User talk:Takuy/Archive 1

Archive 1

My Warnings, yo.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Compare0307.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Compare0307.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:DBZBT3KingKold.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:DBZBT3KingKold.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:DBZBT3KingVeg.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:DBZBT3KingVeg.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:DBZBT3Nail.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:DBZBT3Nail.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dbzbt302.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dbzbt302.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dbzbt303.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dbzbt303.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dbzbt307.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dbzbt307.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:DBZ BT3 shot2.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:DBZ BT3 shot2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Infinite world - screen 02.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Infinite world - screen 02.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I took care of it. Sarujo (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Undead Pancake (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Byond

Byond does look like it might deserve greater coverage in other sources. But there are some things which, as an outsider looking at it quickly, I just don't understand.

• Byond says "no spyware ever" and discloses in the terms of service under "privacy" only that it collects e-mail addresses but won't share them. Yet one of the few mentions I find of the site searching around on Google is help bypassing bans on Byond by changing the user's hard drive serial number. [1] It would indeed be interesting to see a RS go through and give an account of the site's privacy practices.

• Byond says that it is "100% Free". But the Terms of Service say that users can "upgrade their account through the BYOND Membership program" for a fee. How much of 100% Free do you have to pay for?

• Byond advertises itself as a way that anyone can make a game. What's not clear to me just reading through: are these games then playable anywhere, or only on Byond?

One reason why Wikipedia wants reliable sources and not just the originating web site is that we want journalists to ask and answer some of the hard questions, so we're not cheerleading for something we don't understand.

Meanwhile, you could consider going to Wikinews with some kind of Byond event, which if it's interesting enough, might be newsworthy. (I don't know much about the project) Or you can write up a step-by-step example of how to create a playable game with Byond for Wikiversity as a programming exercise. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, see, BYOND's website does keep track of IPs, as all websites with user accounts do. There's also a thing which the BYOND Developers call "computer_id" it's some kind of hashed numerical string, unique for each computer. Neither are very important, nor will harm the user if they're public, which is the case, most of the time. People who create games also are able to access this information through methods programmed into the DM Language. Each client has an "address" and a "computer_id". That link discusses avoiding a ban on a game someone made. Supposedly, changing your serial number will change the ID, but the BYOND Devs still say "It's pretty hard to change your computer_id." Whatever the games do with that information is up to them, though. BYOND only tracks IP and possibly Computer ID to associate keys, and make sure people aren't pulling some kind of Multiple personality nonsense.

The software, is 100% free. You don't need to pay anything to create a game, host games, or play other games. BYOND Memberships have been around since 2005, their primary focus is to give some kind of income to BYOND. They last for a year. They are optional donations, which gave you benefits such as some webspace to host your files, an avatar on the forum, and unlimited pages (instant messages on BYOND), games can also offer benefits to members. Recently, this was changed a bit. Before, you could create a hub (a webpage to publish your game, on the BYOND website) for free. Now, you have to buy a BYOND Membership to create a hub. This is because the hub is pretty much free advertising for your server, comes with a built-in forum, Medal/achievement tracking, a scoreboard, bug and feature trackers, space for media such as screen shots. I think a membership costs around 23 dollars?

The games, at the moment, are either playable through BYOND's downloadable program. You can either play single player if you have the packaged binary (.dmb file), or you can join multiplayer - these both require the BYOND Pager, a program which gives you access to BYOND's games. However, recently there was a program released which allows programmers to package their game as an EXE - it can be used as either a single player thing, or to join multiplayer games. With this, you don't need to download the BYOND Software, and that's what NEStalgia is doing. The BYOND Developers are also working on a Flash client, so games can be embedded into web pages, or even on phones, without the need for the BYOND software, but the games are still developed in BYOND, and its language. However, the Flash client, will only be a client, I don't think it'll be used to play Single Player games, only join servers.

Speaking of Journalism, we had a 'guild' or group of people on BYOND who would interview the staff, and other people who were active or making some cool games. The archive (and location of future interviews, if they were to happen) is located at http://byondjournalism.seiyria.com/ Would this be a 'reliable source'?

Tako (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The New 52, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rob Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The New 52

Hi! I think we're at cross purposes here! I meant I'm not sure if anyones confirmed if 'Huntress' or 'Greatest Adventure' were canon in the New 52 continuity, so I removed the sentence while I looked for a source- clearly some are, but I wasn't sure if they all were? Anyway, any help would be appreciated in sourcing a quote! Let me know if you fancy changing it! Ta! Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 14:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• The Huntress series has to be part of the New 52 - it's ending directly ties into World's Finest, that's pretty much confirmed by editorial. In 'My Greatest Adventure', it utilizes Batman's New 52 costume. I don't think anyone has come out and said 'This is New 52', but it came out the month? following the New 52, using the new costume. It seems likely, especially because of the rebooted Robotman origin. There's also this DC Editorial post, where some editorial guy said:

"Kevin Maguire dropped by yesterday, and I promised him that I'd try to get everybody here to learn to count to 53. The unofficial fifty-third book, at least from my standpoint, is MY GREATEST ADVENTURE, strong accent on the word "GREATEST." (http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2012/01/25/dc-comics-all-access-joey-cavalieri)

Doesn't exactly mean it's 100% part of the continuity, but it seems quite plausible. What other titles are questionable? || Tako (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Nope, I think that ties up my worries mate! Keep up the good work! Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 07:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brett Booth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Robinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DCU on New 52 Page

