Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin


Nationmaster links[edit]

I consulted the external links section and could not find anything that would discount including the link - moreover, the site itself has much to establish reliability and the article per se is useful.

--Scott Free (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know quite well that was the User:Skyelarke version that was disallowed by consensus and Arbitration. User:J Greb is an admin who indicated on your talk page, before you erased his post, that the link was inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Mno#Nationmaster which puts it squarely in WP:EL#Restrictions on linking (as it is in breach of GFDL).
It also fails various other parts of WP:EL:
  • Most explicitly: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" - given that this is an old version of this entry it can't provide anything new even when merely compared to the current version let alone what it could be.
  • An interesting case could also be made for it violating WP:EL#ADV - if I wrote an article for Wired I'd expect that to stop me from linking to it.
Clearly, as has been stated, there are other broader issues in relation to the Arbitration Committee ruling and both you and Tenebrae should be cautious about your edits to this page and the addition of that link is a pretty blatant attempt to get around things like consensus. In the normal run of events that would cause a few raised eyebrows and the link would be removed - given your history with this page it becomes an issue and edit warring to try and get the link to stick is making a bad situation worse. (Emperor (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The link provided for Nationmaster is sufficient for me to consider the matter resolved - as for the rest of your concerns, I have already made an arbitration enforcement request.

--Scott Free (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Damage control - The link was put up in good faith, following proper procedure, and transparent identification to the best of my knowledge - the allegations against me mentioned above by various parties are, as can be seen, substantiated more by hearsay and speculation rather than by facts.

Re: 'Most explicitly: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" - given that this is an old version of this entry it can't provide anything new even when merely compared to the current version let alone what it could be.'

There's actually quite an irony in the above comment, read both articles and see what I mean.

--Scott Free (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to enlighten us? (Emperor (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
There's no irony: The "additional information" of Scott Free's old version is primarily POV and uncited claims, among other problems, as a consensus of editors and an Arbitration ruling decided. His continual beating of this dead horse is inappropriate and should end. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE ban[edit]

As the problems of the original arb case are still ongoing, User:Scott Free and User:Tenebrae are banned again for 3 months from the John Buscema article, ie, until 24:00, 11 Nov 2008 UTC. They may edit the talk page. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#John_Buscema for more info. 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CC of posting at User talk:Rlevse[edit]

John Buscema[edit]

For full disclosure and so that the relevant clerk/admins are aware: User:Scott Free, the erstwhile User:Skyelarke — who like me is currently banned from editing the John Buscema article, though not the talk page — removed from the talk page a large amount of relevant discussion involving himself, by unilaterally and without discussion moving it into an archive.

I reverted this. Neither he nor I should be removing pertinent discussion related to our editing and our ban. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of old discussion threads starting to accumulate - I archived them (respecting the pre-existing, consensused archiving structure), keeping the most recent thread- I don't see the problem.

--Scott Free (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archivng, as per 'Archiving the talk page is allowed, but don't squabble over it.'

--Scott Free (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited award[edit]

The Awards section now lists a 1968 Alley for "Best New Strip for The Silver Surfer." However, Alley Award does not list that category. A citation is needed in order to source this discrepancy.

Also, the Awards section link to the Eisner Hall of Fame needs a pipe or something. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested pipe has been inserted. Also, Alley Award does, indeed, list the category of 1968 Best New Strip, under Popularity Poll. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision/Expansion[edit]

I reckon this article is about due for some revision/expansion. I have quite a bit of stuff to add. It should take about a week. Everyone of course is welcome to participate. But because there is a fair bit of work to do, I suggest that it would be simpler to wait until all the revisions are added, before doing any extensive reversions or modifications.

Afterwards, depending on how things go, I'm considering submitting it to a Peer Review and then taking it to GAR.

