Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Buscema

OK, how would you two like to do this? Mediation on this page, private Wiki mediation, or private e-mail and/or IRC mediation? Andre (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andre, thanks for taking on the case - No major preferences, off hand I'd say private Wiki mediation. Cheers,

--Skyelarke 22:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Andre, and thank you for taking this on. Absent any compelling reason not to, I don't see any reason we couldn't conduct this publicly. --Tenebrae 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. --Skyelarke 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note I am on an enforced wikibreak until Monday, July 23, 6 p.m. EDT, which is just over 24 hours from the time of this posting. --Tenebrae 21:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Introductory exercise

Alright, I'm going to review the dispute, meanwhile I'd like both of you to explain, in very simple terms, what you want. In the headings below, describe using the word "should" how you would like things to be as they pertain to this dispute. Don't mention each other at all, or any viewpoint other than your own on how you think the material regarding John Buscema should be treated. Don't edit inside the other's heading. This is an exercise that should make things a little clearer to me, and hopefully to you two as well. Andre (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Skyelarke

1- I feel that, by and large, the version on my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke should be considered an acceptable, policy-compliant Wikipedia article.

2- I feel that the article should be edited in what I consider a normal Wikipedia editing protocol environment - i.e. respecting Wikipedia Etiquette and Civility guidelines (with special emphasis on the citations in the references section on my user page).

--Skyelarke 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae

I'd like to see the currently protected version, essentially that which the RfC consensus supported, with the change Skyelarke requested from using "Ibid." to stating a shorthand title (e.g., "Spurlock, Ibid., p. 27" becomes "Spurlock, Buscema, p. 27")

I believe this version treats John Buscema as an encyclopedia article and not a fan page.

I define this as meaning: It has a limited number of images, each having an historical or other fair-use, non-decorative basis; no personal-favorite checklists; no fannish minutiae such as whether or not the subject enjoyed commuting or not; and, rather than mentioning every minor, non-notable thing the artist ever drew, using supportable examples of historically or artistically notable work. It also has no links to commercial auction sites.

I'd like to see less reliance on hagiographic authorized books for critical opinion, but not challenging that aspect of Skyelarke's version was my attempt at compromise. Thank you for asking.--Tenebrae 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images

Let's see if we can take one issue at a time. Am I correct in understanding that Skyelarke would be interested in adding considerably more fair use images to the article than Tenebrae? About 16 in Skyelarke's version and 9 in Tenebrae's, correct? Andre (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right - (in my case I'd specify that my position is that the amount of images are relative to the image size and amount of text). --Skyelarke 14:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Andre, you are correct. As other editors have noted on the talk page, many of these images are decorative and redundant (do we need more than one of Conan the Barbarian, for example, given the artist's extremely extensive ouevre? Or even two loin-clothed savage heroes like Conan and Tarzan, though in the spirit of compromise I did not challenge that?). With the smaller number, images are justified -- his first cover, the first cover of a signature series, a famous work with footnote citation as to its significance, etc. Thanks for breaking all this down into digestible chunks! --Tenebrae 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to make a table (I'm leaving now, but when I get back) of all the images in Skyelarke's version (and any that don't appear in his version but do appear in Tenebrae's) and we'll discuss the pros and cons of including each one. In general, the policy on fair use images is interpreted to mean that each image must have a detailed rationale for inclusion, so Skyelarke in general will need to make the case for some of the additional pictures. Andre (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool - For the rationales that are currently in the image descriptions, I've followed this guideline format:

When uploading art for use in comics related articles please enter the following information upon the image's description page.

• Physical source of the scan, i.e. if sourced from a web-site the actual paper source, Awesome Super Duper Comixxxxxx #874 (June, 1942), on page 39.
  • Note: Not all comics have numbered pages, therefore please count only the story pages - i.e. exclude the covers, any ad pages, letter pages etc.
• The source of the scan - if scanned in by uploader, say so; otherwise give link to the website.
• The resolution of the image.
• Copyright information of the owner.
• The artists (and writers for interior sourced images) of the image in question.
• A fair use rationale.

