Talk:Pat Lee (comics)

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 04:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: So, just to check: are both of you happy with the article now? Do you still want a mediator? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Waiting for response from Bloodpack.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no prob †Bloodpack† 14:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great! I'm glad you both seem to be happy. Also, please consider letting me know if this mediation was a positive or negative experience for you at a feedback page I recently created. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concluded? 

message: It appears that someone keeps insisting on removing the vastly sourced section about the controversies surrounding Mr. Lee and his well-known (and sourced) past business practices entirely, and replacing them by very shallow, overtly positive resume details.--87.164.127.133 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably Pat Lee himself, somebody that works for him, or a really sad fanboy of his. Lately they've been posting news about his recent activities on TF boards, after all. - FFN  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.143.250 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the IP address used by the latest vandal, which is located in Hong Hong (where Pat Lee is hiding out), it seems very apparent this is the "Transman" himself editing his article. --Hiryu84 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could also be one of his Hong Kong-based fanboys. - FFN --144.138.143.84 (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's someone he's not paying to do this.--87.164.88.215 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but the article was purely POV. While controversies regarding the person of Pat Lee and his business practices do belong in the article, details such as "he bought a new apartment and a new Porsche" can't be simply stated as facts, especially when thwe single source of information is a biased gossip column. I changed the article accordingly, making sure that all sides of the debate are represented properly.--132.252.176.18 (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone can find more direct statements by former Dreamwave employees or freelancers that directly address the issue of Pat Lee's business practices, those can be cited in the article as long as they're credited to the person making those claims, and not stated as fact. If we have ten people saying "Pat Lee really ripped me off" complete with sources for those statements, that's a lot sharper than generalized, unsourced statements along the lines of "Pat Lee ripped of a few people and drove off in a shiny Porsche". Unsourced claims can be questioned, direct quotes speak for themselves (they can be questioned too, but the fact that those quotes actually exist can't).--87.164.104.135 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaand now someone thinks the "controversies" section doesn't belong in the article at all as per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:MOS. This is beyond ridiculous. (what's even more ridiculous is that people enforcing those edits never seem to see the need to justify them on ther talk page, which I consider an extremely rude holier-than-thou attitude)--132.252.185.42 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it gotten to the point where perhaps these edit wars are notable enough to be included in the article? 142.167.171.151 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pat Lee Seems like this is the place to discuss the article now...--87.164.68.46 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's happened again... ARGH.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Wait, so you're even questioning the sources provided for the date of Dreamwave's launch and their separation from Image, because there is no "secondary" source reporting those? In that case, this article has no place on Wikipedia at all, since no scientific publications have seen fit to address the person of Pat Lee thus far.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  If the mountain of documents addressing the mountain of controversy surrounding this person is completely (and mightily conveniently) dismissible, then clearly there is nothing substantial to say about him at all.  So let's delete the page.  Clearly the only people who care about Pat Lee are the "fan-sites" whose contributions are apparently irrelevant.  --ItsWalky! (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't WP:WEASEL meant to avoid generalized "it is claimed...", rather than sourced "Person Y claimed...[Footnote]"? According to WP:WEASEL, "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion" So, if the source is named, how can it be a weasel word anymore? Also, if the lawsuit is against Dreamwave, obviously the company's "President and CEO" is not responsible for the actions of his company at all. I guess Dreamwave came to life on its own and screwed over its employees as well as Pat himself.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true right here. We have not used any weasel words. Everything is sourced, we have not pulled any attacks, only stated the facts. Any facts that are simply rumored (ie LITG columns) are explicitly noted as being rumors in the article. You just don't want to see anything bad said about your precious Funana. I will be at Transformerscon this June. I will bring my camera and try to see if Matt Moylan and Alex Milne will be willing to talk about Dreamwave and Pat Lee in front of it. We'll see what you have to say about video evidence. --74.57.3.251 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't put rumours in a Wikipedia article period, whether you say they are rumours up front or not.  We simply don't use them.  As for your video evidence, it would still be unusable as original research.  The whole article breaches WP:NPOV.  I'm sorry, but that policy is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.  Hiding T  18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this is getting ridiculous. A video posted on Wikipedia is original research. A video posted on an external site is not. Unless your definition of "original research" is "anything that puts Pat Lee in a negative light".--87.164.86.216 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Original Research and it isn't a reliable source, because there's no editorial oversight. It won't be valid or usable. We can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you like? I've just chased through my Comics Journals and I have a snippet on the Fed Ex business and unpaid freelancers, but I still feel that all belongs in the Dreamwave article. Hiding T  19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is an interview with Alex Milne where he directly addressed the issue of ghosting for Pat Lee and not getting credited. I guess there's some reason why this is unsuitable too?