--Scott Free (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to respectfully urge caution on this. A previous attempt by you that added POV--Scott Free (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)--Scott Free (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC), excessive detail and questionable claims resulted in an extended mediation and both of us being removed from editing this page — a ban that was then extended against you. After all that, and with the amount of information that is in this article, it's reasonable to have concern that this article is going to do down the same road again. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so it begins again. Rather than make cautious edits, or even discuss why he made certain questionable edits — removing wikilinks from "Brooklyn. New York" and "comic strip"? Truncating author's names and leaving only their initials? — Scott Free has made wholesale and undiscussed changes to several parts of this article. This is not collegial or collaborative behavior, and after having his been banned from this article for fannish overindulgence and an excess of decorative images, it is reasonable to expect a more measured approach. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. FYI, I have created 3 GA articles since then; and I've done 3 GA evaluations. There were no major problems and all articles are thriving beautifully. So I think I've demonstrated my capacity to function neutrally in the community. --Scott Free (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your efforts; as I recall we each contributed at about the same time to Boys' Ranch, one of those GA articles.
And I appreciate your taking to heart my comments on delinking geographic names and using truncated versions of authors' names. I would be extremely happy if we can work on this article as civilly as productively as that other article. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. That's great. I haven't been into the Buscema thing for a while, so it should be interesting to get back into it. I invited BOZ to bring in some input, who of course has been doing work in the GA department.--Scott Free (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned because after I contacted you on your talk page to initiate a discussion on your recent edits, and explain my own, you unilaterally, and without the reciprocal courtesy of a discussion, reverted many of the changes — specifically the clogging minutiae about a few inkers you seem to admire; Buscema had several dozen inkers, and unless some particular Buscema-inker team was distinguished by an award or somesuch, their inclusion is fannish POV. These are the kinds of contentious edits that resulted in an RfC that, as I recall, went against you, and I don't believe it's proper to reinsert them now.
As well, another issues has reappeared, which is your occasional citing of references that do not say what you claim. Spurluck, Sketchbook, p. 95 says nothing about retirement; indeed, Buscema says he would like to retire but cannot. You removed a citation request and added your own interpretation that, as far as I can see, clearly misinterpreted Buscema's own words.
This behavior is distressing, and I see us going down the same road as before. You are a particularly ardent fan of John Buscema, and inserting your own POVs, likes and dislikes in a way of which other editors did not approve. Do we really need to do a duplicated RfC concerning the same changes? This is the type of wait-months-and-reinsert-disputed-changes manner that Asgardian exhibited, and the fact that you were virtually the only person supporting an editor whose behavior was so outre that he has been banned is now troubling in this context.
Before making contentious edits, it's proper to discuss them. If two editors disagree, another can be asked to mediate, and if they still disagree, an RfC can be called. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure I follow the above - This is just a rough revision phase - I think there's bound to be a few rough discrepencies here and there - there's plenty of time to fix those at the Peer Review and GAR. Anyhoo, I fixed the retirement ref as well as the Tex Morgan and commuting thing.

So I've done with the expansions - Thanks to TB for his input and adjustments. In putting the final expanded version together, I may have inadvertantly omitted some of your edits - sorry about. They can be corrected. I have no problem with footnote formatting, feel free to fix those. I think there's roughly 15 referenced passages that TB has removed for various reasons. IDK, they seem like pretty basic, referenced biographical info. BOZ: I pasted most of the passages below, what do you think?

As a solution, basically I propose submitting the longer text to a peer review and GAR - better to have more info than not enough - if there are any NPOV problems, I'm sure some experienced wikipedians will spot them. Anyway, even the shorter is not bad, it might make it, as well. I suggest BOZ submit the article to PR, whichever version he feels appropriate. I'm going to step back for now - I'll help out for refs and stuff at the PR and GA, if it is decided to pursue this.

Peace out,

--Scott Free (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Expanded passages[edit]

IDK, they seem like pretty basic, referenced biographical and bibliographic info. Anyhoo, here they are, so people can judge for themselves.

Deleted passages:

50s

1 -'including several stories contributed to the Tex Morgan western title (#'s 4-7).[1]

2 -His work on Indian Chief is notable late 50's work [2]. He contributed to issues 30-33 [3].