In addition, the scan should be altered if necessary to focus upon the specific aspects of the image which are being discussed, rather than merely reproducing the original in digital form.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/copyright

--Skyelarke 11:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are the images that are being contested - they were listed in the original RfM draft - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Buscema&oldid=145756019

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Love39.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blackbusc.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SSOC17.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Htdctmw.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ozbuscema.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Breakdownavengers.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AvengerslithoBIG.jpg

--Skyelarke 13:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Romance comic book cover -50's section

Here's the fair use description for the first image, although I think this one's actually a free use image.

Physical Source of scan : Love Diary #39 (Jan. 1954) Our Publ.,

Source of scan : uploader

Resolution : 72 dpi

Copyright: Company defunct for over 50 years, probable public domain free use image

Artist name : John Buscema

Fair Use Rationale: This is a comic book cover. Will be used in the John Buscema Wikipedia article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Buscema

to illustrate the text in the 1st paragraph of the 1950's section as a sample of his work in the romance comic genre on the Love Diary title mentioned in the text.

--Skyelarke 22:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Con for Love Diary #39:

We already have a more appropriate early-1950s Buscema (his first cover). Buscema did work across several genres, so there's little justification to include a romance-cover image as opposed to war, horror, Western, etc. We also have one other 1950s image, which is differentiated from the cover by being an example of his interior art. --Tenebrae 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out a good way to make a big table, but it seems like it would be constricting, so let's just discuss this way, one image at a time. Skyelarke, do you have a counterpoint pro for this con? Andre (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First comic book cover - what is it? early career section

By the way, Man Comics #1 isn't his first cover - a cursory glance at the Michel Maillot checklist shows several covers dated prior to that one. So I replaced that one with Lawbreakers always lose#6 - which is a crime title, which works out well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tex5.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lbal6b.jpg --Skyelarke 00:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to clarify your viewpoints, and stay on-topic within a narrow scope -- one at a time. Tenebrae believes that Love Diary #39 is unnecessary because there are other images from the same time period and with more significance to the subject, and Skyelarke believes that this image helps represent the Western genre, which is important to understanding the subject. Right? Andre (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, the romance genre in that case - he contributed to over 20 romance issues for that company in the mid-50's.I'd say that the majority over his early work was mainly in only 3 genres, making it feasible to have a sample from the romance, (as well as crime and western genres.) --Skyelarke 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "cursory glance" might be a little snide: The Maillot checklist is alphabetical, not chronological, and in any case it is only a fan-site. Unless the Maillot information has been confirmed by Buscema, Maillot may just a fan making a best-guess call. There is not a single footnote or other referencing source on that page. Since the cover of Lawbreakers Always Lose #6 (Feb. 1949) isn't signed, I'm not sure why he believes it is Buscema.

Neither the Grand Comics Database nor The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators, two authoritative sources, list a credit for the cover artist of that comic. The Grand Comics Database, the source of the Man Comics credit, is the same source used by the editors of Comic Book Artist #21 (Aug. 2002), one of the major print biographies (p. 5-B, paragraph 6).

The John Buscema Sketchbook by J. David Spurlock and John Buscema (Vanguard, 2001) has no checklist and does not mention Lawbreakers Always Lose, though it does include Man Comics among those to which he contributed.

I'd certainly have no objection to adjusting the Man Comics caption to say, "first confirmed cover credit," and mentioning in the article text that "at least one checklist [footnote here] cites, without confirmation, Lawbreakers Always Lose #6 (Feb. 1949) as Buscema's first comic-book cover art".

On the second point, regarding the number of early images: If this were a Buscema book, you'd want samples of every genre he drew early on. An encyclopedia article, for fair-use and clutter reasons, needs to pick and choose selected images of historical importance. --Tenebrae 22:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to veer too far off-topic, but out of curiosity, I'll see if I can do some research on Buscema's first cover to see if it's possible to determine it more precisely - fyi - I've made a list of possbile choices from his 1949 cover output - it's at: (this is a new subpage I created to put the longer version of the article)

User:Skyelarke/Buscema draft

--Skyelarke 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry to diverge again, but this just came in - I think I found a pretty good confirmation for Lawbreakers always lose #6 as Buscema's first recognized published cover on record.

http://www.atlastales.com/at/s/n:31:z:c

--Skyelarke 10:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw the Atlas Tales reference, but since this Buscema credit appears nowhere else online or in print that I can find except the Maillot checklist, that's probably where it came from. Grand Comics Database lists the sources of its information; Maillot does not, and the fact he doesn't list his sources makes his list suspect. I suspect he's simply eyeballing that Lawbreakers cover and making a best guess. Something as important as a comic-book artist's first cover needs more than that.