I saw all that you added to the DCU title on the New 52 page, which is great. However, since the rotation is always changing, I feel this can get crowded and "bulky" really fast. I think the different teams would be great to include, but maybe not on the New 52 page. Would there be enough info to add in addition to the creative teams on a DCU page of it's own (since it doesn't have any)? Let me know your thoughts and thanks for all the work you've been doing on the page! -Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Haha, yeah. I felt that it was overkill after I added it all. I think there'll probably be enough information for it's own article, the problem is that the current DC Universe Presents page is only about the magazine published in the UK. That article would need to be split up into a few sections, and enough relevant information about the New 52 title would need to be added. I mean, it wouldn't be difficult, I just don't know anything about the UK Magazine enough to mess with that. || Tako (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know much either, but I think that a section could be added to the page under a heading along the lines of "US version" and then a little blurb and then the issues and creative teams that are on the New 52 page. If I have a free moment, I can try sandboxing it to see what it might look like. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and did it, it wasn't a big change after all. DC Universe Presents#The New 52. It's pretty empty, but it shows the creative teams. || Tako (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Great. I changed the New 52 page back to not having the creative teams and just added a little bit to what you created on the DCU page. Thanks!! -Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

DC Universe Presents (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mister Terrific, Paul Jenkins, OMAC and Ricken

Legion Lost (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Flashpoint

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The New 52, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voodoo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

GI Combat on New 52

Hey. I was just thinking for the titles that were cancelled, since the dates were coming up, that we should keep them in the On Going Titles section until the new title that is replacing them is released. So GI Combat would stay there until 1/16/2013 when Threshold is released. Thoughts on this? Just thinking for readers who are looking to see the titles that are out, technically, GI Combat is still out and available. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, it doesn't really matter to me. It's just, as this is the last issue of the book, it's officially a *former* title, but sure. It won't hurt to wait until next month. Feel free to change it. || Tako (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

List of New 52 DC Characters

You didn't provide a rationale for the PROD; I have therefore removed the tag. Please take to AFD. GiantSnowman 14:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I provided a statement in the edit notes, and then J Greb endorsed the PROD and gave a more valid rational. What's the issue? || Tako (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe notify the other people you're accusing...

Hey dingleberry, I know if all the fun and excitement of accusing people of wrong doings it's hard to follow the rules, but you're supposed to notify all the users you're accusing, not just me. --Swankytank (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lobo (DC Comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stormwatch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ms. Gsptlsnz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fifth dimension (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Blackhawks (DC Comics)

Yep, saw your concern and just responded to it over on the Talk page. I'm confident there will be more than enough material to cover in the new article, and given the growing length of the Blackhawk (DC Comics) page (I'm only about halfway through my rewrite of it), it feels to me like a good place to split the articles. DoctorSivana (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

New 52 Director's Cuts

Just a quick question regarding these. Do you know what is different about them to be considered "Director's Cuts"? And are these books considered part of the 52 for the month or just rereleases of the series, so not technically? I think the answer to the second question will help us find the right spot for them, because at the moment, I feel like they should be on the individual book's page, unless they are consider part of the 52 for the month. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, from the solicits, they are reprints of the first issue of the story arc, along with scripts, pencils, etc. They're solicited by DC (on their blog) in the specific groups of the New 52. I think it's noteworthy that they're actually labeled '#1' - meaning they're intended to either be one-shots, or possibly a once-in-a-while thing. They're not just simple reprints. According to some funky math I did, for July if you count the two Director's Cuts, you have 52. For August, you have 51, unless you count the DC Universe vs Masters of the Universe mini-series, which is not solicited among the core 52. I'd suggest opening an RFC on it. I just added it there because of the way it was solicited by DC. || Tako (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Indigo Tribe

Thanks for checking the grammar on staffs vs. staves. I agree with you on the usage of the former, and have converted the powers and abilities section to use the singular (staff). I'm just about done with copyediting, so if you have a chance, please review the article and fix any inaccuracies I might have induced in the process. Thanks again. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Atom (comics) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Tia Ballard education status

Thanks for checking the edits on Tia Ballard. I'm still looking for a source for her education after Paris Junior College, and posted on the related talk page. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abra Kadabra (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walter West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Jason Todd reference

A perfect solution. Well done! :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of The New 52 publications, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Brainiac and Lobo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Injustice: Gods Among Us

You might want to read the the page on WP:disambiguation more thoroughly. You will note that title based disambiguation is also acceptable for articles which could cause confusion when an individual performs a web search and is directed to the article by title only to discover that it is not what they were looking for. This causes web users to mistrust Wikipedia. A page for both is not required to specify the content in the title. If both pages existed, a separate disambiguation page would be required, not just a title change. The title change is a simple (and small) fix that removes the confusion while waiting for the comic page to be created. I would have no objection to the video game holding the primary page once the comic page and the disambiguation page are created. For now the lack of clarity in the title creates confusion. Krkr8m (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no confusion. The article states that it is a game. The comic book is a spin-off of the game. The comic book is mentioned in the article. The non-DAB'd name of the article does not conflict with anything. Start a discussion on the article's talk page. A disambiguation page wouldn't be necessary either. A hatnote would do - if an article on the comic existed.|| Tako (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I created an article for the comic version. Per the page previously discussed "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." and "...if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page." Since neither page should be considered the primary topic, a hatnote is not sufficient disambiguation. A separate disambiguation page will be required. Krkr8m (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scarecrow (DC Comics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paul Jenkins and David Finch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pulsar Stargrave may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Pulsar Stargrave makes his [[New 52]' debut in a back-up story in ''[[Threshold (DC Comics)|Threshold]]'' #2 featuring [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Thanks for adding spice to this space. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Superman Unchained, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Man of Steel and Scott Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

The Movement (comics), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk page merge question