60s

3 - Following an offer from Stan Lee which allowed him to cut down on his extensive commuting time,[4] he

4- (Captain America #115, Captain Marvel #18, Sub-Mariner #s 20 and 24)

70s

5- Ernie Chua/Chan was his main inker on Conan the Barbarian in the 1970s, (except for a hiatus between #’s 44-69 which were inked by Tony DeZuniga, Dick Giordano, Tom Palmer, Steve Gan and others). Highlights of the Buscema/Thomas run include the double-sized issues #'s 100[5] and 115[6].

6- Alfredo Alcala was his regular inker on Savage Sword of Conan until #24 and they produced some highly regarded stories. Of note are "Iron Shadows in the Moon" (#4), "The Slithering Shadow" (#20). "The Tower of the Elephant" (#24,)[7] Tony DeZuniga became Buscema' regular inker with #26 producing Conan literary adaptations until his departure with #58 (with Thomas leaving with #60,[8]

7 - Buscema left the Thor title (although will return for issues #272-285, inks by Palmer and Stone) to launch the Marvel version of the Edgar Rice Burroughs popular fiction character Tarzan in 1977. Having already done 13 issues of the Jungle-oriented Kazar (in Astonishing Tales and Savage Tales), he pencilled and inked in the first three issues (along with several covers) although he switches to only layouts for the rest of his 18-issue stint with several changes in inkers. Of note is his Tarzan Annual #1 with Steve Gan inks. [9]

80s

8- The Thomas, Buscema, Chan team launched a third Conan title, the double-sized bi-monthly King Conan in 1980 as Buscema continued on Savage Sword of Conan after Thomas and Dezuniga's departures (Ernie Chan, Rudy Nebres, Nestor Redondo took on the inking chores, as did Buscema himself in issues #61, 70, 73) and introduced a character of his own creation, Bront, in a 5-part tale in issues #65-66, 79-81, which he plotted, pencilled, and inked,

9- He continued with the Conan the Barbarian comic book series which had gone through a number of changes in writers and inkers (Bob Camp being the most prolific inker before the return of Ernie Chan as regular inker). Buscema plotted five issues (#'s 155-159). Buscema became increasingly disenchanted with the writing on the various Conan series. [10]

90s

10-Joe Kubert an artist he particularly admired, follow him on that title. [11]

11- In 1996, he formally retired at age 68. 1997 was the first year in 30 years where new Buscema material did not appear on the stands - it would also be the last year in Buscema's lifetime, as Buscema continued to receive assignment offers; his retirement thus becoming a "semi-retirement".[12]

12- He also kept active doing private commissions and cover re-creations as well as teaching art classes with abstract expressionist and figurative painter, Jack Beal. [13] and helped produce the John Buscema Sketchbook (Vanguard 2001) for whose promotion he attended the 2001 San Diego Comic Art Convention where he was received with great appreciation by fans and colleagues.[14] The book gives a good overview of Buscema's wide-ranging passion for art:

13- The documentary Frank Frazetta, Painting with Fire (2003) [15] on Frank Frazetta, another Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert E. Howard illustrator and Brooklyn native (born two months earlier than Buscema), is posthumously dedicated to him.

14- Stan Lee: "John Buscema was far more than one of our finest comic book artists. If Michaelangelo had elected to draw storyboards with pencil and pen, his style would have been close to that of Big John's. But, even more than a superb illustrator, John was also a brilliant visual storyteller. Thinking back on all the strips we had done together, I had only to give him the briefest kernel of a plot and he would flesh it out with his magnificent illustrations so beautifully that the stories seemed to write themselves. Happily, the legacy of artwork that my dear friend, the creative giant that was John Buscema, leaves behind, will bring wonder and enjoyment to generations of readers to come.".[16]

P.S. Found an interesting reference work on JB on the net: http://books.google.ca/books?id=foaY1SeVgS8C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=tex+morgan+buscema&source=bl&ots=PHNX8HYm_d&sig=q9uIrc47sP1pzBaM6jh2ysVupyc&hl=en&ei=bfsfTKKtEcH98AaCmZXEDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=tex%20morgan%20buscema&f=false

