User talk:Marktreut

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Le Rayon U 2 Edgar Pierre Jacobs 3 King Ottokar's Sceptre 4 Responding to your question to me 5 Dr strange love 6 Anarky as Robin? 7 Image:JWMuller.gif 8 Naked Killer trivia 9 General Alcazar images 10 Scrooge McDuck in other languages 11 Previous IP edits to your userpage 12 How can I link to a specific part of an article 13 DumbBOT protection 14 Redirect pages 15 Goldstein 16 Re: Batman:The Dark Knight Strikes Again 17 The Damned 18 Mao: The Unknown Story 19 Re: Valkyrie 20 blanking dispute notifications 21 Long user talk page 22 White Heat 23 Your note 24 Fair use rationale for Image:The Persuaders.jpg 25 Robin (comics) 26 List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations 27 Jack Lord 28 Re: Draco Malfoy - good faith? 29 Male Call 30 Removing tags 31 Re: Marvel 1602 32 Power Pack 33 Superman 34 Re: Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again edits 35 RE:Comments

[edit] Le Rayon U

Hello, I saw your nice work about this comic book. Have you finished with it ? If yes, I will proceed to some "wikification", if no, I let you finish first. Lvr 11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please go ahead marktreut

[edit] Edgar Pierre Jacobs

I thought I had read on one of the WP:MoS subpages that writing a biography in the present tense is a good way, but I can't find that anymore, and I notice on checking that WP:MOSBIO says that for a deceased person (like Jacobs), past tense should be used. I'll undo my changes. Fram 13:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Ottokar's Sceptre

Hi! I see you just reverted the graphicnovel infobox back to the Tintin infobox on this article. This may be unfortunate, since we are planning to change all graphic novels and European comics (Tintin, Asterix, Valérian, Yoko Tsuno, The Smurfs, Bilal comics, and any else that may have articles already) to the graphicnovel box. Currently, there are four different infoboxes in use for European comics, three of them specific for one series (Tintin, Asterix, and Valérian). This is an unproductive situation, and therefor it has been suggested that they should be replaced by one. This has been discussed at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, and at both Template talk:Infobox Asterix and at Template talk:Valerian Album Infobox. You are more than welcome to voice your opînion of the new template at Template talk:Graphicnovelbox or at the Wikiproject (or at my userpage). I'll not revert to the other template again, its better that we first discuss this, but I have to say up front that I would definitely prefer to use the new template, and that I think it is best that we make the new template as good as possible instead of using three or four different ones. Fram 13:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the info of previous and next comic is missing in the new infobox. I personally don't find that necessary (I would not browse through the comics in that order or so), but I see where it can come in handy. If we add such navigation (perhaps in the format now used in e.g. Asterix and the Golden Sickle, where we keep the two columns instead of three very small ones), do you think you would be happy in using the graphicnovelbox? I'll try to add it myself, or ask help from User:A Man In Black who is better with such tenchnical stuff. Fram 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now added the two fields, and used the corrected template in King Ottokar's Sceptre. It looks good to me (although there are still a few layout issues to do with aligning everything), but if it is not to your taste, just let me know (and feel free to reinstate the previous infobox in the article again, it was just to show you what was the effect, not to start some revert war). All the best, Fram 20:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to your question to me

Sorry, I was quick editing through for vandals and it hit my filter and what I read read more like useless then needed. Feel free to revert the change. Century0 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr strange love

I reverted your edit in here, because it didn't work, feel free to revert me after correcting the references codes. --Pejman47 23:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarky as Robin?

Hey, is it really necessary to include that paragraph you've added to the Anarky article? I'd considered adding something akin to it a long time ago, but dropped it since I couldn't prove that was actually intended to be an indication of Alan Grant's idea of making Anarky into a Robin. It's just original research. In fact, according to Grant, he only decided to try and make Anarky into Robin after the first comic came out. We don't see Anarky again until he's being confronted by Tim Drake, and Tim is well on his way to being Robin by that time. So Anarky never actually appeared in a comic during that period when Grant wanted to make him Robin. So I figured that wasn't the intended message at all. I suppose more than anything I'm merely concerned that this paragraph is misleading, and should be removed. I wont' do that immediately however. If you have some other way of explaining that scene without using original research, go for it. If, however, you can't, I'll remove it eventually. --Cast 20:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not intend this paragraph as an actual part of the "Anarky-as-Robin" debate, more as a footnote: how the idea was raised but quickly rejected, if only by the characters of Batman and Gordon. I've rewritten the opening sentence to point out that the issue was raised "in the comic itself" rather than a full-blown debate between writers and editors. Cheers.--Marktreut 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't feel comfortable with it, although I concede that it is an interesting footnote. The problem, as I see it, is that it's misleading, because it implies that Grant was preparing for Anarky to become Robin as early as that issue, which he was not. A reader of the article could be confused otherwise, and would only understand the correct timeline concerning the events if they persuade various footnotes and fully read interviews with the author. Also, the paragraph was written in an in-universe perspective, which needs to be weeded out of the article. I think it's mildly permissible in the "fictional biography" section, but even there it should be heavily reworked to present the background decisions made by writers and editors behind the character's history. I'm still trying to work up the nerve to do it myself. It's a lot. But I don't want to see it cropping up in the "publication history" section, as that's just about the only section that has fully excised all in-universe language. Maybe the paragraph can be reworked so that it properly explains that Alan Grant wrote the script, and that it is only a minor footnote regarding the possibility of Anarky as a future Robin.

As for the paragraph you added concerning the Knightfall saga reader letters, I think that's really interesting and successfully out-universe in scope, but it needs a citation. Also, maybe it should be included in "Political themes and reception." If you have any access to reader responses to other Anarky appearances, that'd be really great.--Cast 05:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have restored my Anarky-as-Robin point, though just as a brief sentence. I really do think that it is an important factor. I'm not trying to say that it was part of an elaborate plan by Grant to introduce his own Robin. All I'm saying is that the scene was included.

I read in an article that even the briefest of stories can be the subject of intense debate in editorial meetings between artists, writers and editors during which various points are raised. Every scenes is discussed even the minor ones. Some of the writer's original elements are taken out, new ones suggested by others are adopted. Thus, the Anarky-as-Robin issue must have been raised at some stage - its mere presence is proof enough. After all, Anarky had the right age and ingenuity for a potential Robin; it was just his targets and methods that were wrong as far as Batman was concerned. Alright, it will be difficult to obtain hard, foolproof evidence that actually turning Anarky into Robin was ever raised at this time, but the fact that the characters mention it at all shows that the idea must have cropped up at some stage of the planning of the story, and not necessarily by Grant himself. Cheers. --Marktreut 12:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Without real evidence, it's impossible for anyone to know for certain, and I will admit that Grant's own words in interviews are sometimes self-contradictory, being based on whatever he happens to remember at a given moment. However, I think the scaled down sentence is a mixed improvement. Perhaps it would be best to expand the explanation, given what you've just noted, but to mark it to the a citations and footnotes section, since we both acknowledge that is essentially what it is. That'll give you a place to properly explain what you've just pointed out to me in a fool paragraph, but without cluttering the main body of text, with what other editors might consider to be nothing more than trivia.--Cast 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:JWMuller.gif

I have tagged Image:JWMuller.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You may delete it if you like. --Marktreut 19:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naked Killer trivia

Sorry, I had accidentally put this on your front page rather than here:

Hi. I removed the trivia because it was unreferenced (per WP:V Wikipedia policy), and also, well, trivia (per WP:Trivia and WP:NOT). Marašmusïne_Talk 13:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you've put it back again, I've tagged it with 'unreferenced' and 'trivia' tags, if you'd care to read the relevant policies. Marašmusïne_Talk 08:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Alcazar images

Hi, I've nominated four images of General Alcazar that you uploaded for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 26#General Alcazar images for the discussion. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The images are intended to show Alcazar in his various guises: as dictator, knife-thrower, exile (the one from The Red Sea Sharks), and guerilla leader. I think that they showed the importance of the character and how he evolved. The one in carnival costume is especially important since it shows he and his bitter rival found something in common at last. Herge was showing how, all-in-all, all dictators are the same and many see it as an important element of the Picaros adventure.--Marktreut 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scrooge McDuck in other languages

