Misplaced Pages

Talk:John Buscema: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:21, 6 May 2007 editTenebrae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users155,424 edits →Legacy: Look up what Ibid. means← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:52, 13 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,051,866 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Comics}}. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(328 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|listas=Buscema, John|blp=no|
{{comicsproj}}
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-priority=low|a&e-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Comics|class=C|importance=high|Marvel-work-group=yes|Creators-work-group=yes}}
}}
{{Archive box|]<br />]<br />]<br />] <br />] <br /> ] <br />]}}<br />


==Nationmaster links==
==Photo of John Buscema==


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.
Reader Steve sent the following e-mail to the Wikimedia Help Desk:


--] (]) 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the French article on comic artist John Buscema has a
picture of him that the English article did not. Here is the link:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/John_Buscema


::You know quite well that was the ] version that was disallowed by consensus and Arbitration. ] is an admin who indicated on your talk page, before you erased his post, that the link was inappropriate. --] (]) 02:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
] 23:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


:Please see ] which puts it squarely in ] (as it is in breach of GFDL).


: It also fails various other parts of ]:
Can someone PLEASE change that photo drawing of Conan to an appropriate photo of John Buscema?--] 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:* 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 ] - 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. (] (]) 03:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
==Avengers cover image==


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.
No offense to the individual who posted this cover, but I have to --opine that this particular image is a rather poor example of this artist's work. If anyone has a better piece to substitute, it would be appreciated (at least by me). I don't have a scanner, otherwise I'd download one myself. How about something from his late sixties Avengers run, Silver Surfer, or Conan?] 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


--] (]) 03:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
==Template==
This article is in desperate need of cleanup. It is ''filled'' with ] and ]. I removed the following, for example:
<blockquote>
One could characterize Buscema 1950s work as a period of gradual constant improvement; his work was continuing to improve as he left the field, which is somewhat different from other of his contemporaries (such as Williamson, Frazetta, Wood, Drucker, Toth, Heck, Ditko) who often experienced an earlier youthful artistic peak period.
</blockquote>


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.
No ], lots of assumptions, last names tossed out at a general reader to whom they'd mean nothing ... on and on and on. The overall article is very much overwritten, has a conversational tone not in keeping with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and has such an overabundance of images stacked one atop the other in a non-layout, it beggars the question of fair use.


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.'
John Buscema was a giant of the field. He deserves a real encyclopedia article. I'll do what I can, but it's too big for one person to tackle. -- ] 09:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


There's actually quite an irony in the above comment, read both articles and see what I mean.
==Template==
I don't necessarily see what is wrong with having the 20 illustrations (which are from a wide variety of sources) that give a good cross-section of his work, considering it is the work of a graphic artist. Objectives over the quality of the layout arrangement appear to me to be rather subjective. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


--] (]) 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
:Proper layout under the conventions and rules of ] is not subjective. There are well-established principles both to what makes a page attractive, readable, and, in terms of things like newspaper and encyclopedia page layouts, balanced in term of illustrative weight. It's far from subjective. --] 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


:Perhaps you might want to enlighten us? (] (]) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
::Fair enough - but I feel that the basic design is OK - Even though they're all 'stacked' to the right, they're done in a presentable fashion (reasonably spaced out, aligned to relevant paragraphs, chronological, etc...) - Are there specific Misplaced Pages layout conventions and rules that state that having 24 illustrations aligned vertically to the right are contrary to layout conventions and rules? But if someone wants to improve upon the layout, that's their democratic prerogative - but all I suggest is to keep all of the illustrations, again for obvious reasons. As to fair usage :questions, I'd defend that point by saying that it is fair usage because the illustrations come from a good variety of sources, with many different creators, publishers, and copyright holders involved, so not one source is overly relied upon.
--] 16:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


::There's no irony: The "additional information" of ]'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. --] (]) 02:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Hi, Skyelarke, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Your point is good, and certainly a John Buscema article of this length deserves more than three images.


==WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required==
:::The way things usually work in controversial cases like this is to get a community consensus of what the most important topics are that need to be illustrated, and once we get agreement we can find specific examples.


:::To kick things off, as you can see from my earlier edit, I've included JB's first cover for Marvel, and coincidentally his first Avengers cover. That's a pretty easy one as far as historical importance is concerned. Since The Avengers was one of his signature works, we could probably go with two Avengers covers (I'd suggest the one introducing the Vision, both since its historically important and because it already exists, at the ] article.)


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 ]. For further details please contact ]. ] (]) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
:::An image each of Conan and the Silver Surver (perhaps the famous cover of #1) seem like pretty clear inclusions. One of his early, 1950s page (such as either the extant ] or ] page). An example of his advertising work, if one is available. Maybe his intreptation of the Fantastic Four, since we talk about him taking over that flagship from Kirby; some from the 1980s, maybe a Wolverine given that character's high profile; something inked by Tom Palmer, one of Buscema's more notable inkers; something from the 1990s (possibly '']'', both for the high-profile Punisher and to inject something a little different and distinct); ''Just Imagine Stan Lee With John Buscema Creating Superman'', for something from another company that also shows JB's iconic status; and I'd strongly suggest ''Superman: Blood of My Ancestors'' (Sept.2003) if that's his final published work. Other possibilities are ] from that character's debut. Thoughts?--] 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


==RE ban==
:::I've found a 1976 publicity photo of Buscema from Magazine Management, Marvel's parent company at the time, . Publicity photos are useable under Misplaced Pages's fair-use guidelines under ]. Another thing we can do is ask permission to use an image from JB's official site, from , or from to use the fairly recent picture that he has. -- ] 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
As the problems of the original arb case are still ongoing, ] and ] are banned again for 3 months from the ] article, ie, until 24:00, 11 Nov 2008 UTC. They may edit the talk page. See ] for more info. 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


===CC of posting at ]===
Well that's all fine and dandy, and most of the kind of image choices you've suggested were already there, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I still tend to having more images than less. Additionally, a photo as well as an FF page, I can see how those two would be important.
====John Buscema====
For full disclosure and so that the relevant clerk/admins are aware: ], the erstwhile ] &mdash; who like me is currently banned from editing the ] article, though not the talk page &mdash; 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. --] (]) 02:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
--] 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


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.
::::Cool. Unless other editors offer different suggestions &mdash; let's wait a couple days &mdash; why don't you find/add what images you can that sound reasonable, and I can go in and do any copy-edit, layout, etc. things. First things first: Let's replace that historically unexceptional image in the intro with a photo of Buscema. Good to be working with you! --] 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


--] (]) 22:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Tenebrae,


Archivng, as per 'Archiving the talk page is allowed, but don't squabble over it.'
The intro edits look good - There's still a few typos in your stuff -Is all that Superhero trivia necessary? (in the 60's). FYI - The tone of the article was intended to de-emphasize superhero trivia and 'Marvel Mania' and try to consider Buscema in the light of general art history and biographical terms. (Also, FYI, the entirety of the article was actually submitted to the 500+ yahoo JB discussion group, with a lot of long time JB collectors, for their input and it received very positive feedback).


--] (]) 22:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
For example, the purpose of the paragraph you deleted, was meant to place Buscema in the historical context of the period and using relevant contemporary artist for comparison purposes - the artists were carefully considered for chronological and stylistic reasons, so it wasn't entirely based on 'assumption'.


==Uncited award==
Moreover, in this case, due to the paucity of focused biographical material on Buscema and the fact that comic book scholarship is a lot less developped than traditional art scholarship, a certain amount of 'original' research is necessary, IMO, in order to give a certain direction and substance to the material due to lack of any precedants on Buscema.
The Awards section now lists a 1968 Alley for "Best New Strip for ''The Silver Surfer''." However, ] 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. --] (]) 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Although the article does need some tightening up, hopefully you can consider the preceding comments when doing so. (i.e. I don't consider whosesale deleting to be serious editorial revision).
:Requested pipe has been inserted. Also, ] does, indeed, list the category of 1968 Best New Strip, under Popularity Poll. ] (]) 16:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
--] 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)--] 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


==C-Class rated for Comics Project==
:Thanks for nice words! And I can say with confidence that everyone in WikiProject Comics would welcome a John Buscema expert to register and be a full part of the community. Come on in; the water's fine!
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 ] and list the article. ] <small>] </small> 14:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


==Revision/Expansion==
:Check out ], ], and ]. I only mention that last one since &mdash; and I know it was inadvertent, because there're a plethora of policies and it takes months to learn a critical mass of 'em &mdash; the phrase "The tone of the article was intended to..." really isn't the kind of thing anybody can really say.


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.
:Misplaced Pages articles are open to everyone who makes confirmable, ] edits with a ], ] authoritative sources. Experts can quoted, as I'm sure you'll find in many ] articles here. But they have to be quoted from existing sources, because one of the prime tenets of Misplaced Pages is ]. That doesn't mean things can't be put in historical context; heck, you can look at ], say, for a way that perspective and authoritative comment can be placed within a Wiki article. I've helped with a lot of that myself!