--Scott Free (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tom Morgan #4 credits, Tom Morgan #5 credits Tom Morgan #6 credits Tom Morgan #7 credits
  2. ^ Evanier, 7V
  3. ^ Indian Chief #30 credits, Indian Chief #31 credits Indian Chief #32 Indian Chief #33 credits
  4. ^ Woolcombe, A.(Aug. 2002). Talking with Big John. Comic Book Artist, 21, p. 26-B.
  5. ^ Thomas, R.,(February 1998). Roy's Ramblings. Conan Saga, 95, 61-62.
  6. ^ Thomas, R. (April 1995). Roy's Ramblings. Conan Saga, V.1, 97, 34-35.
  7. ^ Schumer, A.(Aug. 2002), , Remembering Buscema. Comic Book Artist, 21, p. 23-B.
  8. ^ Thomas. Big John, p.11r.
  9. ^ Thomas. Big John, p.16r.
  10. ^ Peel. John Buscema, p. 18.
  11. ^ Peel. John Buscema, p.66.
  12. ^ Spurlock. Buscema Sketchbook, p.95.
  13. ^ Spurlock. Buscema Sketchbook, p.20.
  14. ^ Irving. Life of Buscema. p.11-B.
  15. ^ Frazetta: Painting with Fire at IMDb. Retrieved on June 19, 2007
  16. ^ Lee, S., et al. (June 2002). Tributes - A few more words about John Buscema. Alter Ego, v.3, 15, 42v-43v.

RFC[edit]

I'm calling for an RfC. It'll take me a day to put together a comprehensive comparison of your current edits and the previous disallowed edits. I'm very disappointed in your behavior. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, to start marshaling evidence, I'd like to do as you do and go over particularly contentious edits point by point.

The overall most troublesome thing is your reinsertion of tangential minutiae that a past RfC rejected. You attempted to reinsert them even then, and you attempt to do so again now despite a consensus of editors who found these edits fancruft and non-constructive.

  • For example, this passage was pared down following the RfC -- yet your most recent edit reinserted much the same the non-consensus version.

Compare your non-consensus version from 2007, which you tried to sneak back in...

Buscema began penciling Conan the Barbarian with #25 (April 1973)with writer Roy Thomas following Barry Smith's celebrated run, and debuted as the Conan artist of the black-and-white comics-magazine omnibus Savage Sword of Conan with issue #1 (Aug. 1974). He would eventually contribute to more than 100 issues of each title (the former through 190, the latter through 101, then again from #190-210), giving him one of the most prolific runs for an artist on a single character. Ernie Chua/Chan was his main inker on Conan the Barbarian in the 1970s, (except for a hiatus between #’s 44-69 which were inked by Tony DeZuniga, Dick Giordano, Tom Palmer, Steve Gan and others). Highlights of the Buscema/Thomas run include the double-sized issues #'s 100[20] and 115[21].

He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978,[22] and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie,[23] as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines.

Alfredo Alcala was his regular inker on Savage Sword of Conan until #24 and they produced some highly regarded stories. Of note are "Iron Shadows in the Moon" (#4), "The Slithering Shadow" (#20), "The Tower of the Elephant" (#24,)[24] Tony DeZuniga became Buscema' regular inker with #26 producing Conan literary adaptations until his departure with #58 (with Thomas leaving with #60).[25]

... with the post-RfC version:

Buscema began penciling Conan the Barbarian with #25 (April 1973) following Barry Smith's celebrated run, and debuted as the Conan artist of the black-and-white comics-magazine omnibus Savage Sword of Conan with issue #1 (Aug. 1974). He would eventually contribute to more than 100 issues of each title (the former through 190, the latter through 101, then again from #190-210), giving him one of the most prolific runs for an artist on a single character. He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978,[20] and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie,[21] as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines.

