Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Buscema

message: OK, how would you two like to do this? Mediation on this page, private Wiki mediation, or private e-mail and/or IRC mediation? Andre (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Andre, and thank you for taking this on. Absent any compelling reason not to, I don't see any reason we couldn't conduct this publicly.  --Tenebrae 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note I am on an enforced wikibreak until Monday, July 23, 6 p.m. EDT, which is just over 24 hours from the time of this posting. --Tenebrae 21:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Alright, I'm going to review the dispute, meanwhile I'd like both of you to explain, in very simple terms, what you want. In the headings below, describe using the word "should" how you would like things to be as they pertain to this dispute. Don't mention each other at all, or any viewpoint other than your own on how you think the material regarding John Buscema should be treated. Don't edit inside the other's heading. This is an exercise that should make things a little clearer to me, and hopefully to you two as well. Andre (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory exercise

message: 1- I feel that, by and large, the version on my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke should be considered an acceptable, policy-compliant Wikipedia article.
2- I feel that the article should be edited in what I consider a normal Wikipedia editing protocol environment - i.e. respecting Wikipedia Etiquette and Civility guidelines (with special emphasis on the citations in the references section on my user page).
--Skyelarke 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skyelarke

message: I'd like to see the currently protected version, essentially that which the RfC consensus supported, with the change Skyelarke requested from using "Ibid." to stating a shorthand title (e.g., "Spurlock, Ibid., p. 27" becomes "Spurlock, Buscema, p. 27")
I believe this version treats John Buscema as an encyclopedia article and not a fan page.
I define this as meaning: It has a limited number of images, each having an historical or other fair-use, non-decorative basis; no personal-favorite checklists; no fannish minutiae such as whether or not the subject enjoyed commuting or not; and, rather than mentioning every minor, non-notable thing the artist ever drew, using supportable examples of historically or artistically notable work. It also has no links to commercial auction sites.
I'd like to see less reliance on hagiographic authorized books for critical opinion, but not challenging that aspect of Skyelarke's version was my attempt at compromise. Thank you for asking.--Tenebrae 00:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tenebrae

message: Actually the first one you mention was done in the 40's and is in the early career section. Moreover, the text mentions work mainly in three genres: western, crime and romance. As a solution I threw in a western in the early career section (and cleaned up a bit by putting the other images in their respective decades, closer to their text reference.) which gives representation for all three genres. So that would make one crime, one western, and one romance, two being in the forties, so that would make 2 images for the 40's and 2 for the 50's.
PS - I noticed there may be some doubt as to who drew the Tex Morgan #5 cover, so I replaced it with 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2gunwestern5.jpg
--Skyelarke 00:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Western cover - early career section

message: OK, thanks Andre - for the next image - In re-reading the 50's section, I now feel that having an image of his work on the Roy Rogers title is important - so I'd like to include this one in the discussion -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Roy_rogerscomic.jpg
for the following reasons :
1- It's his only significant long-running series with a single character in his early career - a nearly 3-year, 30-issue run. (I have a few referenced cites available, as well.)
2- Roy Rogers is a well-known mainstream popular culture figure of that era, and I feel that featuring this type of cross-over media adaptation work, helps make the article more accessible to a general audience. (I think Tenebrae originally raised this point; I feel that this aspect could still be improved upon.)
3- It fits OK.
--Skyelarke 01:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe we need two images both illustrating Buscema's 1950s work adapting film and TV properties. If Skyelarke believes the Roy Rogers page is more significant because of Buscema's lengthy run on that series, I would agree to go with that instead. I'm not sure that this more primitive work is as good a representation of Buscema's ultimate style as is the Hercules page, but I'm certainly willing to compromise and go with Skyelarke's choice on this. --Tenebrae 01:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and thanks, Andre. Skyelarke and I both appreciate your patience in this lengthy process. Buscema truly is a major figure in this medium. --Tenebrae 01:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we please finish discussing this image before moving on to the next? --Tenebrae 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roy Rogers comic book page -50's section

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blackbusc.jpg
Besides fair use rationale of the image description, other reasons are:
*1- An 8-year period in commercial illustration is important enough period of time to be represented.
*2- adds diversity - gives illustration outside of comic book field (giving a wider, general audience perpsective)
*3- Shows diversity of technique and style (painting)
I have some more referenced cites available for this.
--Skyelarke 13:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my Aug. 13 note above. --Tenebrae 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andre, any preferences, from your experience, in which of these two ways we should proceed? Reach agreement on each image as we go along, or state pros and cons for each of these several images before trying to reach agreement on each? --Tenebrae 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paperback cover in 60s section

message: I'd like to move the Savage Tales cover to the beginning of the 70's section because I can't figure out why it's at the bottom like that. See :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skyelarke/Buscema_draft
--Skyelarke 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask you again, Skyelarke, please show enough common courtesy to stop plowing ahead unilaterally. I want to do it one way, you want to do it another. I showed you enough respect to ask Andre the best way to proceed, in his experience. Let's please wait for an answer. --Tenebrae 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conan magazine cover in 70s section

message: OK; will do. Here's my comment about the second image. This is the third time I've asked Skyelarke to respond. 
I don't believe we need two images both illustrating Buscema's 1950s work adapting film and TV properties. If Skyelarke believes the Roy Rogers page is more significant because of Buscema's lengthy run on that series, I would agree to go with that instead. I'm not sure that this more primitive work is as good a representation of Buscema's ultimate style as is the Hercules page, but I'm certainly willing to compromise and go with Skyelarke's choice on this.
—Tenebrae 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three times I have asked you for an answer and offered a compromise. Refusing to give an answer after three requests suggests that you are not in this participating in this mediation reasonably or in good faith. --Tenebrae 05:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you two like me to ask the MedCom for use of our private wiki? Andre (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine. I agree to do it your way. Private it is. --Tenebrae 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 10 days, and I haven't gotten any response from Skyelarke. --Tenebrae 20:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's mostly my fault, I need to set up the private wiki for our use. It will be done soon, I apologize for the delay. Andre (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. I may be offline for a few days at a time here and there, but I'm not going anywhere!   :-)   — Tenebrae 21:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Or, Skyelarke, we could ask for Wikipedia: Arbitration. Binding resolution. Once done, it's done. --Tenebrae 03:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine. Why don't we give Andre through the weekend (today is Thursday) to give his input. If we haven't heard from him by then, I'm game to seek arbitration.--Tenebrae 14:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: OK by me. --Tenebrae 18:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks.--Tenebrae 17:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I do. Believe it or not, as confluence or coincidence, I've just begun an unrelated arbitration case today (though frankly that one's more like a class-action suit where I'm more or less just the designated plaintiff). I'd like to finish that one before heading into this one. It's been so long now, I don't imagine two weeks more will make a difference. What say you? --Tenebrae 03:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I'll keep you posted. --Tenebrae 04:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving on

message: Let's see if we can keep track of what we've agreed on here with the fair use images. Update these headings as appropriate. Andre (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping track

message: You guys seem to be doing fine, a bit slow but that's alright. Just letting you know that I'll be away for a few days, so don't be alarmed if I don't respond. Andre (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brief absence