User talk:B.Soto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, B.Soto, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Spellcast 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Liefeld

I think he's a douchebag and his art sucks, but saying he's known as "the most hated man in comics" without even a single citation is blatantly POV language. Sorry. I fact tagged the statement, and if "most hated" isn't cited soon I'm just going to take it out again. Ford MF 04:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion. It's all there. You really need to be doing that before you go assuming things. That isn't my "POV" btw. Read the original article (that I didn't write). He's well known for that title. Google his name and half the sources will refer to him as such. B.Soto 16:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess it should be really easy for someone to dig up a citation. Ford MF 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've continued removing the original lead in lines despite being shown the NPOV sources you asked to be cited. I included the citation source in the footnotes and in the discussion I listed several as well. It is clear you aren't playing devil's advocate at this point, and you are simply trolling. Don't say I didn't warn you. B.Soto 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You have demonstrated exactly zero sources outside one single comic blog, which is not an appropriate wiki source for anything. Ford MF 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I provided several of the existing sources for the said title which illustrates how he is widely recognized. Obviously neither of the two major sources (Comic book Journal or Wizard) will readily print that title about anyone and participate in gossip despite what is well known. It doesn't matter if you are personally satisfied with the sources as there are so many that it's been established that is how he is perceived by the community. B.Soto 20:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Everybody knows it" is not good enough for Wikipedia. If you don't actually have a real source, it doesn't

belong in the article. You've not been reverted multiple times by at least three different editors (User:Mordicai, 209.214.97.66 and myself), and have consistently deleted legitimate {{fact}} tags. Ford MF 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If no reputable source will publish it, doesn't that lead one to conclude that it isn't an encyclopedic addition to the article? I could blog about hating Rob Liefield, but that isn't any good for attribution. Your "[d]on't say I didn't warn you" tone isn't really justified here, especially in that you are the 3RRer (in edits without summaries!) in this situation. I don't know why you are fighting so hard to keep POV language in the article, frankly. --mordicai. 20:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The comicbookbin.com source is quite established as a mainstream source for all things comic related, so it isn't just the alan moore article. And yes, we're aware of several trolls deleting the original article lead-in in an attempt to show Liefeld in an entirely favorable light as that is actively being discussed. B.Soto 20:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

B.Soto, leaping to the conclusion that your fellow Wikipedians are trolls is a pretty silly thing to do. We're all here to make the best encyclopedia possible, & disabusing that fraternity with insults doesn't help anyone. Judging by your edit history, you're pretty new here, but starting edit wars to retain what is essentially an uncited quote ("Most Hated Man in Comics"? Is there a committee for that?) isn't really constructive behaviour. Taking the dialogue to the Talk page is a good step, but even there you don't seem to be interested in debate. If a number of editors don't agree with your edit (at least three by my count), it is safe to say that your edit doesn't have consensus. --mordicai. 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the offending one last time, and then I'm swearing off edit-warring for Lent. I just wanted to put a warning on your talk page about transgressing 3RR. Also, you keep saying "we" when it looks like just you. Ford MF 20:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

mordicai - Not hardly. Isn't Wikipedia known for providing a more comprehensive description inclusive of controversy and widespread gossip in addition to the statistical profiles of artists/celebrities? The "blog" you speak of isn't formally a blog at all, and neither is it having anything to do with "bashing" Liefeld in any way. It simply points out that's how he is referred to. The same with the mainstream article source at comicbookbin.com. Neither is relating to any kind of slander or vilification of Liefeld and only casually mention him as being the most hated man in comics as it's a prevalent moniker.

Isn't Wikipedia known for providing a more comprehensive description inclusive of controversy and widespread gossip in addition to the statistical profiles of artists/celebrities Well....no. Check out Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, & their related topics...just because Wikipedia can contain a wealth of information, that shouldn't be used as a door to get uncited claims in. As to comicbookbin.com, I can't say as I am familiar with the source-- I think maybe getting Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics involved in a discussion as to the viability of the source might be a good way to go. The real issue here is just that statements, especially ones dealing with controversy, need to have proper references. If you have a good one in mind, some of these Wikipedia:Citation templates might be of help. Best --mordicai. 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ford MF - Again it seems you have trouble reading the existing discussions. Hopefully you'll learn to become more aware of participants and their involvement in the future before you aimlessly chop into articles and make presumptions.

Regarding my edits. I have in fact left a note on the lead-in line revert. Once is enough as I don;t need to continuously explain why I'm reverting to the original version that is persistently being removed based on no other reason apparently than to show Liefeld in an entirely favorable light.B.Soto 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

B.Soto...I don't think anyone is trying to POV Liefeld in a favorable light, but rather just pointing out "Most Hated Man in Comics" is pretty negative POV, without rather substantial backing. --mordicai. 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The title "most hated man in comics" is not a POV, or even a title that magically appeared because of Liefled, but rather a dubious distincition that has been passed around within the industry regarding several artists/writer/creators including but not limited to Jim Steranko, John Byrne, and Bill Jemas. It seems you too need to do your homework about comics "industry-speak", as well as try harder to avoid overlooking credible sources. B.Soto 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

B.Soto, please take a step back and see if this is helping your case. You have:

• Been blocked for 3RR about a particular pattern of reversion.
• As soon as that block expires, you go right back to the article and revert again.
• You leave a fraudulent edit summary (by indicating that you have included a citation when you have not).