Hi, it probably fits under WP:NOT a dictionary. See also this discussion about the same topic. It also is removed (if it exists) for every article having a review to become featured. Garion96 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you say so. Still, I thought that it was an amusing point to raise, but I will not argue. Cheers.--Marktreut 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous IP edits to your userpage

Good morning, sir! I've been asked to explain my reversion of the following text to your userpage:

I frequently make alterations to other peoples websites despite the fact that my grasp of English is very poor.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. One specific type of vandalism is an attack against an editor, covered by WP:NPA. This particular addition - coming from a user other than you, stating that you have poor English - is a personal attack in that it attacks your grasp of English, stating that you may not be as good an editor as others. I reverted this for those reasons, and also as it was a user editing someone else's userpage, and as I always do with first-offense userpage vandalism, warned the user with a level 4 'no personal attacks' template. You are permitted to place that sort of content on your userpage, but it should not be done by anyone but you. --ST47Talk·Desk 12:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can I link to a specific part of an article

{{helpme}} Hi,

I know that links usually go to headings or sub-headings. For example, Windows XP takes you straight to the article "Windows XP". Another link, Windows Genuine Advantage takes you straight to the "Windows Genuine Advantage" sub-heading of that article.

But what if you wanted a link to take you to a specific part of an article which in not near the headings? For example, I want to enable the user to click on a link which will take him straight to the 4th paragraph of the "Windows Genuine Advantage" section, rather than going to the top of that section.

Is that possible?

Thank you.

Yours Sincerely

--Marktreut 12:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Use some HTML to give that part of the text an id. For example by adding <span id="G1"/> to the start of General 1 clause of WP:CSD allow someone to go to that point directly via WP:CSD#G1. KTC 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That solved it. Thank you. --Marktreut 13:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DumbBOT protection

DumbBOT didn't unprotect William Herbert Wallace, just removed a template from it: [1]. Please see User:DumbBOT/Protection for details. Tizio 07:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect pages

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that categories are not needed for and shouldn't be added to Redirect pages. I just came across the Redirect page you created for "These Are the Damned" because it showed up in italics (meaning a Redirect page) in a category I was working on. I've already removed the cats from that page, but if you've done any others like that you should go back and delete the cats. Regards, Cgingold 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, "These Are the Damned" is the US title of a British film called The Damned (1963 film). The purpose is for US users to get access to a film they do not necessarily know was released under a different name. I should think, therefore, that my including categories on a redirect page is justified, isn't it?--Marktreut 12:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, just got your note on my talk page, with the explanatory link, and I see your point. I've gone ahead and reverted my edit to restore the categories -- and I've also added a new one, Category:Films dealing with nuclear war and weapons. Cgingold 07:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldstein

Deleting Goldstein would be wrong. Merge with a redirect seems a good option. Erudil 15:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I will do just that. Thanks for the suggestion.--Marktreut 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Batman:The Dark Knight Strikes Again

You may want to read about "original research". Drawing conclusions, comparisons, or analyzing situations based on your own interpretation is not permitted. You need to have reliable sources discussing these things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do I do this "original research" ? By contacting Miller himself ? I think he has better things to do that confirming minor details like this, but which might still be of interest to enthusiasts. Besides, my interpretations, especially Marvel's hair style, is based on simple observation which should be apparent to most.--Marktreut 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Big got here before I did, and fairly encapsulated the issue. The OR he is referring to is your noticing of the similarities between the DK² Cap Marvel with Uncle Marvel - I agree that this similarity was intended, but Wikipedia needs citations to compare these two. Your contacting Miller wouldn't do the trick, but if Miller said so in an interview with a reliable, notable news source (blogs and fansites do not meet this criteria) then we could use that. Click on the link that Bignole provided you and read up on that. If you learn the ins and outs of that policy, you will have a leg up on roughly 1/4 of the contributors to WP.

The second issue is almost identical in reasons for removal. Your perceptions do not meet the criteria for inclusion as a source in Wikipedia. So how you feel that Bruce interacts with Dick is not - not to sound harsh - noteworthy. If you happen to find a published source that notes that observation, that's sopmething you want to include.