--87.164.86.216 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, basically the view is that it is unreliable, because it is a primary source, and policy on primary source is as follows: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. So you've got to weigh it all up.  Is that website a reliable source, by which we mean, 'credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made So we've got to look at the website, and ask; have they done their fact checking?  Have they put the claim to Pat Lee?  To others involved?  Have they discovered if it is substantiated? Have they followed basic journalistic principles? Given policy at WP:BLP is to err against inclusion of poorly sourced material, it is likely it will be judged unreliable.  We can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you want.  Or give me time to chase through my comics journals.  They don't seem to have covered Dreamwave in great detail though. Hiding T  19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I actually tried to bring up all the issues with Pat Lee on his AliveNotDead site only to find my post deleted within an hour of posting. Make of that what you will. --74.57.3.251 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I clearly understand. Perhaps, youll do the honor of introducing this article to the proper forum? †Bloodpack† 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed it at WP:BLPN, WP:ANI and added to your request for protection.  If you want to make a request for mediation, go ahead.  As I've explained above, this article breaches WP:BLP.  Do you agree with that, or not?  Hiding T  23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, yes I agree with that =] *sigh* Ill just leave it up to you guys. Im too lazy to get myself so involved (editing, proofreading) to something Im not having any income/pay †Bloodpack† 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So basically your entire reasoning could be summed up as "internet sources are not reliable, only  print sources count"?--87.164.86.216 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It depends on the web source.  Publisher's Weekly is good.  You need evidence of editorial oversight. What internet sources do you have in mind? Hiding T  20:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So theoretically, according to your logic, anything said by Hasbro at BotCon in front of several hundred witnesses would not suitable as evidence in a Wikipedia article when the only sources reporting on the Hasbro panel are three fan sites, because mainstream media have no interest in things said by official parties at an officially licensed fan convention? For that matter, content from Hasbro's public website would be no suitable source either, because there is no secondary source reporting on the Hasbro website content. Is that correct?--87.164.86.216 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *Do you have a specific in mind, or are you just tossing out generalisations?  It depends on what it is sourcing.  Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  Hiding T  22:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaaand I just noticed that Pat lee Productions, Pat's own website, is listed as a source, even though I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight there. Plus, it's a primary source. Zing.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Hiding isn't saying ALL internet sources are out - we kicked this issue around a while back on the Comic Project talk page. Online gossip columns are out (even if Rich Johnston is right more often than he is wrong, he still maintains a traffic light system by which he grades how likely the rumours are - so even he knows not everything can be trusted) and while other guidelines have exceptions where it comes to online sources (you can use an artists blog posing on what style he was aiming at or what his ideas where for a character design, for example) once there is a whiff of controversy they are out. If we are going to claim someone is engaged in illegal activities then we are going to need some rock solid sources and if there aren't any then it raises the question on the notability of the topic. He is notable for his comic work, which we can clearly source, and it should be given the proper weight in the article. (Emperor (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the latest LitG: "Apparently this column is not a good source - which is fair enough. So, anyone care to put a few more reliable sources online?" I am surprised there are so few good sources - you'd think a local paper would be interested at least. Hopefully his request for reliable sources will turn up something we can use. I'll keep an eye out and see what comes of it. (Emperor (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war? 

message: I don't mind discussing it here.  Let's start from the top:
*We don't do personal attacks.
*We use reliable sources.  Rich Johnston's gossip column is not, and never has been a reliable source.  I'm sorry if that seems unfair, but we don't use gossip columns as sources. 
*The quote regarding Pat Lee stating he learned an invaluable skill: speed.  What's that about?  Why's that in the article?  Why that quote out of all possible quotes available? And why presented in that way?
*Now you've got a quote about someone saying someone else made him draw some way but he refused. Is that related to Pat Lee or to Dreamwave?  To me, that's related to Dreamwave, especially given there's a source who states it was Dreamwave house style. Sticking it in this article gives the illusion that it somehow came from Pat Lee when there is no direct source which states that is in fact an actual fact. Unless there is a reliable, secondary source which states unequivocally that Pat Lee made artists draw like him, you don't get to state it through insinuation.  That's not how Wikipedia works.  Sorry.
*Now you've got a bit about Adam Patyk and James McDonough and a lawsuit and a lot of weasel words like supposedly and allegedly and so on and so forth.  Again, we don't do weasel words. Now, is this lawsuit against Pat Lee or against Dreamwave? Because that matters.  Where was the lawsuit heard? Was it heard?  What do we actually know? Not a lot.
*Next up you've got a bit about people who aren't so explicit on the issue, which is a very leading statement, breaching pov because you're taking sides on the issue by saying those that are explicit are the ones telling the whole of the issue.
