Talk:Count Dante

message: Hey, does anyone have a copy (jpg or whatever) of that comic book ad that used to be up here?  I'd like to get a copy for my desktop for the sake of history and awesomeness.  JN322 02:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous delivers --213.155.211.100 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly does.  Thanks much! JN322 07:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have an independent reliable source for this assertion?Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in Cooley's book "When Corruption Was King".  Cooley's testimony was responsible for putting multiple gangsters in jail.  If multiple juries saw him as reliable, then I think Wikipedia can too.  --71.131.14.17 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  Juries can potentially be stupid.  IS there an independent claim for this statement?  If answer is no than the most Wikipedia can do is report Cooley's claim - attributed and cited. And if his claim appears to be a fringe belief it still may violate WP:DUE to include that much.Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Monty Python's Llap-Goch seems to be a direct parody of Count Dante's ads. GregorB (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Llap-Goch 

message: I don't know anything about this subject nor the reliability of the source but I came across this while browsing and thought it interesting as it relates to this article. One thing I did find pretty hilarious though was the writer claiming that the internet and Wikipedia are "message boards", lol! -- œ™ 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Black Dragon website 

message: Ben Joravsky and Tom Heintjes did not write the Chicago Reader and Hogan's Alley articles. I did. Please update. Thanks! Dan Kelly  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdankelly1 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You do have the byline on the Chicago Reader article - not on Hogan's Alley. As such I've put your name for one and not the other. If Hogan's Alley is miscrediting an article you wrote to somebody else I'd suggest taking it up with them. Simonm223 (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted those changes because, at the time, both citations certainly did give author credit to Ben Joravsky and Tom Heintjes. I checked and saw the names myself, but now they don't.... Mr. Kelly, can you explain how the bylines have changed? SteveStrummer (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you scroll down to the bottom of the Heintjes bylined article it has Mr. Kelly's bio. I'm suspecting there's something going on here that we're not privy to. An explanation would be a good thing. Simonm223 (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange circumstances! Yes, I am cited as the writer in the opening paragraph and at the bottom of the Hogan's Alley piece. I suspect Tom is being shown as the person who posted, not the writer. Nothing suspect: Tom has credited and reimbursed me for the piece. As for Ben being listed as the writer on the other one, the Reader site has been glitchy that way in the past. Ben J. covers local politics, not martial arts. At least as far as I know. :-) Mrdankelly1 (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is all ok, and I'll go make the author change to the Hogan's Alley reference, unless Simonm223 has any concerns-? SteveStrummer (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the attribution change, sorry for the delay. Thanks for your patience, and for writing those fun and interesting articles! SteveStrummer (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations