User talk:ChrisGriswold/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Notice board

Good call. --Newt ΨΦ 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

David Lucas Burge

Hello. I couldn't help but notice your edit summary in the aforementioned article. Be aware that the content you removed was from a relatively new editor, referring to it a "bullshit" is impolite and not in the spirit of WP:DBN. With than in mind, Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy edits.. Rockpocket 06:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right. --Chris Griswold 06:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. I'll have a word with him and try to make clear what is acceptable content and what is not. Thanks for your understanding. Rockpocket 06:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Chris, I hope you're kidding about the "crazy" remark you used in reference to CovenantD. I don't think you'd like people to call you that, would you? I see from above you're being abusive to other editors. C'mon, man. I know you're cool. It's important to take the high road. We set examples for the newbies. Otherwise, Wikipedia is just going to be like a talk-radio battlefield in a couple of years. Thanks -- Tenebrae 13:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out what "crazy" remark you meant: You mean where I was being stupid about Absorbing Man? I was hoping you two, as two of my favorite editors migh get the humor, but I guess not. Sorry that it wasn't clearer. As for the above, it was half me being really tired when I made an edit, half regional difference in word usage. --Chris Griswold 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Crazy was meant to be humorous? Whew. I've spent the last 12 hours wondering what I'd done to offend you so much. CovenantD 16:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the mutates category is egregiously dumb, so I jokingly tried to defend it with the mention of an esoteric comic book character. --Chris Griswold 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okily-dokily ... and thanks very much for the kind words. Half the time I dread seeing new messages, but I do always like hearing from you both.

Postings pretty much are like e-mail ... these lose all nuance, vocal tone, etc. I think emoticons are kind of silly, but boy, they do have their uses!  :-) Best to you both, chums -- Tenebrae 19:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Crazy gang

Probably because it was unsportsmanlike and unattractive style of play. The style is seen as not playing the game as its supposed to be played. Having said that, there's nothing technically wrong with the style and it is indeed effective. (I also replied on the article talk page) Mark272 15:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work!

Thanks for the great work on the WikiProject Comics Notice Board. Should prove very useful!! Hueysheridan 16:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comment. --Chris Griswold 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Plot synopsis length discussion

"My favorite part of this entire Runaways summary is 'Molly entered the room'. It's the modern-day 'Jesus wept'. --Chris Griswold 14:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)"

I have to say, this made my day. WesleyDodds 20:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks this note made mine on an otherwise terible birthday. --Chris Griswold 12:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman Family

Chris, I think your move of the page was in good faith, but I also don't think you let anyone but you or I have a say in the matter (and we were 'tied' 1:1 which was inconclusive). I had understood the concensus of the original merge to be to BF, and while I understand your reasonings for the move, I don't think you were fair to the other wikipedians. Call for a formal vote :) I'll back you on it, even if I disagree. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I go about doing it formally? Am I supposed to list Batman Family for AfD? Or do I just call for a vote? --Chris Griswold 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts out of the fishbowl

Chris,

I came across your User Page while exploring the Category:Actor Wikipedians. I have some thoughts I’d like to share with you regarding the training of actors that has nothing to do with Wikipedia.

If this interests you, please contact me at michaeldavid86@comcast.net so that I might communicate with you out of the fishbowl.

Michael David 15:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you know & historical perspective

From Reading, Writing, and Researching for History: A Guide for College Students:

• "History takes place in the past. Use the past tense and avoid the present tense. Keep tenses consistent."

