Talk:Cerebus the Aardvark

message: Wow, I owned #1, but I had to sell it several years back when I grew desparate for money.  Never got what I thought it was worth.  RickK 00:36, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cerebus #1 

message: I pulled some misogyny comments out of the plot summaries since they're commentary, not summaries of the plots.  I tried to move the commentary (since it's widely believed) to other appropriate places.
I'd like to keep the summaries are brief and to the point as possible.  Commentary (or more accurately, reporting on commentary) belong elsewhere, either in other sections on the page, or in sub-pages (probably on a per-book basis).  
Similarlly, I'm not happy with the comments "Enjoyed by a number of fans as a return to the "earlier, funnier" Cerebus." in the summary of Guys.  However, it might be a valid statement and might belong somewhere, just not in the summary. 
Another option would be to massively expand the Plot Summaries section and have  both a "Summary" entry for each book and a "Critical Reception".  Or something.  If we did that, we could integrate the ISBNs and issue numbers from the "Cerebus Collection" section.  I'm not real fond of this, I like the terseness of the summaries, nice and to the point for people who need it, and easy to skip for people who already know.
Alan De Smet 19:48, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep Plot Summary brief and factual 

message: Added a summary of Flight while flipping through my own copy to refresh my memory.  I now understand why no one else had summarized.  By all that is good, it's a boring freaking book...  *sigh*  Anyway, Women is next. Alan De Smet 02:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight summary added 

message: I took out "and perhaps the longest published work of fiction in the English language." I'm sorry, but the only person who's made that claim is Sim himself, and it's just obviously false. (Sim actually calls it the longest in human history, which is even more obviously false.) Just off the top of my head, Anthony Powell's "A Dance to the Music of Time" is more than 8,000 pages long. Of course, comparing page counts for prose and comics is kind of absurd, but without making that kind of comparison the 'longest ever' claim is meaningless. 
Cerebus is a remarkable work in many ways, but that doesn't justify taking the author's braggadoccio at face value. 64.121.199.5
:It's not even the longest work in comics. I think Lone Wolf and Cub runs over 9,000 pages---though less happens on each, since the format is much smaller. Other long prose works could include the Aubrey-Maturin series, which, if each book is 400 pages (an estimate based on a single sample point), makes 8,000 pages of prose. The mentally ill have written longer works; Henry Darger wrote an epic of 15,000 pages; Adolf Wölfli, 25,000. Still, Sim has, I think, created the longest single, cohesive work of comics in the English language written and illustrated by the same team, and certainly one of the most literate works in comics. Nothing to be sneezed at. (Oh, and you can sign your comments with ~~~~; I did it for you above.) grendel|khan 14:46, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
I deleted the recently added "with the intention of an epic tale ending with the death of the title character" from the opening paragraph. Sim did NOT begin with the intention of doing 300 issues. He didn't really have a long-term plan, although he has said that the possibility of doing something long-term was in the back of his mind. He has said that he didn't expect to be successful, but he knew he could do three issues and that would make a good "resume." His original announcement that he would do Cerebus for 26 years was made in 1979 after almost 2 full years of doing the comic bi-monthly, and even then he spoke of 152 issues. It wasn't until he went monthly in 1980 he settled on the 300 number. Steve Bolhafner 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted something ... 

