Talk:Calvin and Hobbes/Archive 8

message: Is there a reason the Miss Wormwood article is on a userpage User: Alastor Moody/Miss Wormwood instead of having it's own article in the normal Wikispace (or whatever it's call.     
P.S. Please don't bit the newbie. ;) Not An IP 03:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably because Miss Wormwood used to have her oen article, which was merged into Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes. Some users like to save old versions of articles in their userspace. - Mike 16:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh Thanks. Not An IP 14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miss Wormwood article (among others) 

message: In the history section it says that a side character named "Marvin" was the basis for Calvin. Does anybody have any source that it's Marvin? I don't remember Bill Watterson even saying what the character's name was. - Mike 14:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember a Marvin but I tink that's what Calvin named his pretend little brother in a plot to get more presents. adamfc 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that isn't the Marvin mentioned. I'm going to go ahead and remove that since nobody seems to have a source. I've read basically everything Bill Watterson have ever written, and I can assure you that I've never heard him mention a "Marvin". I've heard him mention that Calvin was based on the main character's little brother in another (rejected) strip he did, but he never said what Calvin's name was in that strip. - Mike 13:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to that comment that Calvin pretends to have a brother, this fake brother says that his name is Melville. 216.191.40.149 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marvin? 

message: I removed a few links to some fluff fan sites, and those that displayed copyrighted comic strips. The ones that I left are the ones that provide the best information and expand on the article without violating (majorly, anyway) any copyright. - Mike 03:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Axim, the 'fluff' comment was not aimed at CC&HC :-). Not that I don't like that site at all, I think it's a wonderful site. I just think that it had too many scanned comics to be fair use. But really, I agree with you, I don't think Wikipedia should be poilicing copyright as much as they do, but as the current policy is I'm kinda supposed to do it. Still, being that the Official site hasn't much to offer, I'm inclined to ignore the rule in this case. I know I'll get hammered for that, but hey, what are you gonna do.. - Mike 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, copyright is a perfectly legitimate reason to remove some links.  What the article contains is a small handful of fair use images.  The links that get removed often have way too many scans to be any level of "fair use".  It's like how many articles on music artists have brief clips from songs, but not links to sites where you can download entire albums or discographies.  Wikipedia is not the new bookwarez hub, thank you very much. - Ugliness Man 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that copyright is a legit reason to remove a link, the danger comes in defining where the line is. How do you define 'fair use'? After all, C&H contains 1000s of comic strips. I know of no site that has scanned even 1% of that number or has an entire book scanned. I think the proposal being discussed here is the policy that should be adopted. Axim 02:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Axim, just so you know, that proposed policy change is in part because of this artocle. adamfc 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed some links 

message: In the 10th Anniversary book Bill Watterson states that he intentionally never explains the noodle incident.  Does this contradict the information about Calvin's school project edit that was recently made? Suggesting the boundaries of a school project may detract from his intentions.  In light of Watterson's 10th Anniversary comments, what are your opinions on the recent edit? Mapache 03:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just fan speculation that, while common, probably shouldn't be included since Watterson didn't mention it one way or another. -  Mike | trick or treat  03:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noodle Incident

message: Ok then.. I personally think that the graphic for Susie is completely inconsistant with the other graphics in the section on other characters. I just added one which I felt added to the congruence of the article, and Oscarthecat reverted it immediately.
I see above that Oscar's been voted 'administrator' of this article, whatever that means, so if his word is gospel I just can't be bothered engaging in a war to put a less hideous picture on the page.
But that's very unwikipedian, you fascist!! Patch 08:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi NewMessiah, first of all, welcome to the Calvin page.  I'd spotted that your edit had placed two identical pics of Suzie onto the article, in addition to the existing one (see here).  Couldn't really see the point of such duplications, so I reverted the edit.  Your subsequent edit looks fine though, I certainly won't be reverting that, providing you add license information to the picture (otherwise, it will be automatically removed on October 21st see here)  Hadn't had time to respond to just just yet, busy getting rid of some vandalism here and there, I'm certainly no facist!  Anyway, good luck with your editing of wikipedia, thanks for the contribution to C&H. --Oscarthecat 09:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Oscar is not "administrator" of this article, rather he is a Wikipedia admin. This however does not make is word gospel - his opinions on the article have no more bearing than any other registered user's does. Basically, he just has access to some extra tools. -  Mike | trick or treat  14:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susie Derkins Picture