Afterwards, depending on how things go, I'm considering submitting it to a Peer Review and then taking it to GAR.
:It's great that "the article was actually submitted to the 500+ yahoo JB discussion group, with a lot of long time JB collectors, for their input and it received very positive feedback". But a Misplaced Pages article isn't for fans. It's for ].


--] (]) 15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
:About the phrase ""superhero trivia" &mdash; Big John may have downplayed comics, but they were the biggest part of his living for decades and he contributed industry milestones. His importance to the field is incalculable. I'm not sure an objective observer wouldn't consider the biggest part of one's career undeserving of a commensurate part of one's biography.


:I'd have to respectfully urge caution on this. A previous attempt by you that added POV--] (]) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)--] (]) 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 &mdash; 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. --] (]) 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
:Honestly, the article as it was was great for a Buscema site, or for an essay in an art magazine. Encyclopedia articles are different &mdash; more straightforward fact, without veering the reader to one opinion or another. We're not advocating for John &mdash; that's a fan site's job.


:And so it begins again. Rather than make cautious edits, or even discuss why he made certain questionable edits &mdash; removing wikilinks from "Brooklyn. New York" and "comic strip"? Truncating author's names and leaving only their initials? &mdash; ] 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. --] (]) 01:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
:But I'll tell you this: Go to ], and tell me John Buscema doesn't deserve an article as good as that!


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. --] (]) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
:I'm genuinely looking forward to your registering and joining the community, and to work with you on whipping this into shape! (I only wish I had more time; it's probably gonna be one paragraph at a time just from my humble end!)--] 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


:I applaud your efforts; as I recall we each contributed at about the same time to ], one of those GA articles.
Re: Superhero minutiae - Well better extra info than deleting stuff, I guess. If you feel that a general audience needs to hear all about Betty Dean Prentiss, hey why not... The point I was trying to make is to have a balanced overview of all phases of his career without putting specific 'Marvellous' emphasis on one particular aspect.


: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. --] (]) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The Wally Wood article - Sorry - it's nice, but it ain't there yet. Good up to the 50's - After that it kind of meanders with gaps and quotes that are digressive. Does it give a cohesive assessment of Wood's accomplishments, importance and impact?


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.--] (]) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Another point - Being objective and factual is one thing - I don't think that means that a Wiki article has to be a boring enumeration of names and dates. I think there's a distinction between opinion on one hand and necessay aesthetic analysis and commentary on artistic development on the other.


: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 &mdash; 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.
'...not veering the reader to one opinion or the other'... OK - but I believe the Wiki guidelines do advocate presenting different points of view as a way of maintaining neutrality - In that regard, I feel that it's better to add alternate viewpoints (which was why I mentioned the JB discussion group) than to remove everything that is perceived to be an 'opinion'. (Not specifically aimed at you, it's a general attitude that seems to be present in the various edits).


: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.
But a lot of passages do have specific references behind them - I just didn't include them - I'll try provide the notes for those...--] 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


: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.
::"All about Betty Dean Prentiss" ...LOL! Good point! That particular one sentence I think's OK since it was the return of his '40s "sidekick", but that graf with all the specific issue numbers is going right out into a footnote where it belongs!


: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. --] (]) 02:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think in my zest and zeal on this Talk page I lost one main point in the wallow of all my words. We can absolutely quote "Writer so-and-so of ''Comic Book Artist'' called John Buscema, '...the best artist of his generation'" or whatever. We just can't say it ourselves.


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.
::Finally, right on that being dry isn't the same as being factual. Hell, look at ] or ]! I'm with you, man. (So are ] and ] the same? If so, glad you joined our little group!) --] 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey Tenebrae - Yes User:70.55.84.230|70.55.84.230 and Skyelarke are one and the same - I got nothing against putting in detailed comic book credits - I just feel that adding explanatory information on topics not specific to John Buscema is better served via the internal link system - (i.e. Why not create an brief entry for John Verpoorten, etc...)although this is just my opinion and is merely serves as a suggestion -


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?
Re : We can absolutely quote "Writer so-and-so of ''Comic Book Artist'' called John Buscema, '...the best artist of his generation'" or whatever. We just can't say it ourselves.


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.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion - my opinion on that is that a certain moderate amount of thoughtful, rational, viewpoints can be expressed by individual[REDACTED] contributors if they are justifiable conclusions based on factual information presented and clearly presented as being so.


Peace out,
I like Misplaced Pages because I've found quite a few biographies on filmmakers and musicians that are concise yet comprehensive and well-researched, and have a popular tone that avoids overly pedantic or stylized expression that one finds in more specialized sources.


--] (]) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:RE: "a certain moderate amount of thoughtful, rational, viewpoints can be expressed by individual[REDACTED] contributors if they are justifiable conclusions based on factual information presented and clearly presented as being so."


===List of Expanded passages===
:But we can't! LOL! Honestly! That is one of the biggest, biggest Misplaced Pages no-nos! But let's forget that it goes against the ] and ] rules. It's just more authoritative and gives John his due if we say what needs to be said but '''''attribute it to published, expert sources'''''.
IDK, they seem like pretty basic, referenced biographical and bibliographic info. Anyhoo, here they are, so people can judge for themselves.


Deleted passages:
:Not just the law &mdash; it's a good idea!


'''50s'''
:Any my God, it's not like there aren't plenty of authoritative sources we could quote! So c'mon, let's get crackin'. (And you did see I removed or moved a bunch of Marvel minutiae, right?) --] 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


1 -'including several stories contributed to the ] western title (#'s 4-7).<ref>, </ref>
Hey Tenebrae,


2 -His work on ''Indian Chief'' is notable late 50's work <ref>Evanier, 7V</ref>. He contributed to issues 30-33
The text you tagged as 'no personal opinion' does not actually state 'no personal opinion' at all -
<ref>, </ref>.


'''60s'''
What you call the 'no original research rule' is not in fact a RULE, it is a policy and is meant to discourage 'material that appears to advance a position — or ... would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."'
(It's not as if the article is stating that Buscema invented the Hulk or that Buscema is in reality a pseudonym for Herb Trimpe,...)


3 - Following an offer from Stan Lee which allowed him to cut down on his extensive commuting time,<ref>Woolcombe, A.(Aug. 2002). Talking with Big John. Comic Book Artist, 21, p. 26-B.</ref> he
Re: ':Not just the law &mdash; it's a good idea!'
I agree that it is a good idea - but honestly, it is not 'THE LAW', what ever that's supposed to mean...


4- ('']'' #115, ''Captain Marvel'' #18, ''Sub-Mariner'' #s 20 and 24)
Re: Marvel Minutiae - (I got nothing against it per se, it just that it's been amply covered in other articles) I think you removed too much! Relax, lighten up - A few paragraphs on the Avengers, Silver Surfer, and Sub-Mariner are important after all...


'''70s'''
It's just that calling Betty Dean Prentiss Subby's 'love interest' is 'a biggest, biggest no-no' as it's speculative opinion not based on verifiable evidence and constitues a radical piece of 'original research'. I think it would be better to call them 'just good friends'.LOL


5- ]/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<ref>Thomas, R.,(February 1998). Roy's Ramblings. Conan Saga, 95, 61-62.</ref> and 115<ref>Thomas, R. (April 1995). Roy's Ramblings. Conan Saga, V.1, 97, 34-35.</ref>.
So I'll start going through my notes and and gather up the proper references.
] 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


6- ] 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,)<ref>Schumer, A.(Aug. 2002), , Remembering Buscema. Comic Book Artist, 21, p. 23-B.</ref> Tony DeZuniga became Buscema' regular inker with #26 producing Conan literary adaptations until his departure with #58 (with Thomas leaving with #60,<ref>Thomas. Big John, p.11r.</ref>
:Cool. Let's ref it up. And you're right, I'd meant to link to ], which is one of the five pillars.--] 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


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 ] popular fiction character ] 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. <ref>Thomas. Big John, p.16r.</ref>
::OK, I've made first pass through the 1950s, adding factual information from GCD and removing much disallowed personal opinion. We need to cite authoritative sources, which I'm sure we can do. Right now, I'm concentrating on grammatical and other technical changes, adding facts, and clean up and formatting. After finishing with that, I (and I surely hope other editors as well) will go through and add comments and quotes from colleagues, historians, etc. --] 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


'''80s'''
I've added my sources in the references section, will be following up with notes.


8- The Thomas, Buscema, Chan team launched a third Conan title, the double-sized bi-monthly ''King Conan'' in 1980 as
By the way, the Two-Gun Western #5 cover is by Joe Maneely - It's the ther Two-Gun Western series with a Buscema cover :
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,
http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=8539
--] 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


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. <ref>Peel. John Buscema, p. 18.</ref>
:Got it -- two different ''Two Gun Western'' #5s! I ''thought'' it looked like remarkable improvement in just a year! GREAT catch!