Hey, recently, I was working on a draft in my userspace, which eventually went to AFC and got created, however. While it was in my userspace, there was a discussion in the draft's talk page. Would it make sense to merge the contents/discussion of that page, into the newly created article's talk page? And, would such a merge require a hist merge? Thanks! || Tako (bother me) || 19:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the 'edit history' of the draft talk page is important....you should copy the headers from the article talk page to the draft talk page, have the article talk speedy deleted as 'preparation for page move', and then move the draft talk page to the article talk location. You don't need a merge since there is no real 'content' on the new talk page yet, jest headers, but you'll need an admin to do the deletion. Revent (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Legion Lost, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durlan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

They should be in bold if they are the most representative flash and the best known

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mister Terrific (Michael Holt), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earth-2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WildStorm. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. postdlf (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Outsider (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Robinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Villains Month/Forever Evil article title idea

Just had this idea. I just made some additions to the page and thought about the article title. What if we moved it to Forever Evil, and then made Villains Month a redirect to Forever Evil#Villains Month titles? We would just need to clean up the lead a bit, but I believe that would work. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that'd work. Forever Evil is definitely the core thing which we would need to focus on. If it eventually becomes too heavy with the Villains Month plot, we can split that off later. || Tako (bother me) || 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Will make the move. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Threshold (DC Comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Power ring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Butting heads

Okay, thanks for pointing out the explcit text connecting the two Madame Vipers. That is precisely what is needed before you can connect Yukio to the film, or vice versa. I've reverted them both, and I hope you will let me know which article discussion page you want to talk this out in. Without explicit references connecting the two, we cannot say it. The reader has to decide for themselves. Let me know where you want to talk about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Earth-Three Alfred

Now that we know who he is, how should we reference how he was known on Prime Earth? Should it be "The Outsider"/"Outsider" or the Outsider, without the double quotes? I feel DC and Johns wanted Outsider to be the characters name, but as we only got it from the tarot cards, I still think it should be with the double quotes. And how Alfred even stated in the last Trinity War part, something like "I am an Outsider to this world", not implying that that is his official name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In JL #23, he says: "I am outsider to this world." | "I am THE Outsider."

I think it's safe to call him the Outsider with no extra punctuation; it might be good to note who he actually is, like..."bleh bleh bleh the Outsider, the Earth-3 counterpart of Alfred Pennyworth." in his first mention, if it's not obvious in content and not mentioned earlier. || Tako (bother me) || 05:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I was going to start to try to condense the Trinity War info, and thought using The Outsider would be better than "Society leader" or "the leader" everywhere, before we get to the reveal. But I agree about adding the tag about Earth-Three. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Joker's Daughter

As this comic was beyond readable, do you know if the new character going by this name, is Duela Dent? I couldn't finish it, or cared to, to find out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha, her mother refers to her as "Duela" on a near-to-last page; no idea on the last/family name. || Tako (bother me) || 01:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Splitting Villains Month

Hey. What are your thoughts on possibly splitting off Villains Month? With the announcement of the Forever Evil: Blight storyline, I feel like all of the normal Forever Evil and tie in info will add a lot to the page, and this info will just bog it down. Or do you feel we need to devote as much attention (ie plot and reception) to all of these official tie in issues? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem too bloated right now; the Villains Month stuff seems to take up very little space from my perspective. (Though, the titles table could probably be Expandable and naturally collapsed.) Have all of the relevant pieces of Villains Month plot been added to the Plot sections? Like, the Villains Month stuff is pretty tied to Forever Evil; it'd be difficult to have that level of context in an article by itself without copying a large amount of content from Forever Evil. I'm sure there's a way to effectively split it (when the need will arise), but no real idea right now.|| Tako (bother me) || 00:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

How would you propose expanding that table? I also like the idea of making it collapsed. I believe I added all relevant plot points. I was not sure about the Secret Society issue, so I'd like your opinion on that one, and to look over to see if I missed any that you have read. And I understand your point about getting the context on a Villains Month page, without copying most of the Forever Evil stuff. And I fine with holding off too now I guess. The bulk of the Blight info won't come until December anyways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Er, I didn't mean 'expanding' the table with new information; I mean having it naturally collapsed with that "Expand" button. :p The Secret Society issue is pretty relevant to Forever Evil as a whole, as well as Trinity War. Though, I don't it really needs it's own summary; but it can be used to fill in details where things are unclear. (ie, their motive, why Dick Grayson, etc)

I also believe that when the time comes to put up information and plot for the other Forever Evil miniseries, information from Villains' Month would better fit into those sections - the whole Scarecrow thing, Mayor Penguin, Bane, etc, that's all a lead-up to Forever Evil: Arkham War. The Grodd and Rogues issue fits with the Rogues Rebellion mini series. So, once there is a solid plot for those, it'd be easier to move things around and make it more cohesive. I think, initially, there was too much focus on Villains Month as it's own entity, but it seems like a majority of the titles are just lead-ins and prologue for Forever Evil, and origin stories for everyone else. Villains Month as a whole has no context of it's own, unfortunately. || Tako (bother me) || 00:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay. Sorry for the miscommunication on the table. Totally fine with collapsing it. The infobox can probably be collapsed as well. That can be done in the next few Wednesdays when the tie-ins start coming out. (Never mind. Just saw your edit.) Same feeling with Secret Society. It had a lot of info, but I didn't really know where to put it. I also agree with moving the Villains Month plots to their respective series, because they are just really lead ins, and your views on how we perceived the month initially.