Regardless, so many bunched-up early images are more than are needed to be representative of his early work in a more than 50-year career. --Tenebrae 00:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Maillot is known as having one of the most extensive Buscema original art collections and has been credited for contributing Buscema artwork to such magazines as Comic Book Artist, Alter Ego, Rough Stuff, and Back Issue. He obtained his Atlas information from Jim Vadebonceour Jr., longtime comic art and illustration historian and publisher.

The Atlas Tales website features contributions by Michael Vassalo (who has personally cited Buscema as the artist to Lawbreakers #6).

Here's his bio at : http://www.comicartville.com/kweskinatatlas.htm Dr. Michael J. Vassallo is one of the comic art community's leading experts on the Timely/ Atlas comic company. He has published numerous articles on the subject and his indices of Atlas artists have been the definitive source material for many researchers and collectors.

He is also a credited indexer to Man Comics#1 on the Grand Comics Database. --Skyelarke 01:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm extremely familiar with the good work of Michael Vassallo.

But you continue to make unconfirmed claims. You say Michael Vassalo "has personally cited Buscema as the artist to Lawbreakers #6" -- fine. Please provide the citation. Since Mike Vassalo contributes to the Grand Comics Database, and the Grand Comics Database does not cite Lawbreakers #6 as being b Buscema, tyou can see where this creates reasonable doubt.

The Maillot site thanks Vassalo and Jim Vadebonceour Jr. in general -- but that doesn't mean anything about the information source for that particular cover.

"Mr. Maillot is known as having one of the most extensive Buscema original art collections"? I'll take your word on that -- but Maillot still doesn't say where he got his information that this uncredited piece of art is Buscema's.

This is all off-topic; the discussion here is about the quantity of appropriateness of the images. I think we're agreed that Buscema's first cover should be here. We can try to pinpoint the particular cover later.

We agree to include Buscema's first cover, whatever it is. Let's move on to the next images. I believe I've stated my objection to other covers from Buscema's 1949 and '50s work, and my agreement that a 1950s interior page to show his storytelling (the Hercules page) is justifiable. --Tenebrae 03:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. -- I'm on a bunch of very tight and scary deadlines over the next few days, so I'm not sure how often I can Wiki through the end of the week. I'll do my best to poke my head in. --Tenebrae 03:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool for the first cover - there's some print reference sources that I know of for Lawbreakers #6, so I'll check those when I have a chance.

Before proceeding, I'd like to check with Andre at this point. So André, if we could get some feedback from you on the situation, that'd be cool. If you're too occupied with other matters at the moment, if you could just drop a quick word, and let us know where you're at, that'd be appreciated.

--Skyelarke 01:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching. You two seem to be doing well, but I'll step in when I have something to add. Just try to stay on topic. Andre (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Western cover - early career section

Actually the first one you mention was done in the 40's and is in the early career section. Moreover, the text mentions work mainly in three genres: western, crime and romance. As a solution I threw in a western in the early career section (and cleaned up a bit by putting the other images in their respective decades, closer to their text reference.) which gives representation for all three genres. So that would make one crime, one western, and one romance, two being in the forties, so that would make 2 images for the 40's and 2 for the 50's.

PS - I noticed there may be some doubt as to who drew the Tex Morgan #5 cover, so I replaced it with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2gunwestern5.jpg --Skyelarke 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Roy Rogers comic book page -50's section

OK, thanks Andre - for the next image - In re-reading the 50's section, I now feel that having an image of his work on the Roy Rogers title is important - so I'd like to include this one in the discussion -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Roy_rogerscomic.jpg

for the following reasons :

1- It's his only significant long-running series with a single character in his early career - a nearly 3-year, 30-issue run. (I have a few referenced cites available, as well.)