'''90s'''
:I've got ''Alter Ego''s and ''Comic Book Artist''s with Big John articles, and I'll start incorporating bio material as I can. --] 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


10-] an artist he particularly admired, follow him on that title. <ref>Peel. John Buscema, p.66.</ref>
Hey cool, there's a lot of great stuff in there - I've started putting in the footnore references...--] 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


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".<ref>Spurlock. ''Buscema Sketchbook'', p.95.</ref>
:Great! I've been too busy to edit for the last several days, and have only been able to slip in for some quick copy edits just now, but I promise I'll help more soon. Keep up the good work, brother!--] 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


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. <ref> Spurlock. ''Buscema Sketchbook'', p.20.</ref> 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.<ref>Irving. Life of Buscema. p.11-B.</ref> The book gives a good overview of Buscema's wide-ranging passion for art:
==February 2007==
I'm sorry to seem harsh, but we simply cannot say, "It is a credit to his talent that he manages to continue working in comics for the better part of the decade...." That is clearly an ]; please see the link.


13- The documentary ''], Painting with Fire'' (2003) <ref>{{imdb title|id=0363621|title=Frazetta: Painting with Fire}}. Retrieved on ], ]</ref> on ], another ] and ] illustrator and Brooklyn native (born two months earlier than Buscema), is posthumously dedicated to him.
I have also removed several images. Please go to the Misplaced Pages policy on fair use of images. For fair use to be valid, only a limited number of images can be used, and they must, at least arguably, illustrate specific things in an article. The first cover Buscema did, for instance, can be justified. One sample each of a handful of signature characters -- Conan, Avengers, one or two more -- can be justified. Examples of media outside comics -- paperback covers, posters, album jackets, consumer packaging -- can be justified. We can't simply include things because they look nice -- this isn't a magazine article. We also can't go overboard on sheer number of images.


14- ''']:''' "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.".<ref> Lee, S., et al. (June 2002). Tributes - A few more words about John Buscema. Alter Ego, v.3, 15, 42v-43v. </ref>
I'm a little concerned since I've had to remove the "It is a credit to his talent" line before. I'm not sure I'm explaining Misplaced Pages policies as clearly as I might; in any event, it's each editor's responsibility to be aware of them. I urge all editors of this article to ''please'' read both Wikiepdia's general editorial guidelines and those for the Biography Project and the Comics Project.--] 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


P.S.
Thank you for your input Tenebrae - You've made some nice contributions, expecially in terms of general comic book history - the introduction section especially looks great. However I do disagree with most of your latest editorial decisions. I'm sorry that the layout doesn't appeal to your esthetic senses, but really, there was nothing wrong with usage of images and fair usage was respected, despite your opinions to the contrary. Although I agree with certain deletions, I do feel that in general, there have been simply too many deletions of perfectly accurate, researched information. So I am in the process of restoring what I feel to have been way too heavy-handed deleting.
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


--] (]) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I also disagree with your interpretation of general Misplaced Pages policy - In my experience in reading Misplaced Pages artist biographies in other artistic fields such as music, poetry, painting, cinema, and architecture, a certain open-mindedness and acceptance of different viewpoints and allowance of aesthetic evaluation and career appreciation are perfectly accepted and commonplace. Although I appreciate your knowledge of comic book history, I do not recognize your authority as absolute Misplaced Pages policy arbitrator.


{{reflist-talk}}
Below are some key ponts I'd like to bring to your attention in order to improve the quality of this article:


==RFC==
The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.


::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. -- ] (]) 02:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.


Meantime, to start marshaling evidence, I'd like to do as you do and go over particularly contentious edits point by point.
Writing according to the "]" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing.


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 ] and non-constructive.
--] 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


* For example, this passage was pared down following the RfC -- yet your most recent edit reinserted much the same the non-consensus version.
I've done some revisions on the Early life and career section which consists of restoring previous deletions. I've also restored the 50's and 60's sections as they were almost completely deleted.


Compare your non-consensus version from 2007, which you tried to sneak back in...
Please, no more cowboy deleting, using normal[REDACTED] editing protocol would be appreciated.


{{blockquote|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 and 115.
--] 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978, and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie, as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines.
==Request for Comment: NPOV and images==
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,) Tony DeZuniga became Buscema' regular inker with #26 producing Conan literary adaptations until his departure with #58 (with Thomas leaving with #60).}}
As per Misplaced Pages dispute-resolution policy, ] is asking for a formal ] regarding dispute about whether NPOV statements are being placed in ], and whether there is overuse of images.


... with the post-RfC version:
Here is the by last edited by ], the other party, and the by ].


{{blockquote|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, and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie, as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines.}}
;Statements by editors involved in dispute


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. --] (]) 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
*I believe such assertions as "It is a credit to his talent that he manages to continue working in comics for the better part of the decade..." and "Buscema next produced some of his finest work of the decade" &mdash; neither of which is a quote from a cited authority but the personal statement of an editor &mdash; is ]. Additionally, I believe quoting the publisher of Buscema Roy Rogers reprints, which describes him as "the best Roy Rogers artist", is not the quote of a disinterested party. Finally, my points about the number of images is addressed in the section above.
**On a secondary note, I believe throwing an accusation of "cowboy editing" when I've tried to carefully give a reason for each, and Wiki policy links, violates ] and ]. --] 17:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


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


{{blockquote|An early highlight is his work on the Tex Morgan western title (#'s 4-7). ).<nowiki><ref>, </ref></nowiki>}}
*''the credit to his talent passage to me is minor, if you want to rephrase that, you're welcome to do so''.


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.
I disagree with the AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute to the publications.


--] (]) 04:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't necessarily direct the 'cowboy editing' term at you, but if you agree that cowboy editing is an improper practice (i.e making a priori large deletions without discussion or proper justification) then all the better.
--] 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


* And finally, for now, here's a recent edit where you
*''Other comments''
1. Remove a valid citation
**When comparing the two, the first thing that jumped out at me was the line "Born a few months earlier than ], also a Brooklyn native..." I looked through the article and other than a dedication, there's no mention of any connection between them. That makes this sentence seem very random and not connected, as well as giving John a second place status in his own article. If the rest of the version is like this, I would revert it also. Let's not clutter the article with random, unconnected "facts." ] 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
2. Reverts a dab wikilink, and
3. Add a "citation" for your POV that is not a citation at all &mdash; ''and'' one I had asked you to clarify, though you ignored that request


Version before your edit:
**Sup guys, hope we can resolve this an amicable fashion, because we both want the best for every comicbook article. Anyways, heres my assessment from your co-wiki editor. With regard to the ] context of this article, first the big question is "Where did all of this body of knowledge (of John Buscema) come from?" is it sourced from buscema's official site? did the wiki-editor copy/pasted its context or only rephrased its contents? or just a summary of knowledge the editor knows and translated it to his own understanding? (a question for ]). Please note that its best to have every statements we make in[REDACTED] '''cited''' because: 1) people use[REDACTED] as a source of their research and reference, and we dont want to mislead them. 2)[REDACTED] is a free encylopedia (common knowledge), if we make a wrong inaccurate information in an article,[REDACTED] foundation is susceptible to be sued (for copyright/libel/fair use violation.etc.) thus shutting the company down. These are some important questions thats needs to be addresed in regard to the content of this article. Secondly the image usage. It is somewhat absurd to find multiple images for this article. I know most of them are vital, but this is an encylopedia, not a photo gallery. A list of his bibliography is enough. We dont need to place every image in each of his works. To resolve this issue, we only need to select some images of his works that made '''significant impact/turning point''' in his career as a comicbook artist. And when I say the "most", that includes either his first published work, his best selling work, his work with his longest stint, his last work before he died. The rest, personally, are just a spam of images. Hope this help clarify some of the issues. ] 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
{{blockquote|...that company's <nowiki>]</nowiki> ''Life Stories of American Presidents''.<nowiki><ref> at the ]</nowiki></ref>}}


Your edited version:
**Do we need 13 images? Get rid of the external link john buscema yahoo group.
{{blockquote|...that company's <nowiki>]</nowiki> ''Life Stories of American Presidents''. His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work. <nowiki><ref>Evanier. San Diego 2001, p.7V. </ref></nowiki>}}
] 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


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. --] (]) 04:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
**There are alot of pictures in here, an aritcle about a artists should have only a few pieces of his work, and even then it should be his most well knowen stuff. The amount of images here does take away from the article and they should be removed, even from Tenebrae's version, it seems alittle congested. Also what CovenantD said makes sense also, and I aggree with it.] 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Addition: What is the info on ] all i see is a pic in a thumb and that is it, if we are going to keep this then we need to add the additional info. Also on reading the discussion above on ''February 2007'' I see what you did to revert and you had every right to, it was not "cowboy editing".] 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