While we're on the topic, whenever I can find a decent amount of time, I wanted to go through Trinity War again and comb through all of the plot and lead up info. I would appreciate the help if you would be interested/available. Since it is essentially a prologue to Forever Evil, and was never promoted as such, there may be storylines that didn't really apply to the lead up, and ones we missed that did. Even the Secret Society issue could be considered "lead-up" even though it was published after the event. Let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha, I'm pretty sure none of what we considered to be relevant to Trinity War actually ended up being relevant to it's main plot or the aftermath/Forever Evil. I'd be up for cleaning it up, but I only really have time during weekends now (and during school/work sometimes). I think a bulk of it can really be moved to the Justice League as reasons of why the JLA was formed (David Graves, Superman/Wonder Woman) with a history of new/potential recruits (Atom, Deadman). Some of it can be considered for a potential Trinity of Sin article, etc. Unfortunately, the entire JL article is pretty heavy, and there's no possible way to split it up. (I did have an issue with the mass amount of Infoboxes there...) || Tako (bother me) || 01:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I know right? But in our defense, they did a pretty good job of covering up its true purpose until Johns revealed it. And same timewise for me. I'm very busy during the week with school/work as well, so I can't tackle big projects. A possibility for Trinity War would be to take some of the info we have now, but put it under a statement that says that was marketed as such, because we technically aren't wrong in what we did. And the the accurate info could be as is. For the Justice League page, I don't even know with that. On your mention, I agree that some of the lead up info could go under that section, but that page is a mix of being about the team (which it should be) and the different titles published under the JL/JLA name (which should be broken out). That is something to possibly bring up for discussion and the project page. So many infoboxes! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Two quick things

First, for Batman Eternal, I don't know about that. The USA Today source does not give good indication either way, but I would be inclined to keep it in "Other titles" as it has a set number of issues, as opposed to opened ended with normal ongoing series. Second, Phantom Stranger this week had the Forever Evil banner on the cover, even though it was not solicited as a tie in. I have not read it yet (getting around to it), but do you feel we should make a notation of it in the Blight area, that PS 12-13 (and presumably Pandora 4-5 and Constantine 7-8) act as prelude to the Blight event? I'll try to find a source or review for those titles to see if my thinking can be validated. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Forever Evil had like a 2 panel reference in PS. (Ultraman's eclipse was mentioned). It could fit as a prelude, sure - you can use this as a source; DeMatteis says: "PS #12 picks up right after that [referencing him trying to save Dr. Light and being erased from existance]—and begins a journey that leads the Stranger straight into the heart of the Forever Evil: Blight arc."

I figured as much. I'm going to hopefully start a mass edit on the page soon, for plot and reviews of Arkham War and then this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, Bethany Snow and Channel 52 appeared in the first season two episode of Arrow. Will be on the look out for a source for that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, gosh, who would have thought Bethany Snow would have become such a relevant character after her Teen Titans appearance in the 1980s...lol. || Tako (bother me) || 20:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? I thought she was a new character created for that back up feature. Definitely interesting though, and hopefully someone comments on it so it can be used. But I do believe her involvement in the show is based on the New 52 backup, as she is a reporter there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing Jan 2014 solicits

Reading Newsarama's "What We've Learned" article, they pointed out that Katana, Vibe and Superman Unchained did not have solicits for this month. They felt that that probably meant Katana and Vibe are done in December and Unchained needed a month off. Just wanted you to know if you didn't already, to be on the look out as you always are, to see what the outcome is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Teen Titans and Forever Evil

Hi Tako. Have you read Teen Titans 24 yet? I'm just wondering on your thoughts on it actually being a tie-in to Forever Evil, besides the fact that the team is in the timestream. Looking at the solicits again, and the fact that it does not have "Forever Evil" on the cover, I don't think this issue is. Their solicit is: "As Forever Evil spreads across the world, where have the Teen Titans gone? Find out when they are and why the Titans definitely aren’t together!", but it is not prefaced with "A “Forever Evil” tie-in!" as the Justice League books and Suicide Squad were. I personally only think the Teen Titans stuff is self contained for that book, just being an effect of Forever Evil. Just wondering to know what has to be included when I do my plot and review editing later. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As TT #24 doesn't really do much aside from pick up from Forever Evil #2, I'd say...include a brief summary of TT #24 (tossed around time, fight versions of self from different time periods or alternate timelines)...and then wait for TT #25. 25 is actually solicited as a "A FOREVER EVIL tie-in!"; tho I'm pretty sure they were both solicited in the Forever Evil group (well, in a group with the rest of the FE titles). But, since #24 apparently had no actual relevance to the on-goings of Forever Evil, I really don't know about the inclusion of a review. || Tako (bother me) || 20:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. I won't do a review, partially because none of the three sites have one yet, and I'll hold off on the plot until 25 comes out. At that point, it can be reevaluated if they should even be mentioned on the page, or only possibly in a sentence like "These issues were solicited as part of the event, but did not contribute to the story" or whatever. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pandora (DC Comics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ARGUS and The Question (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bane

Thanks for reverting my edit. I had no idea about the existence of the article on Bane. I also thank you for your contribution to DC comic article. Nickelroy (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Format Opinion

On Forever Evil, do you feel it is best to keep the tie-in book sections as individual headings, or as I have kept them using the ";" to make them bold, but not their own heading? I don't want to revert, again, if I'm the one who might be in error. I just don't feel there is a need to have them individually made headers. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm fine with either one. I think that having all the tie-in sections being headings does make the TOC look awful and stretched out; but it does make editing individual sections easier, especially with the individual tie-in plots being almost guaranteed to get bloated at some point. I believe an IP editor used that as his rationale for the headings. So, with headings, you sacrifice a neat TOC but generally faster editing for short sections. With psuedo-headings (that's apparently what Wikipedia calls the usage of ";"), you get a neat TOC but you have to edit a larger section which might take a while to load, and submit, etc. There is a workaround though - using template:TOC limit - which I've just demonstrated at User:Takuy/sandbox1 (also with proper title/arc formatting, which the latest editor seemingly forgot). That's keeps the TOC neat, and the gives editable sub-sections. They have a header, they just don't appear in the table of contents. It's up to you if you want to go for that, it might or might not make both sides happy. || Tako (bother me) || 05:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that was my same rationale - an expanded TOC that didn't need to be. I'll try implementing the limit and see how that goes. Thanks as always. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Image opinion