What we are writing of at Did you know is historical fact rather than literary present, hope that helps. Steve block Talk 21:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I never thought it was literary present. I thought that even know, those things are the first. Is George Washington not our first president? --Chris Griswold 02:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Might have been your first President, he's never been mine. Take a look in any history book and see what they say. Like I say, when writing of history, write of the past, for that is what history is. George Washington "made" history by being the first President of the United States. Note the verb "to make" is in the past tense in that statement. It is a question of context, and when talking of events that happened in the past one uses the past tense. There are also other conventions at play when talking of dead people, it is oft thought impolite to refer to them in a manner which implies they are still alive. You have to remember the word first is contextualised within the sentences surrounding its usage. "Even now, those things are held to be the first of their kind." Note your usage of the word "those" rather than "these" denotes a past rather than a present. Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 11:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. Whether the sentence "George Washington is the first American president" is correct or not, all of the hitorical information is taken to be in past tense, so it is more correct to use "was". Incidentally, I knew and forgot you are from the UK; forgive my Ugly American presumption. --Chris Griswold 14:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Arc summaries and literary present

I was copy-editing the arc summaries Daredevil (Marvel Comics) to change them to literary present and ran into a conundrum in the form of "introduced." It feels wrong to say that past arc reintroduces a theme, but right to say that an arc introduces a character. Case in point: "'Guardian Devil' reintroduced religion as a driving force behind Murdock, an option instituted by Miller but rarely used thereafter." and "this arc introduces Maya Lopez a.k.a. Echo, a deaf martial artist who encounters Daredevil..." I can kind of see reintroduces working, but it's a stretch, and may just be a remnant of a gut reaction to literary present. Thoughts? I went ahead and changed it to "reintroduces." --Newt ΨΦ 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, some verbs seem kind of strange at first when you changes them, "introduces" being one of them. But the first X-Men movie introduces us to the characters, even if it's several years old. If you've never seen it, you're being introduced. --Chris Griswold 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Further clarification: If a writer does something, generally it's past tense (i.e. Frank Miller introduced ninjas into the Daredevil comic.), whereas if the arc or comic book is stated as the doer it's present tense (i.e. Daredevil <arbitrary issue number> first introduces ninjas as enemies to Daredevil.), correct? --Newt ΨΦ 17:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the gray area. I believe it comes down to: "In the early 1980s, Frank Miller wrote Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" and "In issue #1, author Frank Miller unveils his new mythology for Batman." I am not entirely clear in this, however, so we need to look into it further. --Chris Griswold 17:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive the butting in. It is a grey area. I'd look at the context of what you write. If you discuss the chracter's actions within the storylines, couch it in the present, but if you discuss real world history, it's past tense. For example:

• "In issue #1, author Frank Miller unveils his new mythology for Batman. We see this new mythology, for example in the way Miller presents Batman's relationship with Jim Gordon and blah blah blah..."
• "In issue #1, author Frank Miller unveiled his new mythology for Batman. It was this work which saw him nominated for Esiner awards and blah blah blah..." Hope that helps. Steve block Talk 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Helps a bit, but my understanding still feels like it might be case by case. --Newt ΨΦ 20:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All we can do is our best. If we realize later that what we've done in those situations needs to be changed, we'll just take care of it then. --Chris Griswold 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is that, yeah. Steve block Talk 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Help fix up Story arcs of Y: The Last Man

The story arcs put is a little spares !--Brown Shoes22 15:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Big Bro 6

^{23 June 2006 14:41} Ste4k wrote: Hi Chris! I just wanted to let you know that I don't watch the show, but that I also don't dislike it for any reason. It is simply there, sort of like the weather. If the project attracts new editors to Wikipedia, then it's fine by me. What is irritating though is that it appears more like a re-run than it does an article in an encyclopedia. Keep in mind that I am old-fashioned, but still I do recognize that the state-of-the-art of encyclopedias will change with time, and that is a good thing. The problems that it causes though, are the same as if we decided to create an article for "The current weather where you are right now". Imagine trying to keep THAT page updated! :)

I have never watched Big Brother, let alone Australian Big Brother. Nor have I ever lived in Australia. I just have a crazy academic interest in verb tense lately. It's sad, I know. But when I change the tense in an article, I change the whole thing, and I explain why I did it. You have the best interest of the article at heart, and that's a good thing. --Chris Griswold 14:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Professor X