If I can answer any questions for you regarding this or other topics, just ask. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Damned

I understand about categorizing redirects; I usually deal with slight variations instead of a mostly different film title like The Damned and These are the damned. Thanks for the clarification. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mao: The Unknown Story

Hi there. Thanks for your recent addition to the article. Can I ask that you add a full citation to the bit you inserted? That way it's easy for people to cross-check exactly where you got that from. The same applies if you add any more of the book's points. Cheers, John Smith's 16:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I got it from the book itself, which I read recently from beginning to end. I would have thought that that was enough.--Marktreut 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Valkyrie

What are you talking about? I haven't removed comments relating to the opposition to Cruise's casting. Indeed, should you care to look at the page history, I have in fact expanded upon such detail in the past. Secondly, I removed the explanation of the name because Operation Valkyrie because it is already briefly explained within the article, with a link to the full details of the plot. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 06:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you have restored the mention of Stauffenberg's family objecting to the casting. On the other matter, the synopsis implies that Valkyrie was the name of the actual operation to kill Hitler. In fact it was a military plan, approved by Hitler himself, to put Germany under martial law in case of internal trouble. The conspirators simply planned to use it for reasons that Hitler had not intended.--Marktreut 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I already included mention of Operation Walküre toward the end of the first paragraph in Production. What you suggested is original research, to delve into the so-called irony that Hitler set Operation Valkyrie up himself. If you can provide verifiable content via reliable sources about how and why the filmmakers implemented the title, that'd be great. You can't use a non-film-related source to suggest the meaning of the film title, though. At the moment, the brief cited mention of the operation influencing the title is enough. Like the article says, it's a working title, so it could be changed by the time of its release. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

From reviewing the citations in Valkyrie (film), there is either no explanation of the title or the incorrect mention that the July Plot was also known as Operation Valkyrie. Considering the lack of verifiable content from reliable sources from what I've seen so far, the title's importance is minimal. How about this -- take the first portion of my sentence, "Valkyrie is titled after Operation Walküre ("Operation Valkyrie")," (with the ref tag after it), then include a description of what Operation Valkyrie was to complete the sentence. The wording I used was from an incorrect explanation of the title, so I tried to render it vague. The sentence from the citation was this: "The film... is called Valkyrie after Operation Valkyrie, the plot's codename." Let me know if you can sum up the true definition of the operation in a sentence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can, take a look at the Synopsis section and clarify anything about either Operation Valkyrie or the July 20 Plot for the readers. I think that the meaning of the film's title would be clear in a reading of this section, but some re-wording may be needed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blanking dispute notifications

please don't blank dispute notifications. you should leave them up at least for a few days so interested parties may stay informed. Anastrophe 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed them because a program called BetacommandBot kept telling me to provide fair use justification for the images I uploaded. I did this and once the job was done I saw no reson for keeping these notifications. However within an hour BetacommandBot had come up with the same objections to the same images, so the same dispute notifications are back.--Marktreut 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long user talk page

This user talk page is becoming long. Some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. You can do this automatically with MiszaBot III. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Heat

The part I have a problem with is this: "He even appears to look on him as a kind of Ma-substitute..." The quotes you bring up are good, but they only indicate what Evans would like to have happen, not necessarily that the relationship between Cody and Vic actually becomes that close. That's clearly an interpretation. The phrasing shows that - "even appears to look". To be kept in the article in that form, it would have to be sourced. Clarityfiend 19:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Clarityfiend 00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hello Marktreut. Thank you for your note in my talk page. My main objection is not the trivia nature of the section but the fact that it is all original research. Your additions of sources for the historical facts take care of some of that (unless you get a historian that interprets the same set of facts differently of course) but in comparing those events to the film you are giving your research and interpretation of the differences. Unfortunately, removing this kind of thing is the direction that wikipedia has chosen to pursue in the vainglorious attempt to become some kind of official encyclopedia. In doing so it is turning its back on its editors own knowledge and abandoning the "have fun" principle that used to be a part of editing when I first started here about two years ago. As to the specifics of the Cromwell page I will leave the section alone now (my apologies for adding to any wikifrustration for you) but don't be surprised if someone else comes along and takes it back out as there are many deletionistas that will nuke it on sight. In return would you please look at the trivia section that you restored for the film The Damned (1963 film) and think about taking out an item or two. The first one, in particular, is just not true. I was alive then and we did not feel that nuclear war was inevitable. The last one in the section is also just one viewers opinion but I am not going to fuss over it.