I was wondering if you could give your opinion on an image I am questioning adding. Could you let me know which image you feel represents the Batman: Arkham page better: the one currently on the page, or this one at the top of the article? The one on the page now is more neutral, thus applying generally, but the one in the article, I feel, is a better representation of the main games, as it incorporates the design used by each. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Superman/Wonder Woman

The correct solution is indeed not to use {{As of}}. That template is only for statements related to the time they are made in. If something is antedated or postdated, we should not use that template. I was about to implement that solution, when I saw you had already come to the same conclusion. 23:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Debresser (talk)

Avoiding edit war

Hey Takuy, I missed the line from the infobox about John Hurt when I reverted before, but am scared to open back the page. Is it allowed? At the moment it introduces the actors in real world terms, lists Hurt between 8 and 9, and then says "also Hurt!" in a bit of text after.Zythe (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Hey Tako. Just wanted you to know I'm taking a wikibreak. Had an issue with my laptop so I took it as a sign to not find ways to get on here and take a break. I should be back before the new year, if not, definitely by the end of January. If you can, can you just keep an eye on the Forever Evil page? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to the list of publications page. Been thinking maybe we should subsection the "Publication history" on The New 52 page. Might make it flow better, instead of one large chunk of info. Also, IGN's article about Animal Man stated March 2014 solicits are coming out next week hopefully. I still have limited wiki access, so I'll help where I can, when I can. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you suggest we section it? I've had the idea for a while to, but I haven't come to any conclusion for the best way to do it. Month/years? Waves?

also, I think New 52 solicits are coming out tomorrow actually. I already know two surprises for it, Suicide Squad: Amanda Waller #1, and Batman and Aquaman #29 - I'd tell you how I know this, but talk pages are too public for my snoopy ways. ;) || Tako (bother me) || 00:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ooh secret ways of getting info! I like it haha. And those are definitely surprises. Is the Amanda Waller title ongoing or limited? And as for the publication headings, I was hoping to make them informative and creative. Like "Moving away from waves" or "Expanding the universe", the latter more for like the the start of the Forever Evil info. If not, maybe years like "Year X (201X): Description". I'm open to different ideas, but just looking today made me realize it. -Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a one-shot, like Batman: Joker's Daughter, and Superman: Lois Lane. and the description-like ones could work. I've turned one of my sandboxes into a test area for it, if you'd care to throw around some ideas there. || Tako (bother me) || 00:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. I think I remember reading there was going to be a third one-shot. I like that choice. As to the headings, I like what you've started. As I said, I'm on limited computer access (currently doing this from an old iPad which sucks) so when I get the chance I'll take a stab at it. And will continue relaying thoughts, ideas here until I'm back normally. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, once the new draft space goes live, I want to try to create the Futures End article, as, based on rumors, the September 2014 event will be Five Years later, which can fit on that page like Villains Month on Forever Evil. It will be good to have most of that done, so once that is announced, or we get closer to May, the article can be made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we have made some really good progress on the List of publications page. I was thinking, that if we just clean up/add a bit more, we might be able to nominate it for a Featured List. What do you think? Also, my online presence may be picking up in the next few days as an FYI. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I haven't been very active recently. work and school and things, y'know. I think it might be ready to go FL. (maybe just needs some more minor clean-up) and, I'm pretty sure the Collected Editions table should have citations, but that'd be pretty annoying to do, as DC's Collected Editions solicits aren't always completely accurate, and citing Amazon entry for each book would be dumb. || Tako (bother me) || 21:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I totally feel you. Yes very minor clean up and we should be good. I think we can source the collected editions from DC's own site, as I believe they update the info after it has released if it changed from the solicits. That's what I'm going to be looking into the next few days. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey quick update. I'm sure you are busy off wiki with the holidays approaching, but I managed to start getting the collected editions table ready. Adding the sources are tedious, but it helps me double check all the info, which I have been correcting as I go. With that, when ever you get the chance, can you investigate something for me? I was double checking all the volumes for the New 52 books, and OMAC was the only one I could not discern which volume it was. Based on Wikipedia articles and Comic Vine, I know that it is either Volume 2 or Volume 3. If you could find out which one it definitely is, based on your own knowledge or looking elsewhere, that'd be great. And as always, whenever you get back, if I haven't finished the table, help would be great! Have a great holiday and see you in 2014! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the holiday wishes - you have a great one too! Well, there are 4 volumes. There was a volume in 1974, 1991, 2006, and 2011. The indicia‎/copyright info for the 1974 and 2006 books just say "OMAC". 1991's limited series inner-title page said "OMAC \ One Man Army Corps", and I'm not sure about 2011, because I read that digitally. However, DC's website lists it as O.M.A.C. - which would make it unique, but other sites list it as just OMAC. That'd basically be Volume 3. I'll see if I can find a scan of the page with the indicia on it though, that would be pretty conclusive. || Tako (bother me) || 04:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks. If you can't find it, I think Volume 3 would be acceptable. Everything else that were not new series to the New 52, were pretty much easy to find/figure out. One thing I found interesting in doing this, was that even though JLI has had titles over the years, they've been part of other series (ie JL became JLI for a chunk of issues), so the New 52 one was only Volume 2. Oh maybe another one if you can/able to: Hawk and Dove. Would it technically be different if it is Hawk and Dove vs. Hawk & Dove? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I just checked on a print scan of #2 - It says "O.M.A.C. 2. December, 2011", so I'd go with volume 1 for that. For JLI, I'd actually go with Volume 3 with that. I've checked the indicia for the JL -> JLI -> JLA series, and the JLE -> JLI series. The JLI titled issues all read "Justice League International". JLI never started as it's own thing and always retitled from something else until the New 52 series. For Hawk and Dove - 5 series total, the indicia of the first series reads "The Hawk and the Dove", while the four series after that read "Hawk and Dove" - it's just "and" not "&" in that. So, I'd say that is volume 4. Basically, I'm just going by whatever the copyright information says. || Tako (bother me) || 05:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the research. I actually realized I didn't write the JLI one correctly and did have it as Volume 3. That's fine for the other two. I'll make notes of that. The volumes are the only thing that I think are troublesome from here on out, but I don't think it is something that will hold back a FL nom. I'll do my best with what I have, and maybe down the road, anything with a high volume number can get a double check beyond what I did (ie Blue Beetle, which is at Volume 8 supposedly). But I think this is more than enough for now. I'm just going to get the sources together for the CEs and then try to nominate the page, unless there is anything else you want to do/add before that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I think we might be able to cut-back on the CE sources a bit, actually. Since the CE solicits are released in DC's monthly solicits, we might be able to use that for collections that haven't changed between then and now. I'll look through that if I have time tomorrow. || Tako (bother me) || 05:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Great thanks. The only issue I had with that is I felt most changed between solicits and actual release, but we may be able to condense some. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dummy edit?