message: "*The titles of books 8 through 11 could be read as a sentence (i.e., "women read minds, guys" - the concept of women reading minds is a key plot point)."
Is this an inaccurate summary of Sim's intentions with his titles?
Proteus71 15:24, November 1, 2005
Without a factual reference that says it was Sim's intention, it's just speculation.  Wikipedia isn't a place for people to present their clever insights. Tverbeek 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not going to just do it, but I think we should consider putting this back in -- Sim's intention is really beside the point. Both of the facts in the removed sentence are absolutely true: books 8 through 11 are titled "Women Reads Minds Guys" and the concept of women reading minds *is* a key plot point, particularly in those books (the "real" Cirin, whose identity we don't yet know, reveals this to Cerebus in "Women" and the Norman Mailer character brings it up again in "Guys"). Whether Sim did it by a process of conscious deliberation or unconscious artistic choice or (if you must) it's a bizarre coincidence, it really is still relevant to a discussion of the work. Steve Bolhafner 22:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was intentional, it's relevant.  If it was subconscious, that may be relevant but it's unverifiable.  If it's just a coincidence (and no, I don't find it all that "bizarre"), it's no more relevant than any other random happenstance that someone tries to staple some kind of meaning to.  Include it if it's relevant and verifiable. Tverbeek 03:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Feature magazine winter 1997 interview with Dave Sim, Dave is quoted "Okay, it's now a day later and I'm compelled to confess an even larger example of adopting unbecoming tactics: to wit, The Flat Assertion Pregnant With Poisonous Implication. . .My reply was "Women Read Minds" which I choose to make a centerpiece of Mothers & Daughters..." (p. 19) Margaret 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which confirms that "women read minds" was a key plot point, but doesn't establish that this is why he titled those three or four books the way he did. Tverbeek 11:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're reaching. "I choose to make a centerpiece" -- I again assert that this makes the titles relevant even if they were UNCONSCIOUS on Sim's part. Surely you're not still maintaining that this might be a "coincidence." Three of the four titles that make up "Mothers and Daughters" comprise a phrase that Sim "chose to make a centerpiece" of that very novel (it's four books, but it's one novel). That is not a coincidence. Even unconscious and "accidental" moves by an artist that fit so perfectly with his expressed conscious intention must be considered relevant. Personally, I think it's absurd to continue to maintain that the absence of Dave Sim actually stating "Yes, I meant for the reader to look on his bookshelf and see that phrase" means that the above quote doesn't mean that that's exactly what he did. It certainly sounds to me like that's what he's talking about. But you have staked out a position, and refuse to budge. I actually believe he has said it that baldly somewhere, but I haven't found it yet.Steve Bolhafner 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I assert"?  "It sounds to me"?  Well there's your problem right there.  Wikipedia is not a place for you to assert your opinions or impressions.  The only "position" I've taken here is that Wikipedia content must be verifiable and factual.  Which happens to be an official policy.  If there's a source out there which states that Sim did this intentionally, or an independent analysis that argues that it's a meaningful, then put that fact in, with the appropriate reference (e.g. "Sim says..." or "noted Cerebus scholar So-And-So argues that...")  But if the sole argument for including this clever bit of fan insight is the self-evident obviousness of it... then it doesn't need to be stated, does it? Tverbeek 02:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Why discuss it ourselves when we can ask the man that knows? When I sent the Cerebus notebooks back to Dave, I asked him in a letter: "The titles to phonebooks 8 to 11 can be read together “Women Reads Minds Guys”. Was this done on purpose to emphasize your “The Flat Assertion Pregnant With Poisonous Implication” that was one of the center pieces of Mothers & Daughters or a “happy accident” (for lack of a better term)." His response: " "Women Reads Minds, Guys" was indeed the Flat Assertion Pregnant With Poisonous Implication that you suspected. A kind of billboard in the middle of the mammoth project hiding in plain sight. I'm surprised more people haven't caught that one."  Margaret 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was this removed?

message: There was a note to the effect that Beanhead was borrowed by Bob Burden from Cerebus.  Beanhead originates with Burden, although "Limbo" did appear in Cerebus magazines as a back-up feature.  Added a note about the appearance of the Carrot in #108.
24.33.28.52 12:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beanhead

message: While Cerebus is the longest running series by a single creative team, Larson's Savage Dragon is not #2.  Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo has been running non-stop since 1987.  Though it's switched publishers (and therefore reset numbering) twice, there were no substantial gaps in publication and distribution.  By the end of 2007 there have been 166 issues published to date (38 by Fantagraphics, 16 by Mirage and 108 by Dark Horse - along with four separate issue colour specials), and the comic continues to be published 10 times per year.
:There are several Japanese comics from one author that are longer: Mitsuteru Yokoyama's "Three Kingdoms" which is 47 volumes long. Takao Saito's "Golgo-13" which is around 140 volumes long, also "This Is the Police Station in Front of Kameari Park in Katsushika Ward" is 130 volumes long. Let's just say the longest running English comic and leave it at that. - Cooper Holmes
::Lone Wolf & Cub is over 8700 pages long and by a single team. And it is available in English. --Lalli 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think manga usually is done with several (more or less) anonymous assistans, though... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 22:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest running series by single creative team? 

message: I added a link to this massive online essay about Cerebus to the reviews section. I'm not sure what criteria is being used for adding links here, but I happen to know this work took about 18 months for the writer to put together (no it wasn't me) and it is equivalent of about 200 printed pages, covering every one of the major storylines with some interesting points of view. 23skidoo 13:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Little Aardvark Who Could...

