User talk:GodzillaWax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive 1

Contents 1 Warning of harrassment violation if action is repeated 2 Need consent for mediation 3 Request for Mediation 4 You Pompous, Ignorant Ass 5 Daredevil images 6 Mediation case 6.1 Response to Caveat 7 OK, good footnote 8 Mediation case 2 9 Signed, sealed, delivered 10 And thanks back at'cha

[edit] Warning of harrassment violation if action is repeated

CC of post to Talk:Daredevil, as required by Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines for harrassment:

You apparently didn't read my post closely. "Well-received" is not synonymous with "good", and I gave examples. You counter with an example of Chuck Austin's long career with an unproveable opinion, that if "ask 90% of fans what they think." That's not a valid counterargument; that's just fulminating. Your hatred of Ann Nocenti's work is well-documented.

For an inker to win an award, he's part of a team. There's no inking without the penciling.

I've given solid, factual, verifiable, and confirmable real-world reasons for the words "well-received" and "award-winning". A 4 1/4-year run, JRJ's becoming a star penciler for the attention his work received here, and Williamson winning three awards.

You are specifically changing my edits based on vague opinion when I've been supplying confirmable, verifiable facts. Do this again and I'm reporting you Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines for harrassment.

We can present both our arguments to an Admin and let him decide 1) if your changes are valid, and 2) if you've been harrassing me. I look forward to it. - Tenebrae 18:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, removing the word "stable" to describe a long run of the same writer/team for four years, saying she (specifically attacking Nocenti when word refers to the team as well) may have had disagreements with editors (which you don't even know ever even happened) appears to be a deliberate misreading of the word "stable" after there had been five or six writers and a half-dozen pencilers in the single year preceding. "Stable" seems an important description of that part of the title's life, giving perspective to what had preceded it. Again, I'm giving a harrassment warning, and following Policies and Guidelines, putting this on your Talk page as well. -- Tenebrae 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You say: "if Kobe Bryant wins league MVP, does that make the Lakers 'award winning'?" Movies and Broadway shows, to give two examples, are routinely referred to as "winning five Oscars" or "winning five Tonys" when some of those awards when to, say, the sound designer, or the makeup person. I could give hundreds of examples, but here's one from Amazon.com "Ben-Hur scooped an unprecedented 11 Academy Awards® in 1959..." These include Franklin Milton for Best Sound and Robert Surtees for Best Cinematography, Color.

You say: "But even this, you are making the jump from a discrete quantity of time - 4 1/4 years - to a relative quantity of time - long. Which begs the question, relative to what?" I have already answered that: Relative to the preceding year of five or six different writers and pencilers each.

You removed my reference that reference to a long, stable run. First, please understand that Merriam-Webster's #1 definition for the adjective "stable" is "1 a : firmly established : FIXED, STEADFAST b : not changing or fluctuating". So please don't remove "stable" again. It means whaqt the dictionary says it means -- not, with all due respect, what you say it means.

Many times you have left alone the phrase that someone else wrote, that "Ann Nocenti was put in charge of the title and remained on there for several years" to which you yourself added "with one of the book's longest runs" (Revision as of 11:09, 7 January 2006 GodzillaWax). Leaving someone else's and your own phrase "several years with one of the book's longest runs" and removing my shorter word "stable" certainly appears like personal harrassment of my edits.

I look forward to working this out with a third party. -- Tenebrae 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Using your example of movies, no one would say "The award winning team of director Spielberg, sound mixer Jimmy Johnson and grip Sally Sue..." unless the award was for best picture. If the award was for best director, it would not make sense to group the other two with Spielberg because it implies the other two had a hand in the Directing. Likewise, the award was for inking, which is not something Nocenti and Romita had anything to do with. It was Williamson's award, which is why the award was given to him and not the comic as a whole.

As Ive tried to express to you innumerable times, I agree with you. Lets get rid of POV statements. Ive made an effort to try and work with you on this premise. So saying "I edited this" but "didnt edit that" has no bearing on anything. Its not an attack. If anything it is an admission that Im trying to work with you. Yet you are continually obstinate about the matter, which makes one wonder if you really are striving to make something NPOV or just striving to put your words above all others.