Dummy edit? How old are you? Mind your own business dude. - TreCoolGuy

Dummy as in not actually changing something on the page (ie replicating something real) not meaning stupid. And no need for the personal attack Tre. You should know (once again) that a source like that is not going to fly here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

List of The New 52 publications FL candidate

Hey Tako. I got it done! Those Collected Editions man. Whew. Letting you know that I've nominated it, with you as a nominator. You can add it to your watchlist if you'd like. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The New 52 publications/archive1 - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, dude, great job. I haven't gotten around to looking into the solicit merging yet, noticed some discrepancies between DC's site and Amazon as well, hopefully will have some free time between Sunday and New Years to look over all of that. I definitely think it's at a point where the content lines up with the sources, so, it's good enough for FL hopefully. || Tako (bother me) || 05:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't either, but from what I can tell, any CE that has released, or is releasing very soon, from DC's site is accurate, and that the solicits to cover these that have released will either have the wrong content info, non-specific date, or no title for the collection. Future titles I was able to use two sources, but then again, I still had issues with three CEs: Vibe Vol. 1 was nowhere to be seen on DC's site, so I had to use the old solicit; Action Comics Vol. 4 gave me a month and title, but the content was the same as Vol. 3; and The Culling: Rise of the Ravagers was also no where to be seen on DC's site, but I know it exists from Comic Vine and Amazon. But yes, I do agree that it should be good enough to get the nom, and then we can work on condensing if we can. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ISBN edits. Did not even consider how to do that, but obviously you figured something out. Also, just wanted you to know that from 12/30 to 1/6 I will be on a wikibreak for a vacation. This one was planned versus my previous one just coming about due to some unplanned circumstances. Anyways, I won't be able to address anything in the review until I get back, so I hope you would not mind addressing anything urgent if need be. I will be posting in the review that I will be on wikibreak and that I won't be able to address anything until I get back, that you can address needs in the interim (if not just remove that from my statement). Thanks so much Tako. Have a great New Year if you are doing anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Different Aquaman picture

Just wanting to know what you meant "improperly licensed", I thought I answered the recommendations when I uploaded it. Also I think there is some need to change Aquaman picture. The one he has now makes him look dated to the info box pictures used for Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and the Green Arrow (just making a small list). Any way I just thought the old picture didn't do Aquaman enough justice. So can my picture be put back if I license it properly? Teridax122 (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As the image is a comic book cover, it is NOT public domain. Comic book covers have copy rights, and need proper licencing. Please look to the infobox image on the Forever Evil page as an example to see how a comic cover needs to be licensed. But as with Tako, I see no need for an update to the Aquaman image. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Bluebird and the Batman Navbox

Hi there! I was the one who added Bluebird to the Batman Navbox, and I noticed you recently removed that callsign. It's true that it's only been used in one issue, but I don't understand how that makes it any less legitimate, especially since there are multiple media references to her by that name. I'm I'm not gearing up for an edit war or anything, and I'll probably just leave it as is since she still appears in the box as Harper Row - I was just hoping for some more insight on what your motivation for removing it was. I'm still pretty unexperienced and make lots of mistakes, so I'd like to learn everything I can from more senior Wikipedians! TI. Gracchus (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey. It's mostly because the area where "Bluebird" was added is for "Shared codenames". Bluebird has only been used by one character and is not a "shared codename", the edit comment was an error on my part, I somehow shift-entered before finishing what I was typing. It (currently) refers explicitly to one character, while the other codenames have been shared and passed around a bit. Harper Row (or Bluebird) would belong once in the navbox, where it already is under "Character names". || Tako (bother me) || 23:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see! I just didn't understand the category - I thought it referred to any Bat-family callsign. I knew I was missing something. This all makes much more sense now. Thank you! TI. Gracchus (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. I just looked at the Navbox again - would it be appropriate to change her entry to "Harper Row (Bluebird) like some of the other family members are for clarification? It seems to be in keeping with the discussion on the template talk page, but I'm still not 100% sure why some of them have parenthetical extras and others don't. I figured I'd ask the expert.  :) TI. Gracchus (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Some of them have parenthesis for a loose diambiguation, where like...there is a shared identity, but the identity itself does not have an article. In the case of Catwoman - the Catwoman page is about Selina Kyle, despite not being the only person to use the identity (Holly Robinson (comics)). While for Jean-Paul Valley, the Azrael (comics) article is about a few different people who have taken that name, none of which have their own article. Though, JPV is the only Azrael to actually be part of the Batman family. || Tako (bother me) || 22:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