message: The article says that, as of 2005, Cerebus leads Erik Larsen's "The Savage Dragon" by 170 issues. Well, it's 2007--anybody know what the deal with Savage Dragon is? If it's still running, somebody ought to update the claim. Buck Mulligan 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erik Larsen's "The Savage Dragon" 

message: After a request, I have decided to say why I put that tag up. Mainly it's because I think that the format of the article could do with vast improvement, particularly after the introductory sections. --MacRusgail 19:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What changes do you have in mind?  Right now, the biggest change I see that needs to be made is that a lot of the material in the History section that pertains specifically to Sim should be stricken in favor of the material in Cerebus that reflects his beliefs and politics.  Other than that, I'm not sure what else could be done. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidy up 

message: I came across this page and realized that the style of this character is the same style of the hidden aardvark character in quest for glory 3 named Arne. I'd like to provide a picture for proof but unfortunately google has come up short with QFG3 pictures.
Anyways I thought it might be a good bit of trivia but unfortunately I've got no pictoral or written proof of this, anyone who does should add it to the trivia section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.53.217 (talk) 21:03, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
:Trivia sections are frowned upon by the Wikipedia powers that be. Lots42 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eerie arne resemblance. 

message: How is Cerebus pronounced.  The article claims Sare-uh-buss.  An anonymous editor suggested Ser-uh-bus, which is slightly different.  I could see either option.  (And I can even see "Ker-uh-bus", although it seems unlikely.)  As such, we really need a citation. It's a minor point, but it's important to be as certain of possible about even the most minor points. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we cite a video with Dave Sim pronouncing Cerebus? See this YouTube Video at approximately 2:20 into it. Sounds like Sar-ah-Bus to me, but I can't "translate" that into phonetic "spelling" as well as someone else prolly can. Margaret 20:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nearest phonetic pronunciation scheme that I can come up with is:  SEHR-uh-bus (rhymes with "There, a bus").  I don't know how to write that in the correct phonetic symbols, but the YouTube video is a great source since it's straight from Dave's mouth.  I'm going to go ahead and put the link in the article as a reference. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice find, Margaret! — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouncing Cerebus 

message: S'ym is supposed to be a parody of Cerebus? Really? Are we sure this isn't just a big ol' coincidence? Lots42 (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  S'ym 