==Outright untruths==
**Looking at the two, I agree with CovenantD, the article reads at the top like "Who John Buscema Wasn't" instead of as "Who John Buscema Was." More so in the Skyelarke version but both have a point or two in common.<br> There's also a shared awkward point in the 1950s section regarding his personal life. It feels like it was just tacked on. This is more apparent in the Skyelarke version, but both would need to expand and clarify the points.<br> I also agree with the sentiment about the images. I could see 5 or 6, tops, one per section of his career, but fewer would be better. And even in that, the images can, and should be more than single purpose. Instead of having a "Conan" piece and a "How-he-laid-put-a-page" piece, have a "How-laid-out-a-Conan-page".<br> Last thought, ''both'' versions need a copy edit to clean up grammar, punctuation, and style guideline issues.<br> — ] 22:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This has happened more than once before, and I'm not sure why I shouldn't seek an administrator's sanction against ]. 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.
<p>Comments:<p>
POV: "It is a credit to his talent" is obvious and unsourced opinion. <p>
POV: "some of his finest work" expresses opinion. Neither version of that sentence really works.<p>
POV: "His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work." Says who?<p>
Irrelevant information: "which employed top commercial artists such as Bob Peak and Frank MacCarthy."<p>
Skyelarke's version is missing some important links and references.<p>
Skyelarke's version has more typos. <p>
The list of Four Color issues illustrated by Buscema is uncharacteristic of other artists' articles. Regardless of which, of the many, many contributions he made to comics over his lifetime, there's no reason to single that one series out, and any argument for singling it out invokes POV. But don't replace that list with a bibliography of his works, because that will just get deleted as inconsistent with how WikiProject Comics contributors do things.<p>
Fact: The Chaite Agency is not a studio.<p>
The number of images is excessive. Seriously consider Misplaced Pages guidelines for image usage. ] 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)<p> <p>


*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.
*I think I've got to agree with most of the comments above. Too many of the statements about him in ]'s edit are things that aren't measurable so can't entirely avoid pov - ] is quite right with the comments about "finest work", for example. Who says that it's his finest work? Misplaced Pages shouldn't judge, so unless we can take a step back and quote a source ("hailed by xyz as some of his finest work") then it's not really going to fit. Ditto for the "especially suited to his style". I can see why there are so many illustrations - Buscema's career is long and varied - but there are too many and we're never going to illustrate every style/aspect, so pruning them back a little would seem sensible and closer to the spirit of the guidelines. I do have to agree that ]'s version has some typos that need fixing, but viewed as a whole that's a relatively minor issue. --] 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


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. --] (]) 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
<p>'''THE BELOW IS A CONTINUATION OF THE REQUEST FOR COMMENT'''


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.--] (]) 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
==Magazine illustrators==
I liked that line about the various magazine illustrators, but it got deleted. That full paragraph about influences should have been retained. I assume "Born a few months earlier than Frank Frazetta, also a Brooklyn native" is some sort of substitute, but actually, it is not encyclopedic because it is a meaningless comparison to people who have never heard of Frazetta. I think just five images would be sufficient to show what kind of artist the article is covering. No need to publish an entire portfolio. ] 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


:Those were not "typographical errors," which mean errant keystrokes resulting in misspellings.
That was an accident on my part, I restored it. An interanl link is provided for Frazetta, so people who have never heard of him can investigate.


: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.
As for the quantity, I can refer you to several other highly rated articles that use over a dozen images if you wish. For an exceptionally prolific career that covered 7 decades, I think that 2-3 per decade is reasonable.


: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.
"Where did all of this body of knowledge (of John Buscema) come from?" is it sourced from buscema's official site? did the wiki-editor copy/pasted its context or only rephrased its contents? or just a summary of knowledge the editor knows and translated it to his own understanding? (a question for User:Skyelarke)


: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.
The information came from the references cited, rephrased by myself. I am in the process of including more precise footnotes.


: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. --] (]) 15:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I continued this revising process for the 50's section.
--] 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


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 ] article, providing over 70 refs), I can safely say that there are plenty of excellent, experienced editors there who can give qualified input. --] (]) 17:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You're not getting the point. The relationship between Buscema and Franzetta should be explicit, not something you have to go to another article to discover, AND it should not supercede who the article is actually about, John Buscema. So there's a dedication - why? Did they ever meet? Did one influence the other? Or is there just a mention because they both happen to be born around the same time in the same place? None of that is in the article, which makes any mention of Franzetta irrelevant.


::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.
As for the pics, I hope you're listening to what every other editor so far has expressed about having too many. They need to have a direct relationship to the text of the article and should be used to illustrate specific points about his style and how it changed over the decades. Don't just throw up images to reach some kind of arbitrary quota. ] 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


::You began on Wikiepedia as a ] and made no edits to anything except this article for many months, under this name and as ]. 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 &mdash; and then remarkably, disingenuously, calling them "typos." That is inexcusable behavior on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 00:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
::I was staying from this, hoping to let other editors weigh in after Skyelarke had made his statement, but I can see he's not letting the process run its course.


Anyhoo, obviously a neutral, objective third party opinion is needed. Maybe this will calm the <del>slander-mill and conspiracy theories</del> incivility down a bit and demonstrate that my expansions are acceptable according to arbitration clarification:
::His version of the piece is filled with blatant opinion, like a magazine essay written by a hardcore fan and not a dispassionate encyclopedia article. Worse, Skyelarke appears disinclined to abide by either the consensus of several editors or some the basic policies of Misplaced Pages.


http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=229015145#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FJohn_Buscema
::Revising unilaterally before a consensus is reached goes completely against the Request for Comment process. I am therefore reverting the article to where it was when the RfC was made. I ask Skyelarke to please respect the process. --] 03:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


"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)"
i sincerely ask Skyelarke to let go the article at the moment, and let things cool down. we all both experience this kind of situation when were all gripping to an article, holding onto it and closes our mind and sense of judgement to anyone's idea, sticking only on ours, of what we believe. let go at the moment, if you feel its being too unfair to you, someone will eventually drop by to this article, make further improvements that both parties will come to agreement, lets all take a breather ] 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


:] 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."
To Tenebrae - OK I'm confused - I'm not letting the process run its course? Looking at the procedures below, one can see that the Rfc that you initiated was lacking in many necessary preliminary steps. Among other things, the calling of a truce.
This is the only reason why I continued editing,I didn't see it as interfering with the process. Had you called a truce according to procedure I would have respected it. The irony is that my last message prior to this very peremptory Rfc was to point out the 3 steps for avoiding disputes. So I do feel that I was rushed into a dispute process that I didn't feel was necessary - I was prepared to continue discussing the matter - now, yeah, to hear say that I was completely against the Request for Comment process leaves me rather dumfounded... Rest assured that I won't be making any changes until this current matter has been straightened out.


:The Arb ruling at ] states:
RFC procedures
{{blockquote|] and Tenebrae may freely edit John Buscema but should '''respect consensus''' 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.''' }}


: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. --] (]) 23:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved. Be civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions.
When contacting the other parties, optional template
Consider getting a third opinion on a controversy that involves only two editors.


I realize that a certain statement could be construed as impolite, therefore I corrected it. My apologies. --] (]) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.


==Request for comment==
If you have not agreed to a truce before this point, you should do so now. This allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of ongoing edits, which are likely to aggravate the dispute. If an edit war persists and parties refuse to stop, you may request that the page be protected to allow the process to move forward.


Comment is requested on the large number of edits between two version of ]: The ] version on the left and the ] version on the right at . --] (]) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.
An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.


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 ]. --] (]) 03:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
To Bloodbath


:Please see above for new developments after this RfC went up. --] (]) 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sure -letting go and taking a break, the second step of the resolution process is a good idea - How about 48 hours? After which I do have a few resolution proposals to make - I'd like to specify that I'm not particularly worked up about the situation, quite frankly I don't see the problem to be such a big deal... To end on a positive note, a few more considerations:


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. - ] (]) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.


You're an involved party in the dispute. Why are you taking administrative action on the article? --] (]) 14:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The wiki mind or wiki spirit is the fundamental presumptions of everyone who believe in wiki.


===No references have been falsified===
To assume good faith. This is the very basic presumption that every wiki user must have.
What to do if you later realize that this presumption is not true?
Do not use wiki, or
Just pretend to believe that this is true
Respect for freedom and equality among wiki users in editing the page.
Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.
creation-oriented editing is, for example, editing new page, adding more information
suppression-oriented editing is, for example, page deletion, blocking user, protecting page


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 <ref>Evanier, 7V</ref>. He contributed to issues 30-33
Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Misplaced Pages with respect and good will,
<ref>, </ref>.


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".
--] 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


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.
::Skyelarke you need to step back for a while, we'll go over the article and make sure it's encyclopedic. You did have way more images here than were needed. And there was a bit of NPOV. A request for comment means you walk away from the article and the Project takes over. If you want to keep busy in the meantime, many of the articles in '''Category:Comics articles needing cleanup''' are long overdue for some love. --] 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
--] (]) 17:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
:::To Skyelarke: I have tried in good faith to work with you on this article and reach resolution since December.