DC Sept 2014 event

Hey Tako. Would love the help to start this info adding were it needs to be. I'm about to tackle the list of publications page with the anniversary table, but would like to make The New 52: Futures End formatted similarly to Forever Evil ie Villains Month. Thanks for any help! Also, Newsarma has another interview with Dan DiDio up, with a full one later today. At least in what was up, they announced a third weekly for October. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Featured list Barnstar
		Thank you for all your contributions to get List of The New 52 publications promoted to featured list status! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Superman Unchained

Do you have any further knowledge about the last two issues regarding this? If you do, can you add it appropriately to the list of new 52 titles page, and the Superman Unchained page? Is the series done now with issues 7? Or is it just suspended for the time being? I couldn't wrap my head around it. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Forever Evil

Just so you know, I plan on finishing the summaries (obviously if someone else doesn't get to them), to then copy edit them down. I just haven't had the time to devote to them. I have the issues stacked on my desk ready to go. Just need more hours in the day! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World

First off, thank you for clarifying that! I was very confused as to why everyone was listed. However, I have a quick question. Seeing as I totally missed the scrolling option, is there any way that could be mentioned in the caption to prevent the confusion I underwent? Thanks! Corvoe (speak to me) 14:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a note about the scrollbar for when you hover over the image, but I'm not sure if a note in the caption is a good idea. Generally, the scroll bar is what I notice in an image box like that. If you think a note in the caption would be a good idea, however, feel free to add it and see what others think. || Tako (bother me) || 14:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

'Man of Steel'

i'll let you use the Lois Lane article however the Michael Shannon one is a press release which is more reliable because it comes from the Warner Bros studio which is says in About DC Entertainment in black and white DC Entertainment works in concert with many key Warner Bros. divisions to unleash its stories and characters across all media, including but not limited to film, television, consumer products, home entertainment and interactive games. So, it was released to all media outlets, but this is the actual source of information it is coming from with a comment section in the bottom of the press release for discussion. Author David Hyde is a reliable author whose work has showed up in the New York Times, USA Today, the L.A. Times [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorker32 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"You're trying to replace two sources that feature discussion with ones that feature simply press release, or news with no discussion". "That's a sign of bad faith. No one has any authority higher than anybody else." - that's really not needed as well and a little insulting to me of the research i conducted. i did attach the source and there was a comment section below. i do understand the secondary primary guidelines, but it says in the WP:RELIABLE "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.

i think there is a mutual understanding now and can come to terms? Newyorker32 (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

History deleting/splitting?

Hi. I recently moved an article from a sandbox to the article namespace, however. That particular subpage of mine had previously been used for another WIP/test case thing. When I was finished with that initial test, I replaced it with a draft for a new article. But, now that I've moved the draft into the article namespace, it's retained the history of those edits. So, basically every revision up to [3] is essentially irrelevant to the article. Am I able to request the deletion of the previous revisions up to that point, or are they stuck there? Thanks. || Tako (bother me) || 01:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I moved the page back to your sandbox (to take all the previous edit history with it), then cut the wikicode from your sandbox, and placed it on the Multiversity page. That is how I would have done this move. If you would have like to have had your working edit history on the page as well, I apologize for this move, and we may need an admin to help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about taking the talk page as well. Didn't think to uncheck the box on the move page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It works for now, but yeah, I would have liked to keep the revision history. That kind of stuff is important (for Wikipedia's copyright purposes or something), really. Just...a chunk of it is pointless to that article. talk page thing wasn't really an issue, I always goof up on that, too. I guess I'll request admin input and see if a selective history merge is possible or necessary. || Tako (bother me) || 02:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A WP:HISTMERGE should probably do it. Didn't realize the edit history may have to do with copyright (but I guess that makes sense). I hope it works out, and I apologize if I made it more difficult. That was my best idea/how I would have done it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

See above discussion and let me know if anything can or should be done, thanks. || Tako (bother me) || 02:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have done a history-merge and disentangled and restored The Multiversity, so it now has its history with it. Now I must read it - looks interesting.

You can avoid this problem in future by putting {{db-u1}} on a sandbox to get it deleted before re-using it, or by starting a draft in a new sandbox or a user sub-page with a title like "User:Takuy/The Multiversity". @Favre1fan93: thanks for helping. The reason why cut-and-paste moves are not a good idea is that they lose the history. The CC-BY-SA license requires us to give attribution to all the authors of a page, and the page history is the way that is done. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I noticed that the page is actually missing a few revisions. These were edits done after Favre's cut-paste. Is it possible to restore the revisions, or at least the content? The revisions were pretty minimal so it's okay if they can't be restored. || Tako (bother me) || 11:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that info John. I also have a draft I am working on so I'll keep that in mind when moving the page to the mainspace. But I think it is the only thing I did in the space, so I might not have the same issue as Tako. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, no problem doing a cut-and-paste if you are the only author. JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be complicated to disinter those revisions, simpler if you just make the edits again. There were two by you:

• Rewrite the title in Ref.1 so it is not in ALLCAPS
• Add "date=September 29, 2009" to Ref. 23

and one by Favre1fan93:

• remove a surplus "[" before the word "Interview" in "ref name=ComicsAlliance2011"

I see they had history-merge problems in the Multiversity too. I wouldn't like to be an admin on their Wikipedia trying to sort out article histories! JohnCD (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I redid my edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha, yup, the multiverse is a complicated place of history merges! I re-did my edits as well, I'll keep in mind to delete sandboxes before I re-use them or use alternate sub-pages. Thanks, John. You've been a big help. || Tako (bother me) || 16:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Deathstroke

That's what I thought, but was not entirely sure. Let me know if you need help finding the indica. And if the 90s was considered its own volume, we have to make the change in the regular tables, anniversary table, and nav box. And then the Deathstroke page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright, per the indicia, the 90s Deathstroke the Terminator becomes retitled Deathstroke the Hunted with issue #41, and later simply Deathstroke with #48. So, yeah, I guess stick with v2 and v3 being The New 52 series. || Tako (bother me) || 23:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Great. Thank you for looking in to that. Much appreciated as always. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiversity Comic-Con panel

If you haven't seen, thought you could use the info from the panel to add to the article. Maybe added the "map" image in too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks. I'll get around to that at some point this weekend. I think the article needs some major c/e for coherentness and cohesiveness at some point too, writing about Morrison without doing the same drugs as him is hard. || Tako (bother me) || 19:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha. When it comes time, let me know and I'll c/e it for you. But right now I have a lot on my plate, taking care of Guardians of the Galaxy (film) in anticipation for its release, and then later on, handling all the Marvel movie goodies they announce that their panel. But once that all subsides, I'd be more than happy to do that for you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

About The New 52 template

Would you like to discuss the New 52 template? On many occasions I am led to believe that the NavBox should be as short and concise as possible, and my well intentioned additions were often reverted in order to keep the NavBox "neat" or whatever. Ease of navigation is fine, but at the same time I am aware that templates are not meant to be treated as a "list of XX" article page. More New 52 articles are discontinued then launched at the moment it seems, and if the New 52 template box goes onto every single article entry listed on the box then it will make everything extremely unwieldy and long.

I'll take away the "former" ongoing series page, but will add a link on the "ongoing series" list which directs users to the List of New 52 publications page. Let me know what you think...if you're not happy just revert and we'll discuss further. Haleth (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Haleth, no reason to revert if we're having a discussion, I guess. There's really nothing wrong with a long navbox, as far as I know. There could be other ways to organize the infobox, though. Similar to Template:Pittsburgh maybe? Or, sub-group the article links by their launch date/conclusion date? The removal of former series by themselves doesn't make much sense to me, it signifies that they are less important - it'd mean the miniseries/maxiseries/one-shots should also be removed, as they all had a limited run in the end.

I'd like Favre1fan93's opinion, as he's a frequent editor of New 52 articles (and by far, more active than I am right now). || Tako (bother me) || 02:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

From personal experience, I find that many other editors on wikipedia are not in favour of longer Navboxes or Templates with lots of content.

That's the thing...by virtue of the fact that DC comics made the decision to cancel certain ongoing series, it shows that the publisher themselves do not think of them as important enough to continue or relaunch or revamp, and that's irrespective of fan opinion because wikipedia operates on a neutral PoV policy. The limited/maxi/mini series are fine because they are meant to be finite as opposed to ongoing where it's meant to continue indefinitely, and DC aren't pushing them out by the dozen every year anyway so they don't take up that much space on the Navbox. The purpose of a NavBox template is for it to be displayed at the bottom of each and every article page which is listed as part of the template's contents, and if we list the NavBox under every single entry, including the cancelled/obscure New 52-related articles.... Haleth (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The cancellation of series has little to do with their 'importance' from the view of the publisher. They didn't sell as well as they'd like them to, or their writers and editors decided it was time for them to end. DC, as a publisher, didn't decide their importance, they decided on their willingness to continue producing the book. Per the NPOV policy, we'd need to show every title equally - whether it's cancelled or not. A no-longer-published title can be given just as much weight as title that is still ongoing. The purpose is to provide navigation between related articles. I still don't see the issue, especially if something like the example I linked earlier is done. || Tako (bother me) || 04:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As Tako has stated, as it currently stands, I do not see the need to reformat the navbox. It is adequately stating each of the ongoing series, both ones that are currently published, and ones that were formerly published under the "New 52" banner. I propose that any further examination of this proposal, be tabled until the June 2015 solicitations are revealed, showing the state of DC after the Convergence event. If there is not much change, I will stand by the current implementation of the nav box. If the New 52 is essentially done for, (or whenever that time is), the format will change to the implementation Haleth has presented. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

DC - June 2015

Hey Tako. I know you have not been on much lately, but was wondering if it was worth while to create an article and/or list of titles page for this? I was probably going to whip something up in my sandbox for the titles, in a similar style to what we did for The New 52. Let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure on what to do. The mini-relaunch in June doesn't really have a name for itself - it's a continuation of the existing New 52 continuity, just without that same branding. Maybe things will become clearer as we get closer to June, some have hinted that 'Divergence' will be the new branding. Or something. For that same reason, I don't why the titles that are continuing on into June should be listed as having an end-date in the List of article. The titles are still ongoing - they're just dropping that branding. || Tako (bother me) || 21:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I felt that was the best way to represent the material, because they are listed at "List of New 52 publications" technically they aren't a New 52 publication come June. Do you have a better suggestion? Maybe make a new level 2 heading called "post-New 52" or the like, and copy over all the titles continuing, plus add the new titles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Takuy. I'm just posting to let you know that List of The New 52 publications – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JorElAction0.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JorElAction0.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Takuy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Takuy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)