message: I have removed the YouTube video per violating WP:EXTERNAL and WP:RELIABLE. However, since these are guidelines and not official policies, community consensus must be reached in order to combat these. And can anyone prove to me that the link isn't violating copyright in the first place? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that this video is uncopyrighted since it was a live interview taken at a comic convention...there are a lot of interview clips of Sim on YouTube at various comic-related events, this is only one of them.  Meowwcat or another user who's more connected to Sim can probably verify for sure whether or not there's any copyright issues with this kind of thing.  Also, since it's Sim himself doing the talking, I don't see where an issue of verifiability could be come in.  As far as being a viable external link, I think this is a case where YouTube can actually be trusted.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does anyone have to prove to you that the link isn't violating copyright?  Is it even possible to prove that a given piece of content isn't infringing copyright?  The video is pretty clearly amateur work; it seems entirely likely to me that "maknbacon" recorded the video and had every right to upload it.  If maknbacon didn't record it, who did?  Absent an competing claim for copyright on the work, it seems inappropriate for us to be labeling it as infringement.  The prohibition on linking to copyright infringement is for situations where you knowingly do so, not just where you have a  suspicion.  I'm not sure why you brought up WP:RELIABLE; if the author himself pronouncing the word isn't reliable, I have no idea what could meet the standard.  Ultimately it's a good citation that backs up a claim.  Removing it makes the article worse, not better.  (A suggestion: you might want to be more specific than just saying something goes against the WP:EXTERNAL guidelines.  There are about six printed pages of guidelines there, and it's not obvious which you think it relevant.  I'm guessing you're referring to the copyright infringment situation.)  — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was referring to copyright infringement. So what have we agreed on? How can you tell the name is pronounced "Sehr-uh-bus" without subtitles? This was one of my main points. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I picked that specific youtube video, it was just the first one that popped up. This youtube video is indeed a fan interview done by the Yahoo!Group, which we can use if anyone is afraid of copyright infringement. Dave says Cerebus at 3 min 58 sec into the interview. As far as no subtitles, how about if I vouch I was there and the word said at that time is indeed "Cerebus"? Margaret (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying. We need a source saying how the pronunciation came to be spelt. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I don't understand what you're asking for. Dave originally made the character for a fanzine logo, the fanzine in question being called "Cerebus" - which we all know is a misspelling of the three headed dog from Hades. The fanzine never got started, so the name was given to the character in the logo. Am I understanding you want us to ask Dave Sim how he came to pronounce Cerebus as he does from the misspelling? Margaret (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the source for the pronounciation spelling of "Sehr-uh-bus"? I didn't see that texted in the YouTube video. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Now I understand. I don't know where that came from. To me it sounds like Sara-bus. Perhaps we can just reword it to say, for pronunciation of the title character's name, see this video of Dave Sim saying it? Margaret (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's much better now than providing a guesstimation. The video never confirmed that anyway but it does feature words coming from the creator himself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So the whole issue has been about the note of how to pronounce his name?  Wow, it would've been a lot easier to just start a topic here asking to reword that instead of throwing around Wiki policy like a pickaxe.  I agree with the proposed change and will make that correction later, unless someone beats me to the punch. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've made the change; feel free to rewrite if it's clunky.  I also didn't give any details about the date or nature of the interview, so if someone wants to put those in the ref, that would probably be good. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a little wierd. Why not follow Margaret's suggestion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about that, but it just didn't sound right ...I actually spent about 10 minutes trying to think of a way to write it that didn't sound clunky or over-explanatory.  That was the best I could come up with for conciseness' sake.  Like I said, if someone's got a better way to do it that a consensus agreeement can be reached on, more power to 'em. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's her idea: "For pronunciation of the title character's name, see this video of Dave Sim saying it". Something like that though. Who can do this? It would take me a while as well. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video links 

message: Rsand21266 added this article to :Category:Fictional rapists.  It was soon removed by Willbyr.  Why remove it.  I don't like the category; I think it adds nothing.  Who really thinks, "Gosh, I really need a list of fictional rapists?"  (The same goes for :Category:Fictional aardvarks.)  But the category should be challenged, not individual entries, assuming they're accurate.  As best I can tell, Cerebus applies.  I'd just re-add it, but admittedly the category rubs me wrong, so I'm more than happy to consider counter arguments. — Alan De Smet | Talk 01:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your initially raised points are more than enough justification for me on the revert.  It's a pointless category that IMO adds nothing of substance to Wikipedia.  However, if the majority say let it be, then it can be replaced.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 11:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I find value in that information. Just like the plot summary, it helps me decide whether I'd like to delve deeper into a given work. But yeah, I guess that particular discussion doesn't belong on this article. Azundris (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It strikes me that of someone wants to see just how pervasive the idea of rape is in society as reflected in "artistic" media, then a list would be not just appropriate, but helpful. FlaviaR (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bigger issue—Q: Is this article about the series entitled Cerebus, or the character named Cerebus?  A: The series.  A series cannot be a rapist.  An article about Cerebus the character would be an appropriate place have the category. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  fictional rapists 

message: Removed the word "finite" as all works of human art are finite by denfinition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.214.240 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear God, don't tell me this is a serious attempt at justification for that edit...I'll admit that "finite ongoing" is a bit of an oxymoron, but until someone thinks of a better way to word it, it should stay. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh yeah, that's real mature.  Switching term to limited series...I knew there had to be a better way to say it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of publication 

message: This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject.  If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class.  The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject.  Comics-awb (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

message: Some of the points that need addressing from the peer review:
:The article needs a separate section detailing the various awards that Cerebus won during its run, partly to beef up the content and partly to justify the claim in the lead.
:Some of the material needs references.  I've adding cite templates to items which need backing from material in the comic or from Sim.
:The characters section needs to be reworked (already took care of this, but other ideas are appreciated)
Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review issues 

message: I've re-added the citation requests Kenhullett removed.  If the facts are so obvious, it should be easy to find a citation.  Kenhullett objected "then every sentence in that paragraph would need a cite, which would be silly". It wouldn't be silly, it would be exceptionally well cited.  Take a tour of Wikipedia:Featured_articles.  They are what we should ideally be striving for, and most of them are almost glutted with citations.  Wikipedia:BURDEN is pretty clear, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."  Someone (I don't actually know who), has challenged these claims.  They get the benefit of the doubt.  Absent evidence that someone was trolling, we must assume that they genuinely doubt the claim.  We now need to back them up. — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been meaning to take care of those citations ever since I put in the templates, I just haven't done it yet.  If I get time tonight, I'll try to take care of them.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-adding "Citation needed" requests. 