== External links modified ==
:::If you are suggesting I initiated an RfC to "harass or subdue" you, that is a very strong charge. Given the comments of other editors here, I believe there is agreement that these issues are genuine and objective. I ask you, again, not to make groundless accusations.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::I also ask you, as all these other editors have, to please look more closely at your edits and try to take into consideration the weight of so much consensus about them. It's possible that maybe we all have a point, and that no one, honestly, is ganging up on you, as the "harass or subdue" accusations seems to suggest. Thanks. --] 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


I have just modified 14 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Ok i know that this is going to sound bad but I can't take it anymore with all this nice talk so I am just going to say this in plain terms.
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hahnlibrary.net/comics/awards/eisner02.php
:'''To Skyelarke''': You need to calm down, it is just an article, and as you can plainly see we all think that Tenebrae's is better in terms of an encyclopedic sense. Now I myself have not done this for a long time, but a lot of these people know what they are doing, and if you want to be a better editor then you should listen to their suggestions and learn from your mistakes. Stop defending yourself and saying that this should of been done or what ever, the majority of us agree with Tenebrae so that means that we will all revert your edits eventually. So please just stop making yourself look bad. One last thing, we did point out errors in Tenebrae's edit so we are not saying that you stink and he is great, just his works better with the type of article that is supposed to be on wikipedia.
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freetimemagazine.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/freetime-58-web-97.jpg
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comics.org/credit/name/John%20Buscema/sort/chrono/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/18buscema.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicsbulletin.com/columns/447/top-10-1970s-marvels/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bailsprojects.com/%28S%28xs33hrjuop3sk0452x342arp%29%29/bio.aspx?Name=BUSCEMA%2C+JOHN
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://comics.lib.msu.edu/rri/qrri/qualit.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mike.jersey.free.fr/Buscema.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/28/arts/john-buscema-74-who-drew-classic-comic-book-characters.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/apr/17/guardianobituaries
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024235420/http://www.hahnlibrary.net/comics/awards/alley68.php to http://www.hahnlibrary.net/comics/awards/alley68.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023125822/http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1977/ to http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1977/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/eventsexh/past/2007_01_10_bond.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/19960101-re_/http%3A//www.tcj.com/3_online/t_buscema.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:'''To Tenebrae''': You need to calm down also, you don't really need to defend yourself, and all this arguing is pointless. If Skyelarke wants to keep reverting back even though we all say that his edits are not encyclopedic, then fine let him, he will get banned, and then we wont have to deal with it. But if he will learn from his mistakes and learn to be a better editor than great. The more the merrier.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Ok that being said i suggest that we all just stop with the arguing, it is pointless and it is not good for the article. In a way we are all acting like children, granted high class children but still. So lets just do what the majority agrees with. Leave it that way, and put all this attention the the articles that need it.] 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
::Since it's been nearly two days (40 hours) without additional comment, there seems no objection to ]'s suggestion that we "do what the majority agrees with". Unless there are new points that haven't been raised already in the discussion, I suggest we wait eight more hours to make it a full two days, and then go with the consensus version.--] 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
It has come to my attention that of the 9 editors that have participated in this RFC, 8 had received personal invitations from Tenebrae. (and the one who apparently did not, Covenant, has supported Tenebrae in past arguments.)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Secondly, looking at the history record, one notices that the disputed contributions that I had made occured on the 22 & 23 of February, the disagreements being voiced on the 24 & 26 of February after only a single reply by each party and the RFC initiated on the same day, i.e. the 26th of February. Moreover, I was not informed of Tenebrae's feeling that he considered the situation to be a dispute in need of a RFC. I viewed the situation as simply an early stage of an editing discussion.


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I am not claiming that there have been deliberate intentions of impartiality and partisanship, but it seems fairly plain that the cards were stacked in one party's favor from the get-go.
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bailsprojects.com/(S(sqjxmbzn5ohvis45jzd5sw45))/bio.aspx?Name=BUSCEMA%2c+JOHN
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5mdwvhUbC?url=http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/eventsexh/past/2007_01_10_bond.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/eventsexh/past/2007_01_10_bond.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I am going to once again take a 48-hour break from the situation in order to give the opportunity for concerned parties to provide their feedback in order for this issue to be clarified before proceeding any further.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Regards,


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 03:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
--] 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


== Fantastic Four #416 ==
:wow, i have lost track of this, its been...how many weeks now? Anyways, this particular comment just caught my attention. Its true that ] invited us to discuss this, NOT to gang you up in any manner, but to contribute in the discussion. He didnt leave me a note in my talkpage to back him up but to participate here as a disinterested party. FYI, me and ] also had a dispute before, but weve come to agreement. And my RfC here is not bias or one-sided. Heck, i even left some questions that both can answer and be addressed (see again above) ] 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


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.
Again not the most PC thing to say, but it has to be said. ] asked us to talk cause we are in the wiki project. We(or at least every one else but me, i am still sorta new) know what we are doing. We know how comic articles are supposed to be written and what is the best way to write it. Your edit was not, in fact it is something that belongs on a fan made site that people skip over in search engines. This is wikipedia, a place where people can find a good article that has 0 or at least a small amount of opinion. Yours was full of useless info that had a lot of Point of View stuff that is not supposed to be on here. So i ask you, let it go, stop being a sore loser, admit your mistake and stop ruining your name, cause this effort is futile. Now from my understanding there is 4 hours left till 48 hours have passed, lets keep it that way and turn this this into a article worthy of wikipedia. I know this is not the most non-threating thing to say but to me it had to be said or else we would be locked in this argument till eventually someone got banned with nothing good coming out of it, and I just don't want to see that happen.] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


* The Grand Comics Database supports this https://www.comics.org/issue/97305/
:I was rather offended that I ''hadn't'' been invited to comment. ;) ] 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:Hey I was surprised that I was 8-P.] 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


* Tom Palmer (you know, the guy who *inked the story in question*) has some of the original art on his website with the notation "Fantastic Four #416, page 6. Marvel Comics, 1996. Breakdowns by John Buscema. Finishes by Tom Palmer." http://tompalmerillustration.com/post/145402515128/fantastic-four-416-page-6-marvel-comics-1996
Ok 48 hours are up, time for the mass re-edit.] 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, I came here because I was invited to comment. And you'll note that not all of my criticisms were aimed at Skyelarke (although the clear majority were). Some of my remarks were about Tenebrae's edits too, as was the case with other invited commentors (yeah, the word should probably be ''commentators''). If Tenebrae wanted a bunch of "yes men" on his/her side, T. wouldn't have invited several of us because we all disagree with each other at times and will do so again, but when we disagree, we work together to figure out what fits project purposes. Tenebrae did not invite us as a group of people T. could count on to back him/her (I don't know which) up blindly. Tenebrae invited us as people who know Misplaced Pages's guidelines and goals, people who know WikiProject Comics and its goals, and people T. has seen ''try'' to revolve disputes sensibly. Skyelarke had the right to solicit outside input as well. The possibility that S. didn't know any other contributors to invite may reflect on S.'s lack of familiarity with the project. ] 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


* The ComicBookdb agrees http://comicbookdb.com/issue.php?ID=21234 (scroll to the "Multiple Stories in this Issue" section)
Hey guys, what up? Here are my concluding thoughts on the various points raised -


* The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators http://www.maelmill-insi.de/UHBMCC/fantfou.htm#S74 (scroll all the way to the very bottom)
A - I'm going to take some time off to reflect on the situation and take into account everyone's input. I suggest that everyone take a week off from editing this article in order assimilate the discussion points and gain some perspective. I have however made a few necessary editing corrections, because (in the version that Tenebrae is supporting) about half of the 50's section and most of the 60's had somehow been deleted with a passage cut off in mid-sentence.


* Mike's Amazing World of Comics http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/features/story.php?storyid=117485
B- Had this RFC not been so hasty and rushed, and had not heated up so quickly, I would most certainly have made some invitations of my own, to people from the comics project yes, and also people from the biography project and other general[REDACTED] editors. In any event, I won't be participating in any future RFC's for this article unless the following conditions are followed -
a- A week's notice between the time the RFC is decided upon and its implementation be given.
b- The notice is placed on the biography portal notice board as well as the comics project notice board.
c- No more than seven invitations per person involved in the dispute. The invitations should be unsigned, with no complimentary or flattering comments to the invitee.
d- No congratulations or thank you messages should be sent to other participating editors during the period of the RFC.


* The John Buscema checklist http://mike.jersey.free.fr/Buscema.htm
C- Had this RFC, which began as a question over three fairly general and relatively minor editing contributions not somehow developed into a general Comics Project sub-committee article evaluation here are the compromises I was trying to propose:
a- Whether there are 6 or 12 images is no major deal for me - I can refrain from making any Image edits for the time being.
b- ''the credit to his talent' passage to me is minor, if you want to rephrase that, you're welcome to do so.
c-'"Buscema next produced some of his finest work of the decade"' I had replaced that with a quote from Jim Steranko. (See my last edit of the 26).
d-I disagree with the AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute to the publications. Although a link to a catalogue and not an ideal quote, this company has a comprehensive knowledge of the western genre and western artists and in this case I feel are qualified to provide objective points of view on this period of his career and John Buscema's name is not a major selling point and it wasn't added for promotional or commercial purposes.