I've got other examples of your reinserting the very same text that a consensus of editors disagreed with you about in 2007/2008. I honestly and sincerely don't know how you can justify in your mind to wait two or three years and then sneak the very same, disallowed content all over again. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, here is another example of your personal likes-and-dislikes POV that you added, just like back in the day:

An early highlight is his work on the Tex Morgan western title (#'s 4-7). ).<ref>[http://www.comics.org/issue/7344/#70737 Tom Morgan #4 credits], [http://www.comics.org/issue/7496/?style=default Tom Morgan #5 credits] [http://www.comics.org/issue/7621/?style=default Tom Morgan #6 credits] [http://www.comics.org/issue/7739/?style=default Tom Morgan #7 credits]</ref>

The cited footnotes are NOT those of a critic or historian calling them "early highlights," but simply the issue's writer-artist credits. It's one of many examples of your inserting POV and trying to slip it by with a false citation.

--Tenebrae (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • And finally, for now, here's a recent edit where you

1. Remove a valid citation 2. Reverts a dab wikilink, and 3. Add a "citation" for your POV that is not a citation at all — and one I had asked you to clarify, though you ignored that request

Version before your edit:

...that company's [[one-shot (comics)|one-shot]] Life Stories of American Presidents.<ref>[http://www.comics.org/issue/13892/ ''Life Stories of American Presidents'' #1 (Nov. 1957)] at the [[Grand Comics Database]]</ref>

Your edited version:

...that company's [[one-shot]] Life Stories of American Presidents. His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work. <ref>Evanier. San Diego 2001, p.7V. </ref>

I asked you exactly what "Evanier. San Diego 2001, p.7V." and received no answer. It's a program book, probably, but that's unconfirmed. There's no title of what Evanier wrote and no context. Moreover, given the multiple examples I've found of your using print-publication citations dishonestly, I'd like to see the quote exactly so we can see what it really says. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outright untruths[edit]

This has happened more than once before, and I'm not sure why I shouldn't seek an administrator's sanction against User:Scott Free. He continues to make false claims that his spurious citations do not support.

  • In his most recent multiple edit, he cites "Evanier, Mark, and John Buscema, Alter Ego vol. 3, #15 (June 2002) pp.16-17V" for the claim "His first recorded credit is" such-and-such. I turn to that issue, and "John Buscema: The San Diego 2001 Interview", conducted by Mark Evanier. Pages 16-17 (they are not "16-17V") say nothing whatsoever about any first recorded work.I could find nothing about it, in fact, in the interview at all.
  • In another example of his using false citations to support his own POV, he cites "Evanier, 7V" to support the claim, "His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work." The only thing page 7 (not 7V) says is, in an identifying caption, "Also shown directly above is a page from a 1950s issue of Dell's Indian Chief," followed by an offhand comment by Roy Thomas that it, a Helen of Troy page and a Seventh Voyage of Sinbad page look like preparation for drawing Conan.

This is not a good faith error. These are the same kinds of discredited edits he tried to do in 2007, and for which he was banned from this article after trying to reinsert them after an RfC disallowed them. This behavior is highly inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the typos. I've fixed them. I stand by the updated version and have no problem whatsoever taking it to PR and GAR.--Scott Free (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not "typographical errors," which mean errant keystrokes resulting in misspellings.
You were not misspelling "the" as "hte". You were deliberately citing content that did not say what you claimed. And you have done this multiple times before.
Actively calling what you did "typographical errors" is outrageous. You are behaving like Asgardian, who would deliberately obfuscate and misinform in an attempt to deflect from his inappropriate behavior.
We're not talking about PR or GAR for an article now. We're talking about a User RfC. You defended Asgardian, and believe his behavior was appropriate. It was not, as a long review of his actions by many of his peers confirmed.
Your having reinserted long-disapproved, non-constructive edits, and your pattern of using untruthful citations, is likewise inappropriate. After this content RfC is finished, I will call for a user RfC. I'm providing the courtesy of a head's up. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it TB. Try to calm down. Any NPOV or reference problems aren't likely to make it past a PR & GAR. As someone who's worked on over a dozen articles at that level (and have created two GA biographies from scratch and have written the majority of the GA Al Williamson article, providing over 70 refs), I can safely say that there are plenty of excellent, experienced editors there who can give qualified input. --Scott Free (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you should be allowed to make outright citation falsehoods and then see if excellent, experienced editors catch if after the fact? That is not right. Neither is the "calm down" references &mdsash; another tactic Asgardian would use to deflect criticism of his actions.
You began on Wikiepedia as a single-purpose account and made no edits to anything except this article for many months, under this name and as User:Skyelarke. Whatever work you've done elsewhere, this one remains a fan-obsession for you, as evidence by the fact you waited literally years to try to sneak back in edits that an RfC disallowed back in 2007/2008. Or perhaps you're an original-art collector trying to increase the value of certain pieces by claiming, falsely, that they are special highlights, even though no objective, third-party sources say so, prompting the deliberate placement of false citations — and then remarkably, disingenuously, calling them "typos." That is inexcusable behavior on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhoo, obviously a neutral, objective third party opinion is needed. Maybe this will calm the slander-mill and conspiracy theories incivility down a bit and demonstrate that my expansions are acceptable according to arbitration clarification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=229015145#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FJohn_Buscema