One other thing that you might want to think about. I have come across a couple of editors who have ceased editing here and have moved to Wikilink. This site encourages original research and items like your film to history section would be welcomed. Please don't think that I am insisting that you do this it is just a suggestion should things start to drive you nuts here. I haven't decided yet whether I am going to go over there part or full time yet, but, I am considering it. Though I do have a big project working on British films that I want to finish first. Thanks for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 21:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Persuaders.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The Persuaders.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. CCruise (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robin (comics)

If you copy or merge text, you need to attribute it accordingly. You appear to have cut the sexual interpretations section from Batman and pasted it into Robin, without noting what you did. If you did cut and paste, then we need to fix that to comply with the GFDL. It's not a huge problem and I don't mind doing it if you confirm whether it was a cut and paste. In the future, when you do so, it's best to leave an edit summary like, Incorporating material from ARTICLE, version per time-stamp of this edit. Cheers, Hiding T 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations

Hello!. I've put the info available at User:Marktreut/List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations so that you can proceed with any info merging to List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. --JForget 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Lord

I see you edited the article. In 2 weeks (January 21), it will be the 10th anniversary of his death. Poor man. At least he captured a lot of criminals (fictional). Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Draco Malfoy - good faith?

Hey, thanks for writing. Your edits were considered "good faith" because there was clearly no vandalism involved. However, the part where Narcissa lied to Voldemort had already been covered, so it ended up being mentioned twice after your edit. Plus, it was already implied that Harry was disturbed by his visions of Draco, so including the quote was essentially repeating the incident. That's where the "redundant" comment came from. Hope that clears everything up. Beemer69 00:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Male Call

You added a section in the Male Call article on a Franco Belgian comic called Pin Up. You described it as a spin off, but I think that is kind of overstating it - although the two have similarities, there doesn't seem to be a direct connection between the two. I suggest starting a stub on Pin Up, and then linking the two articles through See Also sections. ike9898 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing tags

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Scrameustache, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal. Your removal of this template has been reverted. Thank you. BKNFCC 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Marvel 1602

I've started a new topic on the talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power Pack

Hey there. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but I'd like to ask you to please stop adding "Mum and Dad" to the Power Pack article. This isn't a conversational piece; it's an encyclopedia article, and a colloquial style is not appropriate to the article under the MoS. I'm not the only one who has reverted your additions, so it's nothing personal--but please stop. If you have a compelling reason for your changes, please discuss them on the article's talk page or seek a third opinion. Thanks. DanielEng (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for your reply. You know, I do agree with you that Wiki is becoming less fun these days, and that it's a losing battle trying to keep articles in order and keep people from deleting work out of hand. It's one of the reasons I'm mostly on a Wikibreak right now, because I'm tired of fighting with other editors over every small thing. For what it's worth, I think your writing style and the "Mum and Dad" thing, for the PP article, would be excellent elsewhere, just not on Wiki. Thanks for being willing to talk, and I hope that whatever is up with that other article will work out for the best. Thanks, DanielEng (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superman

Okay, looking at what you added:

Due perhaps to the elder Kents surviving into Clark's adulthood, another Byrne change was the relationship between Superman and his "normal" alter-ego. In line with the majority of superheroes Byrne put the emphasis on Superman being a disguise for Clark Kent. Previously the theme had been that Kent was a "secret identity" for Superman: in an adventure published in the 1960s, Kent finds himself at a loose end when staff at the Daily Planet go on strike and seriously considers it a chance to try out a new identity in case he has "to abandon [his] Clark Kent role permanently". His options include becoming a full-time policeman or ever a mere tramp "whom no one would ever suspect of being the Man of Steel."<ref>illustration included in the ''Penguin Book of Comics'' by George Perry and Alan Aldridge, published in 1967.</ref>

So in the first sentence you're stating "Due perhaps". Unless you can source that opinion in the words of a reliable secondary source, it's original research because you're analysing the comics, prohibited under policy. Next, you state that the "the theme had been that Kent was a "secret identity" for Superman". Again, unless you can source that theme to a reliable secondary source, it is analytical. You aren't relying on the Penguin Book of Comics to source what John Byrne did, since it predates it. Also, you don't appear to be relying on it for the adventure published in the sixties; you're relying on the adventure published in the sixties.