Hi! I notice you undid most of the additions I made to the Professor X article. As one comic book nerd to another, I respect the care you have in working on such articles, but I must respectfully disagree with your reversions, which come across as somewhat arbitrary. For example, Xavier's middle name was established to be Francis by writer Scott Lobdell, during his and Joe Madureia's run on the book. Also, you ask why "ruthlessly leaving" would be impossible. The point is that that is not a commonly used turn of phrase, and as such, it simply doesn't flow properly. Perhaps "callously" would be more appropriate, assuming that the story actually depicted his doing so as such (if not, then commenting on it like this would violate WP's NPOV policy). Also, the mention of his appearances in the video games is appropriate for the article, but that level of detail is not appropriate for the Intro, which needs to sum up the broadest strokes of the character. Intros generally do not delve into that much detail. Lastly, material pertaining to characters' histories is generally given on WP in the past tense, which you can see by looking at other such articles. This is why I changed the tense to the past. I also notice that you undid many of the changes to wording I made that make the material flow better, or make it clearer. You also deleted much material I added that provided necessary detail to the entry, like Xavier's assembling the new X-Men, what the Danger Room is, and the resolution of Magneto's stint as the school's headmaster. These are necessary parts of Xavier's history, the absence of which makes the history less clear to unitiated readers. You also re-inserted the factually false line Magneto works with the X-Men for several years, but when a misunderstanding causes them to attack him, he feels betrayed and becomes an enemy again. If you read "Inferno", then you saw that this is not what happened. By the time Magento reverted to villainhood, he had not seen the X-Men for some time, because he, like the rest of the world, beleived them killed in Dallas during the "Fall of the Mutants" storyline. If you disagree with the underlying logic or reasoning on any of these points, or dispute their factual accuracy, feel free to discuss them with me on my Talk page. Thanks.  :-) Nightscream 17:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

1. The middle name can go in the SHB but not in the article., This is WikiProject Comics policy.
2. I'm not sure why "ruthlessly leaving" is important. I don't believe I edited it back in, and I don't remember that being a discussion with you.
3. I don't understand what you are telling me about the intro. You may have me confused with another editor.
4. It has been generally accepted by the WikiProject that literary present tense is appropriate for fictional character articles. See Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man. For more informations, see: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Check your fiction, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Tense, & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 11#Literary present tense.
5. As for extraneous details, the article is about Xavier and not the X-Men. We don't need the resolution to Magneto's teaching because he is not the subject of the article. I haven't read "Inferno", and I don't know what happens in it, but I'm not editing Magneto's entry, and those are not my words.

--Chris Griswold 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1. What is "SHB", and which policy states this? It seems bizarre to me that a policy would indicate not to put a character's full name in their own article.
2. As I stated, the word is not typically used in that manner. As for whether it was a discussion with me, well, it wasn't, but then, that's part of the participatory nature of WP. But it's a moot point at this point, I guess. :-)
3. Sorry about that. Sifting through the History list to see who did what can sometimes have its pitfalls. Mea culpa.
4. Okay, I didn't know that. My perception from reading many articles was otherwise, so I'll defer to you on this point. :-)
5. Who's in charge of the school, and Magneto's relationship to Xavier, is certainly relevant to an article on Xavier. But if I again confused you with another editor, I apologize. Nice chattin' with you. Nightscream 04:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism

You can report vandals to WP:AIV. However, this is usually done for users or IP addresses that have vandalized muliple times. For serious threats, like legal threats, you can repot it to the Administrator's Noticeboard. Otherwise, it's best to just warn and ignore.--§hanel 01:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to know what the appropriate action was, more out of responsibility to Wikipedia and other editors than fear. --Chris Griswold 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cassandra Cain

Regarding "legitimate sources" for negative reaction. There are already some negative reviews on comics news sites (IGN, Comics Should be Good, etc.), but I recommend waiting and seeing if any more show up (Robin 151 isn't even a week old) before trying to add fan reaction to the page. I contacted the people at savecass.com , and I really think it's unfair to consider them a blog. One guy is hosting the site and his friend is helping, but none of them have experience with websites. They're basically stuck using a blog format because it's all they know how to make. At the same time though, they aren't using it as a journal, and they're trying to put up content similar to the old H.E.A.T. webpage. I'd wait a few days, but I think there's reason to argue it's not a traditional blog, and a worthwhile source for a citation. I do understand where CovenantD is coming from, but comic books really are a tiny community. The lowest rated TV show on these days still reaches more people than most comics. A few blogs, message boards, negative reviews on comics news sites, and a negative-reaction theme website is a pretty big response for comics. The rules being cited have merits, but I belive the intent of the rules was to stop people from siting an opnion on a blog or webapge as if it was a fact. Here the fact being introduced is that there is a negative response, and the site is being used as an example. It's not quite the same as saying that the views expressed on the site are correct, it's a statement that the site and others like it exist. D1Puck1T 08:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix (comics)