message: Regarding the section regarding Sim's LSD use that was deleted...it says on his own Facebook page that he was hospitalized for his LSD use.  Also, there's this Q&A session with Sim and this one too in which he confirms it.  Good enough to put the info back in? -- Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sim's LSD use 

message: So as not to get into an edit war:  Is there some Wikipedia policy against having a large external links section, especially when most of the links are directly related to the content of the comic in one fashion or another?  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the Wikipedia policy on external links and it gives help on what should be linked, suggested links and links to be avoided. Perhaps if we go through the list with that in mind, it would satisfy the recent edits? Margaret (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: Let's start the discussion on the names of the articles here.  Dave referred to the storylines as "novels", but he also referred to the whole of Cerebus as a "novel", which muddies the waters a bit.  I thought "(Cerebus storyline)" was nice and neutral and didn't expect someone to take issue with it.  What would be better?  CüRlyTüRkeyTalkConTribs 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone and slapped "(comics)" on the end of all of them.  Nobody's bothered to respond here, and nobody's bothered to object to what I did all those months ago.  Is that consensus, or is it that nobody cares?  CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article names

message: There's a discussion on which comic-related articles should be listed as "Top Importance" on the importance scale, and I feel this article should not be included. If any user disagrees or wishes to contribute, please do so there. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I might agree, it was important for the self-publishing movement, but less important for the medium as a whole, I'd go for "high importance". How would I go ahead for discussing it? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've downgraded it to "high" based on this conversation as well as the standards listed at the Importance Scale. Opencooper (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Importance? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cerebus the Aardvark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929091339/http://www.comicon.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/42/t/000315/p/1.html to http://www.comicon.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/42/t/000315/p/1.html#000016
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cerebus the Aardvark. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.stanford.edu/~jasonptm/Paper/c_syndrome.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 11:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cerebus the Aardvark. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rawbw.com/~kjh/page3.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708132817/http://cerebusfangirl.com/blog/?p=964 to http://cerebusfangirl.com/blog/?p=964
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608020121/http://herochat.com:80/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0 to http://herochat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002013917/http://www.cereb.us/wiki/index.php?title=Elf to http://www.cereb.us/wiki/index.php?title=Elf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707222037/http://www.beguiling.com/images/regencyelf.html to http://www.beguiling.com/images/regencyelf.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sim has gotten a bit further than just the first two phonebooks by now, see . --79.242.222.61 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Kickstarters 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cerebus the Aardvark. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://herochat.com/forum/index.php?topic=170859.0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229030056/http://www.cereb.us/wiki/index.php?title=Cockroach to http://www.cereb.us/wiki/index.php?title=Cockroach
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Cerebus the Aardvark. 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:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5ssUEgduX?url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080309210540/http://www.collectortimes.com/2005_07/Clubhouse.html to http://www.collectortimes.com/2005_07/Clubhouse.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718091557/http://www.blackvelveteditrice.com/spip.php?article337 to http://www.blackvelveteditrice.com/spip.php?article337
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615124614/http://www.ponentmon.com/comics-castellano/del-oeste/iglesia-y-estado/index.html to http://www.ponentmon.com/comics-castellano/del-oeste/iglesia-y-estado/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615124614/http://www.ponentmon.com/comics-castellano/del-oeste/iglesia-y-estado/index.html to http://www.ponentmon.com/comics-castellano/del-oeste/iglesia-y-estado/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Much of this material has been uncited or tagged for over a decade. Others were supported by self-published sources, including fan sites and crowdsourcing sites like Kickstarter, which are not reliable sources, per WP:SPS. Nightscream (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: In the section Publication History, there is this sentence: "When Sim guest-wrote the 10th issue of Todd McFarlane's comics series Spawn, he donated his entire fee—over $100,000—to the fund.[12]" But which fund is meant? I have a hunch that it might be the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund because of its link with Peter Davis, who is mentioned in the reference, but how to find out for sure?--Geke (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing fund name