"The terms of the arbitration case are that you have to respect the basic structure, so simply restoring the same paragraphs that were previously being objected to would not be respecting the structure but reverting to the previous structure. The external link to Nationmaster is clearly inappropriate. If you are adding reliable source references to what it already in the article, or making additions to explain existing material, then that is quite acceptable. Meanwhile I hope other editors will continue to assume good faith on your contributions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)"

User:Scott Free has accused me of slander. This is a serious charge. I have documented in details his false citations, and his outright lying that these were "typographical errors."
The Arb ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema#Subsequent editing states:

Skyelarke [Scott Free's former name] and Tenebrae may freely edit John Buscema but should respect consensus [emphasis added] developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included, including but not limited to the number of images. ... Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time ... if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus. [emphasis added]

Scott Free has attempted to add the same or similar non-consensus edits as he did at the time, with the addition of certifiably false citations. This is disruptive editing, and Scott Free should be banned from editing this article for a reasonable period of time as the Arb ruling states. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that a certain statement could be construed as impolite, therefore I corrected it. My apologies. --Scott Free (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Comment is requested on the large number of edits between two version of John Buscema: The User:Scott Free version on the left and the User:Tenebrae version on the right at this page. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since several issues and even specific text passages remain the same now as during the Mediation and Arbitration process of 2007-2008, here, for background, is the text of that timeframe's Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above for new developments after this RfC went up. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the above and the RFC call, I've set the page to requiring a Review to approve edits for the RFC. For involved editors that are reviewers, it's expected you won't abuse that situation. - J Greb (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're an involved party in the dispute. Why are you taking administrative action on the article? --Scott Free (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No references have been falsified[edit]

Indian Chief - What is the problem here? All you would need to do is change it to - His work on Indian Chief is notable late 50's work [1]. He contributed to issues 30-33 [2].

I checked the first recorded work passage - instead of "Evanier, Mark, and John Buscema, Alter Ego vol. 3, #15 (June 2002) pp.16-17V" it should be "Evanier, Mark, and John Buscema, Alter Ego vol. 3, #15 (June 2002) p.19V".

IDK - Does anyone else besides TB see the various points mentioned as something more than minor tweaks, typos, or a case of adjusting a word of two? I honestly don't sees these points as anything out of the ordinary in a revision process. --Scott Free (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Evanier, 7V
  2. ^ Indian Chief #30 credits, Indian Chief #31 credits Indian Chief #32 Indian Chief #33 credits

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on John Buscema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Buscema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Four #416[edit]

John Buscema most certainly DID WORK on Fantastic Four #416. He drew an eight-page backup story titled "Roads Not Taken!" which was written by Tom DeFalco and inked by Tom Palmer.

I hope this is sufficient documentation for the inclusion of this story as part of John Buscema's body of work

172.58.139.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conan newspaper strip[edit]

there's no mention anywhere in this article or the bibliography about John drawing the Conan newspaper comic strip. 166.205.141.46 (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay it does mention it and it mentions when he started drawing it, but I would like to know when he finished drawing it 166.205.141.46 (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema

Leave a Reply