HELP!!! I've got some fanboy who thinks the videos of the TV show are more important than the comics. CovenantD 00:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman_Lives

Chris - great work trying to clean up the Superman_Lives article - yes it's a real dog at the moment.

--Charlesknight 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stylebook

Well, Wikipedia already has a style book, the manual of style, and maybe the writing on fiction page is the best place to address any additions you wish to make to it, rather than creating a seperate WP:COMICS specific one. That said, I would say that anything you wish to discuss and raise, do so at the comics project page first, I'll add a section on current guidelines to the exemplars page, which we could rename to Writing on comics, perhaps, then we can expand upon it, and we can also move any relevant discussion across to WP:WAF. Steve block Talk 12:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

52: rip hunter's lab

nice job on that section. i think there should be a similiar section in Rip Hunter. perhaps a condensed version linking to the 52 version. or condense the 52 version and link to rip hunter. Exvicious 17:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will figure something out. I have more information to add and update (Steel), but I expected it to be cut by another editor. It seems important to the series, like a disorganized outline. --Chris Griswold 17:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Caution on calling "vandalism"

Please be careful about what you call "vandalism" (or should I say "vandalidm"? ☺). The obviously well-intentioned spelling corrections at Talk:Veronica Mars by Slipperyweasel for several editors may have been gauche, but it is not vandalism, even if everything else Slipperyweasel had done were blatant vandalism. (Indeed, I've seen vandals draw conscientious editors into losing arguments over reflexive reversions in just such a manner.) Your reversion of these corrections is understandable based on policy, but applying inflammatory labels for ostensibly innocent actions can lead to unnecessary conflict. Thank you for listening. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I take editing someone else's comments to be vandalism. It's not something to be altered, and it was. It understand you might see "vandalism" as a negative term, but it's also the correct term. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism--Chris Griswold 19:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the section on "Changing people's comments", please read this section again:

Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user) [emphasis mine]

Correcting someone's spelling has no effect on the meaning whatsoever, and so cannot reasonably be considered to "substantially change their meaning". It only helps the person look more literate than they seem to be, which many people would actually appreciate.

Please also note the following statement in the first paragraphs of the policy article you cite:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. […] Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

This is why I deliberately referred to Slipperyweasel's edit as "well-intentioned" yet arguably "gauche". Please also note the following from Wikipedia:On assuming good faith, which is recommended additional reading:

Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. In other words, when it doubt, consider it a good-faith edit. That means, even if the person is dead wrong, deeply misguided, stubborn, rude, biased, bigoted, and acting against overwhelming consensus, we continue to assume that they are trying to make the encyclopedia better, not worse. As soon as we label someone's edit as "vandalism", we are giving up our assumption of good faith. […] This is why "the V-word" is so touchy here, and it's why we protect the definition of vandalism from increasing its scope, bit by bit.

These considerations are why I took the time to recommend that you do not call something as trivial and obviously NOT bad-faith editing "vandalism", per policy and recommended practice. The "V-word" is negative, as these pages make clear, so it should only be used when the edit cannot be construed as anything but bad-faith editing, and only certain kinds at that.

I am not saying that you shouldn't revert one editor's uninvited spelling corrections to another editor's talk-page postings. I am just saying don't misuse a specifically defined term like "vandalism" to describe any edit that you don't think is a good idea. Saying something like "rv uninvited spelling corrections" in the edit summary avoids the "V-word" while accurately describing the rationale. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. --Chris Griswold 22:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)