Again, what's at issue here is not whether he is the most hated man in comics, it's whether we as Wikipedia editors can provide reputable sources to that effect. Please consider Wikipedia's requirements for attribution for statements such as "most hated man" and consider the harmful effects on any article of edit warring. Ford MF 05:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm blocking you, 48 hours this time, for gaming the system to violate our biography guidelines; while you're in the corner, read WP:CITE and WP:POV and WP:V and most importantly, WP:BLP. --Golbez 08:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused how it is I'm the "bad guy" suddenly when Ford MF has demonstrated being a blatant Liefeld "crony", and troll with desires to show Liefeld in an entirely favorable light despite the lengthy discussion page and vast information describing otherwise. Rob Liefeld is in fact a controversial figure in part because of the backlash against his style....hellooooo??? That article was tarnished by several trolls (mostly Liefeld himself) from it's original version so much so that no one knows why he is "controversial" anymore as the lead-in states. It's as if you've all completely overlooked the Rob Liefeld discussion page altogether because Ford MF came crying.

I'm seriously considering taking this to a higher up (beyond the local admin) at this point. Was the original author "blocked" for using those same words that I'm reverting to? I've gone above and beyond at showing a wealth of credible sources that validate the title in question, and the allegations of plagiarism are essentially the body of this man's life story. The article as it exists now is woefully inaccurate, and to this point has been irresponsibly moderated. B.Soto 11:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, remain civil. Name calling gets you nowhere. Really, please, read CITE. You can't cite sources on a talk page; you have to do it in the article. And you did not, though you claimed you did. And I really, really dislike false edit summaries. --Golbez 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've ended the block, maybe I got your attention - I sincerely suggest you read each and every one of the guidelines I linked above before you continue working on that article. Add WP:CIVIL to that list. --Golbez 12:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. I cited the source as the entire name of the article along with the link on the main page in the footnotes section (though it was removed twice by Ford MF). This is like a bad episode of the Twilight Zone I'm in here. I know I'm justified, and fighting for the unbiased , fair and balanced integrity of the article, yet I feel as if I'm being policed by the Gestapo. B.Soto 12:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear B, please, calm down - take a deep breath, and we'll listen to each other, k? A deep breath? Ok, now on to the matter at hand. The issue here is, that the source you've brought as proof of your argument does not comply with the requirements established at WP:WEB and WP:BLP; it appears to be but a personal fan page, and therefore it's not valid to verify the statement you're proposing. According to my own research (I admit I'm not a specialist in the subject), Liebefeld is indeed extremely hated in the comic circles, and although I was unable to locate a source that complies with the requisites I specified above in the few minutes I dedicated to the subject, I'm positive you can. Please, try to bring solid, reliable and verifiable sources to the community's attention, and as soon as you do, you'll see that all arguments will immediately cease. I also friendly suggest you to engage in positive dialog with other editors; there's nothing to be gained in fighting, not over something as trivial as this. A mutual compromise is often easier to achieve than it seems, if you're willing to hear what others say. So please, don't engage in endless and fruitless edit wars - avoid yourself the frustration and bitterness that can be solved just with a little more research and a mere link in compliance with our policies. So go for it! get it, bring it here, and we'll be waiting to analyze it with you. Please let me know if I can assist you, k? have a nice day! Phaedriel - 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Phaedriel. B.Soto, your account has now been unblocked to allow discussions on the article's talk page. If you're able to find multiply non-trivial websites criticizing Rob, I'll appreciate if you'd provide them so I would add them to a corresponding "Criticisms" section. Once again please keep in mind that everything on Wikipedia has to be neutral, and we leave opinions at the reader's discretion rather than presenting them as the truth. Michaelas¹⁰ 12:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The title in question is not my POV or any other single persons, but rather the moniker he's well known for which I've clearly demonstrated with multiple sources. One of which is very credible at comicbookbin.com (http://www.comicbookbin.com/koppy01.html). Why is it comicbookbin.com (http://www.comicbookbin.com/koppy01.html) referring to Liefeld as such is being overlooked? What needs to taken into consideration here is that this is the life of a comic book artist we're talking about, where official documentation would be scarce almost especially online. Case in point is a Comic's Journal Magazine article by Michael Dean about how "Image comics destroyed the industry in the early 90's" (I'm paraphrasing there as I don't have it available) and that article has since been removed. The link to that article is referenced here on your site under Image comics but is now a dead link (The cached version is still available). Most of the "official" documentation on any comic artist/writer exists in print only within the archives of the Comic's Journal Magazine (Comic Book Journal), and Wizard magazine. This doesn't mean it didn't happen because you can't see it online. How else we're we all able to conclude his life of controversy and fallout with Image comics? It's necessary to include major events with these people despite how undocumented they are, but we can't if you're demanding proof via Time Magazine or the New York Times who never follow or document these people. It's the comicbookbin.com's that you need to give a bit more weight than you have been.

EDIT: Another example of the moniker in question is used here (http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=929). What's important is in all three cases the articles are not used to vilify Liefeld, and are all contextually very neutral, yet seem to accept this widely recognized name. When three out of five initial searches on Rob Liefeld mention this, (including a widely recognized mainstream source at http://www.comicbookbin.com/koppy01.html) it seems rather silly that Wikipedia could not. B.Soto 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)