Lastly, saying a run was one of the books longest is factually verifiable. Saying something is stable is not. Whether you realize it or not, you are implying all sorts of things about the condition of the book by saying it is stable. Which is where my analogy of Chuck Austen came in. He had longevity, but I dont think anyone would say he had a stable run anywhere (and if you really want to find a source for what Im saying of fan's reactions to Austen, go ask the question on any comic site board. Honestly, try this, and tell me what the responses are). Longevity does not equate with stability. If your point is just that it was a long run on the book, simply say so. A key to good writing is analyzing word choices - youve already said it was a long run of 4.25 years, what more does stable add? I am not disputing it was a long run. What do you think you gain by continually adding it?

Additionally, I do not appreciate the personal insult that I am somehow interpreting a word according to my whimsy. Nor do I appreciate you asking a fellow collaborator not to make a change. It is certainly not your place to do such a thing given the open source nature of wikipedia.

Likewise, I look forward to a third party arbiter to finally put an end to your attacks on me and the childish nature of your argument. GodzillaWax 21:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need consent for mediation

Wikipedia "Procedure for mediation" [Wikipedia:Mediation#Procedure_for_mediation] requires that: "Disputant(s) should contact the other party and get their consent for mediation". At issue are the terms (excerpted from their fuller and necessary context) "long, stable run" and "well-received and award-winning team". This is a formal request. Do you agree that we two seek mediation on this issue? — Tenebrae 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC) (Sorry; that was me. I'd timed out.)

Yes GodzillaWax 21:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation involving you has been accepted by the Mediation Committee; more information can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Daredevil. Please monitor that page (adding it to your watchlist would be helpful) as further communication from the Mediation Committe will talk place on that page.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hi GodzillaWax, I've been assigned as the mediator for your request for mediation. Please add that page to your watchlist. I have listed a few questions on the case there. Please review it and answer them. KnowledgeOfSelf 00:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You Pompous, Ignorant Ass

To use your headline back at you. So you're Wikistalking me now. - Tenebrae 22:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I took your advice to use the "What Links Here" option to heart. It makes it much easier to see what kind of trash you are talking behind my back. GodzillaWax 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Stalk away. I'll be watching for vandalism. - Tenebrae 22:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daredevil images

Thought your edit was a step in the right direction, too bad it didn't last long. Check out the discussion page, I noted that since I brought up the issue, we actually incread the image amount to 13. Unreal. AriGold 18:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation case

Hey GodzillaWax, I just wanted to drop a line to find out if the agreement with regards to the DD page has been working out alright. If so sometime in the next day or two, I'm going to draw up a final resolution section that will need to be signed, by both you and Tenebrae. Either way, happy editing! KnowledgeOfSelf 11:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Caveat

I think moving something without discussing it with other Wikiepdians goes against the idea. One person may think something belongs in Publication History and another person may not -- and vice versa. If something is egregiously out of place, others will likely notice it. — Tenebrae 17:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm saying let other editors do what they feel is necessary. WE don't have to go into sections that we've agreed through mediation not to. — Tenebrae

[edit] OK, good footnote

I honestly have to compliment you on the well-thought-out and succinctly presented Footnote 4. For what my saying this is worth. Seriously. — Tenebrae 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation case 2

Hi GodzillaWax! I'd like to let you know that I have drawn up a final resolution section. Please read it, and if you are uncertian about anything it says please let me know. If you do understand, and agree to it, please sign your name at the bottom where I have indicated. Thanks! KnowledgeOfSelf 12:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signed, sealed, delivered

Just a note to say that I've signed the agreement, and to thank you for your willingness and good faith throughout the mediation. Also want to say that, as gesture of cooperation and comradeship, I'm leaving the Nocenti/Romita section as is, without the disputed phrases.

I look forward to the further polishing of Daredevil — and what do you say we team up to tackle Doctor Strange? I've just been there, and by the Hoary Hosts of Hogwarts (or whatever), it really needs improvement. — Tenebrae 20:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And thanks back at'cha

I know which whales you mean. Maybe I'll see you at the Bill Everett page, then! Best wishes — Tenebrae 18:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)