent person in popular culture, it should be possible to do so. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Rick Remender: Lead image selection - Redux

It got messy and stalled because new images came along midway. Can we try again?

• Talk:Rick Remender#Lead image selection - Redux

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Rick Remender: Lead image selection - Redux

It got messy and stalled because new images came along midway. Can we try again?

• Talk:Rick Remender#Lead image selection - Redux

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Larry Hama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607022520/http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21453 to http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21453
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://joeguide.com/interviews/larryhama_ci.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://devilsdue.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=45&Itemid=33
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090607022520/http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21453 to http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=21453

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111212000000/http://handsomegeniusclub.blogspot.com/2009/08/hgc-radio-episode-48-real-american.html to http://handsomegeniusclub.blogspot.com/2009/08/hgc-radio-episode-48-real-american.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)