2- Roy Rogers is a well-known mainstream popular culture figure of that era, and I feel that featuring this type of cross-over media adaptation work, helps make the article more accessible to a general audience. (I think Tenebrae originally raised this point; I feel that this aspect could still be improved upon.)

3- It fits OK.

--Skyelarke 01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we need two images both illustrating Buscema's 1950s work adapting film and TV properties. If Skyelarke believes the Roy Rogers page is more significant because of Buscema's lengthy run on that series, I would agree to go with that instead. I'm not sure that this more primitive work is as good a representation of Buscema's ultimate style as is the Hercules page, but I'm certainly willing to compromise and go with Skyelarke's choice on this. --Tenebrae 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks, Andre. Skyelarke and I both appreciate your patience in this lengthy process. Buscema truly is a major figure in this medium. --Tenebrae 01:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Could we please finish discussing this image before moving on to the next? --Tenebrae 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Paperback cover in 60s section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blackbusc.jpg

Besides fair use rationale of the image description, other reasons are:

• 1- An 8-year period in commercial illustration is important enough period of time to be represented.
• 2- adds diversity - gives illustration outside of comic book field (giving a wider, general audience perpsective)
• 3- Shows diversity of technique and style (painting)

I have some more referenced cites available for this.

--Skyelarke 13:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my Aug. 13 note above. --Tenebrae 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that right now that we are simply stating the pro and con arguments for each image under contention. --Skyelarke 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Andre, any preferences, from your experience, in which of these two ways we should proceed? Reach agreement on each image as we go along, or state pros and cons for each of these several images before trying to reach agreement on each? --Tenebrae 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

--Skyelarke 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Conan magazine cover in 70s section

I'd like to move the Savage Tales cover to the beginning of the 70's section because I can't figure out why it's at the bottom like that. See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke/Buscema_draft --Skyelarke 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask you again, Skyelarke, please show enough common courtesy to stop plowing ahead unilaterally. I want to do it one way, you want to do it another. I showed you enough respect to ask Andre the best way to proceed, in his experience. Let's please wait for an answer. --Tenebrae 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Replace Western cover image in later career section

One last change - I propose to replace this image -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2gunwestern5.jpg

with this one -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crimefighters4p5.png

besides the fair use rationale, the following:

• 1- Historical significant as his first professional comic book story, as stated by Buscema.

• 2-To vary from comic book covers.

--Skyelarke 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You know what? I cannot keep track of the mess that Skyelarke has made of this page. Andre asked us, at 23:37, 2 August 2007, above, "let's just discuss this way, one image at a time".

I don't know when Andre will be checking in next, but I am having a rough time trying to deal with what is looking more and more like a fan so obsessive he refuses to work in good faith, can't or won't follow directions, and can't or won't respond to simple, non-controversial requests -- like stopping with the pointless italics, or waiting for directions from the mediator.

What do we do now, Andre? If one party can't have a normal social exchange, is there any hope for this mediation? Do we need to request arbitration? I'm a professional journalist/editor, I research convoluted business stories, and I can't follow this hodgepodge. I had no idea that doing this one image at a time as you suggested would be impossible for Skyelarke. --Tenebrae 03:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that if Tenebrae is bothered by covering too many images at once, Skyelarke should slow down as requested. It doesn't seem like a big deal. Just take it slow. Andre (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The question we have at the moment I believe is whether we are stating the basic pros and cons for each image consecutively or going into a more protacted discussion for each image.

--Skyelarke 04:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's like Skyelarke is either not listening to or not comprehending anything I or Andre say. And what is with the italics???? --Tenebrae 08:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Skyelarke, please stop with the italics -- apparently it bothers Tenebrae. Tenebrae says he would prefer to be slow and cover one image at a time. Please oblige. Andre (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The italics question seems to me a rather trifling formatting nicety - it's hard to imagine how it can be bothersome - I'd appreciate it I could stick with it, as it helps me to better follow the lengthy discursive discussions -

OK - let's proceed one at a time - Where are we? How are we are to proceed - Do we simply list the basic pro and con arguments one at a time and then move on the next one or do we list the basic pro and con arguments one at a time, try to discuss and resolve it, and then move on to the next one?