Now, what you're looking to get into here also already exists further down in the article within the Supporting cast section. It's brief, but summarises the position you're getting across and cites reliable secondary sources.

The second part of what you wrote was:

There was also his relationships with other heroes, most notably Batman. From the 1940s to the 1970s, they had always been depicted as close friends and allies: the "World's Finest". From the 1980s, however, it was depicted it as an edgy and uneasy one: grudging respect and uneasy friendship due to their vast differences. After their first, tension-filled meeting, Batman considers that in "another reality" he and Superman may have been friends.<ref>''Man of Steel'' miniseries #3, August 1986</ref>

Again, this to me is analytical of the primary source rather than descriptive. For instance, you seem to be deducing that based upon the quote from one comic book that it colors their whole relationship. This is the sort of stuff that needs to be cited to secondary sources. I hope that helps to explain. Best, Hiding T 09:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that there is less fun to be had in editing Wikipedia nowadays. The issue at hand here is that Superman is a featured article. It is held to higher standards if it is to remain a featured article. Besides which, I note the information is in History of Superman, added by yourself. Since that is a part of the body of work we have on Superman, and since we try and avoid redundancies where we can, I'm not sure I understand fully the issue. I'm truly sorry I have frustrated you, but I'm trying to work within the featured article criteria. Hiding T 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The points you make are good ones, but conflict with our policies at WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I suggest if you wish Wikipedia to include this kind of information you bring the argument up somewhere more appropriate, maybe at WP:NOR or possibly Wikipedia:Plot summaries. Regarding the information you added and why I did not rewrite it; as I have explained, the first paragraph you added was already in the article in a different form, so it didn't need adding. On the second paragraph, there was wording to that effect in the article before, which had to be either sourced or removed when the Superman article was undergoing a review of its featured article status. If it wasn't it would have lost the FA status. The users working on that article, myself included, decided to retain the FA status, and since we could not source the material, we removed it, placing it, I believe, in Superman character and cast. I apologise if I have not explained this as well as I could, but I have tried to comply with WP:EP and make sure the broad thrust of what you added has been retained in some shape or form where it is of most use and best presented. I can't unfortunately find sources good enough to place it in the Superman article. It should also be noted one of the complaints about the Superman article at its review is that it was too large. We need to keep that article as concise as we can. I hope it is an acceptable solution that the information is already present in our body of writing on Superman. Hiding T 18:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Batman: The Dark Knight Strikes Again edits

In regards to your undoing the removal of uncited and specialtive information, we cannot connect the dots. We cannot fill in the blanks left by a lack of sources. If we do not have enough to include a connection, then we do not make that connection. That is part of our core policies, WP:NOR, specifically a connection made via synthesis. I understand that this might seem like the most obvious thing in the world, but it needs solid citation so as to remain. Without it, we cannot include it. Sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(carried over from my user talk page):

Are you seriously suggesting that DC comics or Frank Miller might take wikipedia to court for speculating on the parentage of a minor, one-off, hardly-seen-before-or-since character? Get real!--Marktreut (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what I am saying, though Miller could have a case, if such were to occur and remain. Wikipedia is a collection of articles on every subject. The policies that guide the Wiki are consistent throughout the Project so as to preserve neutrality and be more encyclopedic in their coverage. We don't make exceptions to those policies for one article , because the exceptions could easily set precedents for other articles wherein the subject matter would open the Project to significant liability and challenge our neutral stance. As evidenced by the conversation in the NOR discussion page, this opinion seems rather consistent. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Comments

This action was done via Lupin's anti-vandal tool. This uses bad words and helps good faith editors roll them back. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. StewieGriffin! • Talk 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just undo my edit. Lupin is not involved. StewieGriffin! • Talk 21:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)