* ComicBook Realm https://comicbookrealm.com/series/730/9590/fantastic-four-issue-416/5
D- FYI - To better clarify the history of this article, please note that the following FA-Class article has been used as a model and practical example in terms of Misplaced Pages policies and style guidelines. I encourage everyone to familiarize himself or herself with it if they wish to make contributions to this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD


* The Complete Marvel Reading Order https://cmro.travis-starnes.com/detail.php?idvalue=14770
E- To paraphrase Phoenix, I know I shouldn't say this and it will probably sound undiplomatic but it has to be said.


I hope this is sufficient documentation for the inclusion of this story as part of John Buscema's body of work
I know that there are a certain number of who share the same 'no-nonsense, cut the clutter, limit the content' philosophy. I sincerely feel that embarking on an effort to have this article conform to that mindset will be a colossal waste of time and energy for everyone because this article's structure and conception is pretty much diametrically incompatible with that mindset. You chose your battles, and this one is shaping up to be a complicated, energy-draining, clash between a 'lets's whittle this down' and a 'let's build this up' viewpoint where no one will be satisfied with the end results. It'll be like trying to fit a square peg in a round groove. I'm just saying...


] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 01:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Peace out,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


== Conan newspaper strip ==
--] 22:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


there's no mention anywhere in this article or the bibliography about John drawing the Conan newspaper comic strip. ] (]) 10:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:Am I supposed to be Sphinx, cause if i am, i am kinda offended. Also to your last paragraph, its not really a mindset. It is what we feel should be done as per[REDACTED] standards. Also while all of this was going on you could of asked for some other people to join in from this discussion. and if you did ask people to comment on this, and they didn't that probably says something about you.] 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::::TY for changing that,] 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


:okay it does mention it and it mentions when he started drawing it, but I would like to know when he finished drawing it ] (]) 10:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::For the record, a notice was placed on the WikiProject Comics noticeboard, at 17:42, 26 February 2007, and then on Skyelarke's page. This RfC was open to everyone.

:::::I have reverted the article to ]'s last edit. ] had gone back and, despite the clear consensus, reinserted cluttering images and personal opinion. I believe from his remarks above about a whittle-it-down vs. let's-build-it-up "mindset" shows a fundamental misunderstanding both of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and, frankly, the difference between an encyclopedia article and a magazine article.

:::::I did go in tonight and make mostly technical edits on misspelled comics titles and book titles, missing dates, missing Wikilinks, and similar elementary material. I removed one graf of excessive detail about inkers mixed with personal opinion.

:::::If (and I'm interested in the opinion of the ever-awesome range of our colleagues have to say on this) we at the point where consensus is not being observed and we need to move to a formal dispute-resolution process, I'm formally stated my willingness to call in an admin and do so. If Skyelarke genuinely feels the rest of us are incorrect, then I think we should do so. --] 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:I was going to write a detailed response to Skylarke pointing out the flaws in his post, but decided on this instead:
:Skylarke, I found many of your comments to be condesending and inflamatory. Yours is a ]; every single edit you've made since you started editing four and half months ago has been '''to''' this articlewith two exceptions; a comment you left on somebody's talk page ''about'' this article accusing them (incorrectly) of personal attacks, and another very serious accusation against the people who participated in this discussion. Based on that and the tone of the article that you ultimately did create, I have absolutely no faith in your neutrality, your assumption of good faith in others, or your knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. ] 08:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone kindly take a look at the 50's and 60's sections that have been deleted and restore them? Notice that there currently is no heading and almost no content for the 60's...

Sorry to sound so down on you guys - it's only only because I feel the RFC was initiated too quickly and prematurely - Please rest assured of my intentions to edit and discuss in full respect of Misplaced Pages guidelines and procedures. And one last request to slow down and let's take a one week break, a step back before making any further decisions...

--] 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine, take a week break if you want, gives us more time to get this article looking good. Also I will look at the 50's-60's sections, but honestly i doubt i will do much with them.] 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:Looked at it, something weird is going on, the info is on the site, it is just not displaying. I it is really weird.] 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


So....... is the request for comment over.....?] 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

::Hiya, Phoenix741. Skyelarke took a unilateral one-week break, but as you noted three grafs above this, other editors were going to go ahead edit the article, which, after over a week of RfC, certainly says to me the RfC has been completed. --] 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Ok well now all we have to worry about is Sky changing everything back. Something that would not surprised me if that happened.8-/-->] 19:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Let's assume good faith on his part. There's a learning curve to Wiki editing, Lord knows. --] 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== Possible Copyright Violations ==

Not to be rude, but all of the images on this page are copyrighted. While two or three might be ], but a page full of them is pushing it. ] 16:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:Thats not rude at all. But do you mind being a little more specific, like which ones are copyrighted.] 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::I've never heard of a comic book going public domain, so I would assume all of the comic book images are copyrighted. Clicking on any of them takes you to their image page showing the ] guidelines. As I said before, I think a few examples of his work could be justified, but loading the article with copyrighted images of questionable purpose over runs fair use. ] 19:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Well i am not fully sure on this, but i think since they are published works and we are giving credit to who made them, it is ok.] 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

::::They also have to contribute significantly to the article (point #8 under '''Policy''') and not just be their for decoration. I would take this to mean that one issue in the article should not have more than one image supporting it, but one image may support multiple issues. But if there are images here that ultimately only serve as decoration, they should go, properly attributed or not. — ] 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::That's why I didn't slap a copyvio template on the page or anything. Some of the images are okay, but I don't really know enough about the topic to make the call on which should go. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

There are plenty of public domain comics out there, if this ] has ANY validity at all. ] 06:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:Those are ] not ]. Seeing as most of this gentleman's work was done in the latter half of the 20th century, I doubt much have been released into public domain. ] 13:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

::You wrote that you had never heard of a comic book going public domain; I provided a link to some that apparently have. ] 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Excuse me, I misspoke, I meant going public domain voluntarily. Going PD because your copyright ran out is a different matter entirely. ] 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to read over the various comments - I am in agreement with many (especially 'Please note that its best to have every statements we make in[REDACTED] '''cited''' because: 1) people use[REDACTED] as a source of their research and reference, and we dont want to mislead them.' - as for the specific points of the dispute per se-

1- Too many images - Although I agree with the points of criteria for using images, I'm not convinced about the limit on the number of images - many generalized opinions given more or less all in agreement, not much specific explanations or substantiation given. The only specific policy limitations I'm aware of is that you can only use one screen shot per film.

:A strict interpetation of ] would indicate that, aside from the head shot, all of the images violate Fair Use. Specifically Comic Covers can be used "to illustrate: the issue of the comic book in question; the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question;" which is not the topic this article is addressing. ] 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

2- 'the credit to his talent' passage to me is minor, if you want to rephrase that, you're welcome to do so.

3-'"Buscema next produced some of his finest work of the decade"' I had replaced that with a quote from Jim Steranko. (See my last edit of the 26). Tenebrae deleted that one calling it 'meaningless' - I disagree - the explanation appears to be original research on the editor's part - if he has a quote from a reputable source to substantiate his claims of Buscema's artistic development, he is welcome to do so. In any case I don't think it quite so meaningless for a general public audience.

d- AC Comics link - This point of contention never received any comment - I disagree with the deletion of AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute information to the publications. Although a link to a catalogue and not an ideal quote, this company has a comprehensive knowledge of the western genre and western artists and in this case I feel are qualified to provide objective points of view on this period of his career and John Buscema's name is not a major selling point and it wasn't added for promotional or commercial purposes.

Thanks to Phoenix, by the way, for fixing the formatting glitches.

I happened to come across a similar discussion on the Meat Loaf article, a perhaps more temperate way of presenting the problem -

'I think this article is more or less on target when it comes to getting bio and discography information, but are definitely pockets where the article, particularly its word choice, reads like it's been written by an obvious fan, his publicist, or is taken from some autobiography he may have wrote. As someone who's familiar with the singer, but not a passionate fan, it reads a little too affectionate for a encyclopedia article. I added the tag because I'm not as familiar with Meat Loaf and I thought someone who is may be able to clean it up without accidently removing relavent info'

--] 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for entering into the discussion. One quick point: Links to commercial sites such as catalogs are disallowed by Misplaced Pages. That's not a matter of discussion, but a strict policy. --] 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the guidelines for reference notes, but did not come across the passage that you are referring to - kindly provide the specific passage that you have in mind. And if that's the case, how do you explain your inclusion of the Vanguard website link?
--] 01:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

::]. Also, I'm not sure why you believe I added the Vanguard link &mdash; I did not &mdash; but as you point out, it's indeed a commercial link and I've removed it. --] 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
<nowiki> a)Good 'Links normally to be avoided' reference, but again, I repeat my request - kindly provide the specific passage that you have in mind.
b)In any event the title has the word 'normally' meaning there are exceptional cases and 'avoided' meaning not stricly forbidden - therefore it is not, as you say, a `strict policy', but one subject to discussion as the case may be. I refer you to my previously stated reasons why I feel that it is an exceptional case.
c) I thought it was you who added the Vanguard link because it was added 3 days after your major modifications and you had not objected to it in the 3 months it was in evident display.
d) Again, I feel that your deletion of that link was premature - the work in question is a useful reference - kindly put it back or better yet, replace with a standard reference format.
e) In general, if you are going to take the extreme step of deleting a contribution, I would ask that you take the time substantiate your reasons for doing so. i.e. referencing the exact passage of a relevant policy AND explaining why you feel that the specific passage in question is discouraged by said specific policy OR BETTER YET taking the time to offer an alternatite solution or finding a more appropriate reference.</nowiki>
--] 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:::A publisher praising the contents of a book that it is selling is not a disinterested source. Factual material from an AC book -- names, dates, place -- is obviously fine. But not an opinion from a publisher about how great the thing its selling is. --] 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is good and well as far as it goes, unfortunately there is no substantiation to your claims - no specific reference to my response, no reference to specific Misplaced Pages policies, no specific reference to the AC Catalog product description, no examples cited - be that as it may, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and let it slide - if you wish to replace the quote with a more fitting quote on Buscema's Roy Rogers work, feel free to do so.