--Skyelarke 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of editors on Wikipedia has no problem with following style and formatting conventions, such as regular-face type and indents for differentiation.

As to moving on, my preference is certainly to resolve items one step at a time. That way we build things step by step, learn areas where we're in agreement as we proceed, and, worse comes to worse, actually have something to show for all our efforts.

Now, here is what I wrote before about the second image under discussion:

"I don't believe we need two images both illustrating Buscema's 1950s work adapting film and TV properties. If Skyelarke believes the Roy Rogers page is more significant because of Buscema's lengthy run on that series, I would agree to go with that instead. I'm not sure that this more primitive work is as good a representation of Buscema's ultimate style as is the Hercules page, but I'm certainly willing to compromise and go with Skyelarke's choice on this."

Thank you. --Tenebrae 23:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the following is adressed to Andre:

The italics question seems to me a rather trifling formatting nicety - it's hard to imagine how it can be bothersome - I'd appreciate it I could stick with it, as it helps me to better follow the lengthy discursive discussions -

OK - let's proceed one at a time - Where are we? How are we are to proceed - Do we simply list the basic pro and con arguments one at a time and then move on the next one or do we list the basic pro and con arguments one at a time, try to discuss and resolve it, and then move on to the next one?

--Skyelarke 00:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WHY ARE YOU REPEATING YOURSELF? AND WOULD IT BE ALRIGHT WITH YOU IF I WROTE EVERYTHING IN BOLDFACE CAPITAL LETTERS? IT'S JUST "A RATHER TRIFLING FORMATTING NICETY".

I hope I've made my point. You, Skyelarke, are the most immature, self-regarding, obsessive fanboy I have ever encountered on Wikipedia.

Andre, how can there be mediation or middle ground with someone like this? It's like he's willfully ignoring my offer of a compromise, and digging his heels in repetitiously in order to frustrate an opponent with mind-games.

I'm through wasting my time with Skyelarke. I'm not dealing with a normal human being, as best I can see. Andre, I think my next step should be Arbitration to get this insane person banned. He's not listening to either of us — and for Skyelarke to expect other editors and mediators to spend months spinning our wheels because somebody wants to turn an encyclopedia article into his personal fan-page ... that is not right. --Tenebrae 00:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you both need to calm down. Skyelarke's formatting preferences are not a reason to become upset, but you should both realize that mediation is about finding a middle ground. Tenebrae seems to dislike the italics and therefore, Skyelarke, please stop using them to make this process run more smoothly. Andre (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The italics are no big deal for me - I would be willing to drop them, no prob,and proceed, depending on certain clarifications that would need to be provided at this point.

--Skyelarke 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you say they're "no big deal". Why, then, did it take your ignoring me twice and refusing to budge until the mediator asked? Likewise you had ignored us both when he and I suggested working on one image at a time. These things do not inspire confidence in your ability to engage in good-faith negotiations. And now you want to set conditions?

If you're willing to create this kind of drama over a simple formatting issue, I have to ask Andre if he thinks it's worth any of us expending more effort, or whether we should go straight to whatever the step is. (Arbitration?) --Tenebrae 20:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, just drop this issue and let's move on. Andre (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

OK; will do. Here's my comment about the second image. This is the third time I've asked Skyelarke to respond.

I don't believe we need two images both illustrating Buscema's 1950s work adapting film and TV properties. If Skyelarke believes the Roy Rogers page is more significant because of Buscema's lengthy run on that series, I would agree to go with that instead. I'm not sure that this more primitive work is as good a representation of Buscema's ultimate style as is the Hercules page, but I'm certainly willing to compromise and go with Skyelarke's choice on this.

—Tenebrae 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want to get the ball rolling on this - I have worked out all the arguments in favor of each image that I'm proposing, as can be seen at :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke/Buscema_draft

However, I do have a few questions, not many, 3 or 4, of a basic procedural nature, that would need to be clarified before I would be able to proceed.

--Skyelarke 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Three times I have asked you for an answer and offered a compromise. Refusing to give an answer after three requests suggests that you are not in this participating in this mediation reasonably or in good faith. --Tenebrae 05:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm afraid I won't be able to continue unless we switch to private Wiki mediation.

--Skyelarke 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you two like me to ask the MedCom for use of our private wiki? Andre (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this would be appreciated. --Skyelarke 02:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What is that, Andre? You can just provide a link to the pertinent policy/guideline page if you want to. Thanks. --Tenebrae 04:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally: I'm not sure what "won't be able to continue" means. Assuming there's no technical difficulty or religious conviction against it, do you actually mean, Skyelarke, that you "don't want to continue" unless switching? I'd like you to speak plainly and straightforwardly, please. No euphemisms. --Tenebrae 04:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the civility issue (insults, accusations, etc, etc...) - I can handle it - it doesn't bother me inasmuch as I ignore them, but I don't want to share that publicly thank you very much.

--Skyelarke 12:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I agree to do it your way. Private it is. --Tenebrae 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been 10 days, and I haven't gotten any response from Skyelarke. --Tenebrae 20:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's mostly my fault, I need to set up the private wiki for our use. It will be done soon, I apologize for the delay. Andre (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I may be offline for a few days at a time here and there, but I'm not going anywhere!   :-)   — Tenebrae 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal Andre - but your lack of availibility on this mediation is a deal-breaker for me. It just doesn't work for me. I'm willing to continue with mediation if another mediator who has more time to put into this wants to take on the case.

--Skyelarke 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, Skyelarke, we could ask for Wikipedia: Arbitration. Binding resolution. Once done, it's done. --Tenebrae 03:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in the arbitration process - or else continue moderation with a new moderator - whichever is the most feasible solution. --Skyelarke 13:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Why don't we give Andre through the weekend (today is Thursday) to give his input. If we haven't heard from him by then, I'm game to seek arbitration.--Tenebrae 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait up to November 1st to give the time for Andre to address the situation - if things haven't progressed by then, I would suggest we inform the mediation chairperson of the situation and take it from there. --Skyelarke 15:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK by me. --Tenebrae 18:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI - I left a message on Mediation Chair Daniel's talk page, requesting indications on how to proceed. --Skyelarke 02:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Tenebrae 17:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

CC: According to Andre's message yesterday, he is very busy with his education at the present. Do you wish for me to ask another member to be reassigned the case in his absence? (I have already emailed our private mailing list asking for a potential reassignment, if this is what you want.) Daniel 06:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

--Skyelarke 21:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CC: Thanks for the reply Daniel,

The other mediatee has expressed the desire to go to arbitration - I'm willing to continue trying mediation or pursue arbitration depending on what the other mediatee wants to do - do you think applying for arbitration would be a viable step to take?

--Skyelarke 22:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do. Believe it or not, as confluence or coincidence, I've just begun an unrelated arbitration case today (though frankly that one's more like a class-action suit where I'm more or less just the designated plaintiff). I'd like to finish that one before heading into this one. It's been so long now, I don't imagine two weeks more will make a difference. What say you? --Tenebrae 03:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

CC- OK, I have closed the case. The Mediation Committee won't be filing the request for arbitration, and because the other party initiated this series of events, they probably will - hence, you can take as long as you like/need :) Cheers, Daniel 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

--Skyelarke 13:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep you posted. --Tenebrae 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeping track

Let's see if we can keep track of what we've agreed on here with the fair use images. Update these headings as appropriate. Andre (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Including

1. Buscema's first cover, which will be determined later

Up for debate

• Lawbreaker always lose#6 cover or Man Comics#1 or alternate
• Two-Gun Western #5 cover
• Love Diary#39 cover
• Roy Rogers #78 page

Brief absence

You guys seem to be doing fine, a bit slow but that's alright. Just letting you know that I'll be away for a few days, so don't be alarmed if I don't respond. Andre (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)