Good 'Links normally to be avoided' reference, but again, I repeat my request - kindly provide the specific passage that you have in mind.

Again, I feel that your deletion of that Vanguard link was premature - the work in question is a useful reference - kindly put it back or better yet, replace with a standard reference format.

'When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.'

'Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing. Creation-oriented editing is, for example, editing new page, adding more information.'
--] 21:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::RE: Vanguard link, which ] had previously noted was commercial: Here is what it has on that site (prices etc. x'd out):

::Send completed Order Form and $xxxx (+$xx s/h) for the Trade Hardcover; $xxx (+$xxx s/h) for the limited edition, DELUXE Hardcover S/N by John Buscema with 16 pg. BONUS PORTFOLIO not found in other editions; or $xxx (+$xxx s/h) for the SoftCover to: Vanguard Productions xxx xxx Street Suite xxx xxxxx, NJ xxxxx

::I'm sure we can call agree that this is a disallowed commercial link. --] 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

:::RE: AC Comics. Here is the deleted statement: AC Comics have reprinted a number of those stories and describe Buscema as the best Roy Rogers artist.

:::The footnoted link a commercial AC Comics page selling: Roy Rogers Western #2 Quantity in Basket: none Code: RRW1 Price: $xxxx Shipping Weight: 0.33 pounds

:::Again this is disallowed commercial link. As well, AC Comics hyping its own product is not a disinterested reference.--] 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, in the above there is an effort to provide a more substantiated argument, unfortunately, it still does not adress the specific points of contention. I'm not denying that they are commerical sites, this point doesn't require proof. My argument was based on the point that the AC Comics link is an allowable exception. Here are the relevant textual passages under consideration.

:::a - 'I disagree with the deletion of AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute information to the publications. Although a link to a catalogue and not an ideal quote, this company has a comprehensive knowledge of the western genre and western artists and in this case I feel are qualified to provide objective points of view on this period of his career and John Buscema's name is not a major selling point and it wasn't added for promotional or commercial purposes.'

:::b- '4- Links normally to be avoided - 4-Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.'

:::c-'RRW#2 More great Roy Rogers memories!! Roy Rogers rides again, better than ever in this superb nostalgic package. More wonderful comics adventures reprinted from the original Dell Comics series, including "Riding The Danger Trail" and "Roy Ropes A Partner", both by the best Roy artist ever, John Buscema. Then, see Queen Of The West , Dale Evans in action in "The Turquoise Belt", drawn by Russ Manning; and everybodies favorite comical sidekick, Gabby Hayes in "Shooting At Santa", illustrated by Leonard Frank from his Fawcett Comics series. Text features include "Royal Family-Western Style"- a vintage look at domestic life for the Rogers; "Roy Rogers, King Of The Cowboys"- a history of Roy's career as told by rodeo writer Al Rackin And Cowboy Heaven remembrances of Eddie Dean and Kirk Alyn. With more photos than ever throughout, if you"re a Roy Rogers fan, you can't miss this book. Color photo front cover, black and white back and inside covers, interiors are black and white with graytones. Standard comic book format. Printed in 1999 Fully licensed and authorized. '

::I was expecting a reply to my argument to make reference to the three texts above i.e. explaining why point a is invalidated by elements cited from text b and c.

I think there seems to be a confusion between section 2 and section 4 of the 'External Links' policy page. In section 2,there are only two points that 'For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking ..., without exception.' i.e. cases of proven copyright violation and specific blacklisted sites. The #4 point (which I assume your are referring to) about products and services is not in section 2, it's in section 4. So it's not under a 'restricted from linking...without exception' dictate.

Had you provided a reference to the specific policy point that you were referring to (I assume it's point 4.4), you would have seen that instead of deleting the Vanguard link, there is another solution that they recommend, i.e replacing with a more appropriate link. I have added a standard reference to Vanguard's 'The John Buscema Sketchbook' If you care to replace it with the ISBN linking format, feel free to do so.
--] 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Tenebrae's deletion of Vanguard book - Fair enough - I think having a footnotes and a references section is a little redundant -[REDACTED] biographies generally just have a footnotes section followed by an external links section, so I replaced the references section with an external links section.
--] 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
A question:
("Ext links" are "for further reading" links. "References" are primary sources.
I have no major problem with that, although I don't think it's as good as the more prevalent Misplaced Pages structure that I've mentioned because as you've done, a primary source reference gets deleted if it is referred to in the footnote section, therefore there is a logical inconsistency. Is there a place in the Misplaced Pages policies where this structure that you are referring to is explained? I'd be interested in seeing it, because I don't see how the general public could know and understand this. I've added an external links section for further reading.
PS. Below are some concrete examples of what I'm referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/John_Byrne
http://en.wikipedia.org/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/Maria_Callas
--] 00:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)--


:Per ], "Footnote" citations are only re-listed under "References" in articles "that have lots of footnotes" that make it "hard to see...exactly which sources have been used". Here's what I copy-pasted:
<blockquote>
:'''Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" or "Footnotes"'''

:It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.

:'''Further reading/External links'''

:An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section.

:All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.

:: — ] 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
OK - makes sense - Thanks for the ref.

I've added various references, quotes, and points of detail to the 'Later Career' section. Basically the guidelines I've followed for these edits are the following from the 'Perfect Article' section :http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article

<nowiki>a-acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.</nowiki>

<nowiki>b-is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.</nowiki>

<nowiki>c-is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone.</nowiki>
--] 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

==Later career==
Great edits and adds! It is so good and remarkable to see all the effort you've put into reading up on Wiki guidelines, and I don't mean to sound la-dee-da &mdash; this is a genuine compliment.

I moved the Sienk. quote to the preexisting Quotes section, and removed the phrase about following Kubert, since that's not really ]. Likewise the sentence or two about Buscema promoting his book and being cheered by fans &mdash; everyone promotes their books, and fans at fan conventions cheer their favorite artists, actors, etc. Aside from these two small deletions, all I have to say is ... Bravo! --] 04:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good words - I took a look at your edits, here are some comments-

:::The Kubert passage (used as a segue from the Punisher) is actually notable due to the fact that Buscema has mentioned him in particular as an artist he admires and respects on several occasions. The notability link that you refer seems to only deal with the notability criteria for general article topics as a whole, so I don't see your point in including this link.

:::I put that in because I couldn't substantiate the previous version that states that Buscema work showed a Kubert influence. So I replaced it with that more substantiated reference. I followed the following Wiki guidelines in doing so:

:::'When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.' and also 'Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.'

:::The Sienkiewicz quote was meant to comment on a specific aspect of his work at the specific period that this section deals with. I think that's its better to include quotes in the quotes section that deal with more general aspects of Buscema and his career. (I have a few in mind). Plus your rewording creates an innacurate generalization about his pencil work.

:::I noticed that you moved reference no. 7 regarding Buscema's retirement. This creates an innacuracy as the reference deals more with his return than his retirement. I removed the word 'formally' as I haven't come across any references that indiciate he formally announced his retirement per se. I think you also removed a phrase about his 30-year regular output without indicating this or explaning why - it was a meant to be a much-needed transitional passage that adds perspective and readability for a general public audience.

:::Regarding the Buscema Sketchbook and the San Diego convention segue - The documentation that I have indicate that both points are relevant aspects of Buscema's career.

:::I notice that you seem to have deleted the quote on painters but did not mention this or give any reasons as to why. Again it is a segue and is related to the previous points touched upon a serves to give a more general appreciation of Buscema's artistic outlook, especially for the general public audience.

I hope this clarifies things, take care,
--] 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I did ''not'' delete the quote on painters. In fact, I moved it up further in the article to place it alongside the mentions of all his other influences. Regarding the other issues, you are a good and great fan of Buscema, but the edits of yours that I removed have a tone of fannish praise inappropriate for an encyclopedic tone. I'd be glad to put the isseu back up to other editors to decide which is the more appropriate version, but I thought this was decided already. You seem reluctant to accept when another editor says, "These edits are good, these edits aren't appropriate, here's a middle ground", and to accept consensus. --] 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::And please stop inserting style errors. WikiProject Comics style is "vol." lowercase for comics and comics magazines. And normal correct grammar and punctuation requires us to italicize magazine titles and use spaces between a comma and a name. I've reverted your grammar and punctuation errors repeatedly. --13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Also, "formally retired" was ''your'' phrase, with a cite. If you say it's inaccurate, I'll make sure it's removed. In fact, if he didn't announce a retirement, and he did work afterward, it's inaccurate to say he retired and we should remove the word entirely.--] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette reminder to Tenebrae - re: 'rv fannish trivia, overdetail, and unencyclopedic fawning' seems to denote a disparaging tone - the Misplaced Pages etiquette guidelines state: 'Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Misplaced Pages with respect and good will,...'

As a reply, kidly take this into consideration (from http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Use_short_sentences_and_lists)
'Conciseness does not justify removing information from an article. Articles should contain as much information as possible without the use of redundant statements. The use of subjective qualifiers should be avoided.'
--] 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Various edits for the early career section - Mainly references - corrected Buscema's first work reference - reworked the Frazetta mention as per prior discussion.

PS. a quote from Bloodpack (which I agree with):'Please note that its best to have every statements we make in[REDACTED] cited because: 1) people use[REDACTED] as a source of their research and reference, and we dont want to mislead them.'
--] 02:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PPS. Tenebrae: 'You seem reluctant to accept when another editor says, "These edits are good, these edits aren't appropriate, here's a middle ground", and to accept consensus.'

I'm willing to accept modifications if they are free from factual innacuracies. At the moment, though I'm focused on establishing proper reference notations, as per our previous agreement:

So I'll start going through my notes and and gather up the proper references.
] 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:Cool. Let's ref it up... --] 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

--] 02:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

==Skylarke==
I've been very patient, as have other editors, but now Skylarke has gone back and reinstated a version of the John Buscema article that BY ] CONSENSUS was disallowed. I'm speaking about removing his place of birth (!) and replacing it with a rambling sentence about his being born within two months of Frank Frazetta, a trivial and unencyclopedic tangent that the consensus specifically excised.

I can't keep doing this. I'm asking for ] now. --] 03:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On a positive note, I'd like to mention that I think that this article is coming along well, thanks to everyone's constructive contributions and I feel that this article has the potential to become an excellent Misplaced Pages Biography article.

The Frazetta thing may be a bit much at the beginning there, so I combined it with the other Frazetta reference in the Legacy section. The reason why I included these relevant links to the fields of popular literature, and fantasy illustration, is to situate the article in a wider context, hopefully making it more relateable to a general audience.

Also my references have the seven-page story "Crime: Kidnapping!- Victim: Abraham Lincoln!" in the Timely crime title Crime Fighters #4 (Nov. 1948)as Buscema's first recorded work and not the eight-page story "The Other Woman" in the Timely romance title Faithful #1 (Nov. 1949). As it's a fairly significant and well-documented reference, I thought it was important to make that change. The original contributor is of course welcome to offer his feedback.
--] 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


==Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles==

To Tenebrae - You have made several good contributions to this article and I'd like to thank you for the helpful references that you've provided, unfortunately I'm concerned with what seems to be an overly gung ho involvement in this article on your part and a tendency to nitpick over the majority of other editor's contributions down to the smallest detail and to also a tendency to revert the majority of new addtions. This would seem to go against the following Misplaced Pages policies againts ownership behaviour:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles

'Minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording are disputed on a daily basis by one editor. The editor may state or imply that changes must be reviewed by him/her before they can be added to the article.'

'Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not.'

Moreover, I'm concerned that the way the recent RFC was conducted shows distinct signs of what is termed as a 'tag team'.i.e.

'The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant primary editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors.'

Misplaced Pages aims to create an open, inclusive, environment that encourages friendly, civil, conscienscious editing while respecting the equality of all contributors. Kindly take these concerns into consideration as I hope they will help in contributing to a better quality article.

--] 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:I appreciate your generous comments about my edits. You know, too, that I respect your scholarship and enthusiasm; I wish there were a ] fan so dedicated as to beef up that worthy creator's entry. So I hope you'll take this in the spirit in which I say this: Reverting material that was re-added after an RfC consensus decided against it is not, I believe, nitpicking. Punctuation and grammar, which is a lot of what I do, I also don't believe is nitpicking; that's usually considered minor. But where I must, respectfully, part company is the ownership assertion, and here's why: I've created well over a hundred detailed articles and I work to polish dozens on a regular basis, while, really, you dedicate yourself to one article only. So I'm not sure it would be me who feels he "owns" this article, which is just one more of the many. I've demonstrably been going with what a consensus of editors decided upon I'm sorry you feel slighted -- I swear I do, despite the frustration I sometimes feel trying to work with you. I feel that you see this article as a tribute, if not quite a fan page, and that's not really an encyclopedic tone.

:By the way, I notice that an anonymous IP today has has started contributing to Misplaced Pages, though only to this article.

:I'll start putting fuller explanations for each non-grammar/punctuation edit, as I do now just below here. I'm hopeful that better communication of why I make each edit that I do will help dispel any hard feelings or misconceptions. Thanks for listening. --] 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

==Legacy==
The reason I've toned down this section is: First of all, a simple declarative sentence about the Frazetta doc is factual; anything else is gilding the lily. Frazetta's name is linked if someone wants to know who Frazetta is. Second, we quote and cite the AE & CBA articles, so to say that AE & CBA have written articles about him is redundant. Besides which, AE & CBA have run big articles on dozens and dozens of people -- even secretary ] (who is historically important and in fact I started the Wiki article about her, but you see what I mean). And finally, the work of ''countless'' writers and artists remain in print; we don't specify that in every single instance because it's ] in and of itself. Just as it is non-notable that someone does promotion for a book he or she wrote. --] 06:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the Frazetta entry because having made changes in response to two previous objections, this is the most feasible compromise I've been able to arrive at.

The AE and CBA issues in question are actually cover-feature special issues devoted mainly to him, so they should probably be included in the 'further reading' section.

For the Buscema trade paperbacks currently in print, I believe there are about a dozen or so. They could probably also be listed in the further reading section along with the Marvel Visionaries book on him that came out earlier this year.
--] 00:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Added references for the 50's section. Returned Four Colour list in bullet format as per http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Lists
The list is following the article's structure of mentioning lenghty runs on a title (i.e. Silver Surfer 1-17)- the list was necessary due to the peculiar numbering system of the Four Colour title. Also added a quote by Buscema regarding his 50's work.
--] 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::Please see ]: "In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." -- ] 23:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Skylarke has also made a mess of the footnotes, which I've fixed several times and I cannot understand why he keeps inserting "Vanguard Publications" over and over rather than using ] (and ''please'' go look that up), unless he is involved with Vanguard. There is no other reason not to use "ref name=" and Ibid. --] 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:52, 13 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Buscema article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconComics: Creators / Marvel C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
CThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Related work groups:
/ 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Comics creators work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
Archiving icon
Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2006)
Archive 2 (2007–RfC)
Archive 3 (April–June 2007)
Archive 4 (July–December 2007)
Archive 5 (2008–RfC)
Archive 6 (April–June 2008)
Archive 7 (July-December 2008)



Nationmaster links

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)

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)
Please see Misplaced Pages: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))

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)

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)

Perhaps you might want to enlighten us? (Emperor (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
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)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

RE ban

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#John_Buscema for more info. 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

CC of posting at User talk:Rlevse

John Buscema

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)

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)

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

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

Uncited award

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)

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)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision/Expansion

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

List of Expanded passages

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).

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

60s

3 - Following an offer from Stan Lee which allowed him to cut down on his extensive commuting time, 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 and 115.

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,) Tony DeZuniga became Buscema' regular inker with #26 producing Conan literary adaptations until his departure with #58 (with Thomas leaving with #60,

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.

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.

90s

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

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- 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. 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. The book gives a good overview of Buscema's wide-ranging passion for art:

13- The documentary Frank Frazetta, Painting with Fire (2003) 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.".

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)

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

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)

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 and 115.

He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978, and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie, 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,) Tony DeZuniga became Buscema' regular inker with #26 producing Conan literary adaptations until his departure with #58 (with Thomas leaving with #60).

... 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, and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie, 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)

  • 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>, </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)

  • 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 ] Life Stories of American Presidents.<ref> at the ]</ref>

Your edited version:

...that company's ] 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)

Outright untruths

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

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/search/?title=Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema#Subsequent editing states:

Skyelarke and Tenebrae may freely edit John Buscema but should respect consensus 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.

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)

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)

Request for comment

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

No references have been falsified

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 . He contributed to issues 30-33 .

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)

References

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

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)

Fantastic Four #416

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)

Conan newspaper strip

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)

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)
Categories:
Talk:John Buscema: Difference between revisions Add topic