*Next up you're saying Pat Lee has not addressed these issues.  Why's that here.  What are you trying to say?  The problem you have here is that you have a whole lot of nothing.  A company went bust owing people money. Happens every day.  Was this Enron, and there's government investigations and a lot of reporting and a vast amount of secondary sources we can summarise per WP:PSTS, WP:V and WP:NOR to maintain a WP:NPOV?  Or is this a whole lot of he said, she said, she didn't say? Are we synthesising a lot of primary source material to make a case that no reliable secondary source has made? If you want to rely on gossip sites and fan sites for your sourcing, that's fine.  But our policies don't allow it.  If the main point you wish to add to the article is that the company went bankrupt and a lot of creators were owed money, fair enough.  But Wikipedia articles aren't hatchet jobs, they aren't places to air personal grievances and they aren't built on primary sources.  Hiding T  09:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, so you're even questioning the sources provided for the date of Dreamwave's launch and their separation from Image, because there is no "secondary" source reporting those? In that case, this article has no place on Wikipedia at all, since no scientific publications have seen fit to address the person of Pat Lee thus far.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  If the mountain of documents addressing the mountain of controversy surrounding this person is completely (and mightily conveniently) dismissible, then clearly there is nothing substantial to say about him at all.  So let's delete the page.  Clearly the only people who care about Pat Lee are the "fan-sites" whose contributions are apparently irrelevant.  --ItsWalky! (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't WP:WEASEL meant to avoid generalized "it is claimed...", rather than sourced "Person Y claimed...[Footnote]"? According to WP:WEASEL, "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion" So, if the source is named, how can it be a weasel word anymore? Also, if the lawsuit is against Dreamwave, obviously the company's "President and CEO" is not responsible for the actions of his company at all. I guess Dreamwave came to life on its own and screwed over its employees as well as Pat himself.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true right here. We have not used any weasel words. Everything is sourced, we have not pulled any attacks, only stated the facts. Any facts that are simply rumored (ie LITG columns) are explicitly noted as being rumors in the article. You just don't want to see anything bad said about your precious Funana. I will be at Transformerscon this June. I will bring my camera and try to see if Matt Moylan and Alex Milne will be willing to talk about Dreamwave and Pat Lee in front of it. We'll see what you have to say about video evidence. --74.57.3.251 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't put rumours in a Wikipedia article period, whether you say they are rumours up front or not.  We simply don't use them.  As for your video evidence, it would still be unusable as original research.  The whole article breaches WP:NPOV.  I'm sorry, but that policy is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.  Hiding T  18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this is getting ridiculous. A video posted on Wikipedia is original research. A video posted on an external site is not. Unless your definition of "original research" is "anything that puts Pat Lee in a negative light".--87.164.86.216 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Original Research and it isn't a reliable source, because there's no editorial oversight. It won't be valid or usable. We can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you like? I've just chased through my Comics Journals and I have a snippet on the Fed Ex business and unpaid freelancers, but I still feel that all belongs in the Dreamwave article. Hiding T  19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Here is an interview with Alex Milne where he directly addressed the issue of ghosting for Pat Lee and not getting credited. I guess there's some reason why this is unsuitable too?--87.164.86.216 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, basically the view is that it is unreliable, because it is a primary source, and policy on primary source is as follows: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. So you've got to weigh it all up.  Is that website a reliable source, by which we mean, 'credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made So we've got to look at the website, and ask; have they done their fact checking?  Have they put the claim to Pat Lee?  To others involved?  Have they discovered if it is substantiated? Have they followed basic journalistic principles? Given policy at WP:BLP is to err against inclusion of poorly sourced material, it is likely it will be judged unreliable.  We can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you want.  Or give me time to chase through my comics journals.  They don't seem to have covered Dreamwave in great detail though. Hiding T  19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I actually tried to bring up all the issues with Pat Lee on his AliveNotDead site only to find my post deleted within an hour of posting. Make of that what you will. --74.57.3.251 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I clearly understand. Perhaps, youll do the honor of introducing this article to the proper forum? †Bloodpack† 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed it at WP:BLPN, WP:ANI and added to your request for protection.  If you want to make a request for mediation, go ahead.  As I've explained above, this article breaches WP:BLP.  Do you agree with that, or not?  Hiding T  23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, yes I agree with that =] *sigh* Ill just leave it up to you guys. Im too lazy to get myself so involved (editing, proofreading) to something Im not having any income/pay †Bloodpack† 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up

message: Let's just read through WP:BLP and see what we all think, yes.  Here's a good section:
So let us ask ourselves what our sources are, and what we're doing with them.  Are we repeating gossip? Do we have bloody good sources or self-published websites, zines and the like? Rich Johnston is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, so any material sourced their is out, period. Now what else have we got here?  For me, it is mostly gossip.  I've got a TCJ source on the FED EX business that between discussing this I will add to the article on Dreamwave, but it doesn't belong here. Hiding T  19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically your entire reasoning could be summed up as "internet sources are not reliable, only  print sources count"?--87.164.86.216 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It depends on the web source.  Publisher's Weekly is good.  You need evidence of editorial oversight. What internet sources do you have in mind? Hiding T  20:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So theoretically, according to your logic, anything said by Hasbro at BotCon in front of several hundred witnesses would not suitable as evidence in a Wikipedia article when the only sources reporting on the Hasbro panel are three fan sites, because mainstream media have no interest in things said by official parties at an officially licensed fan convention? For that matter, content from Hasbro's public website would be no suitable source either, because there is no secondary source reporting on the Hasbro website content. Is that correct?--87.164.86.216 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *Do you have a specific in mind, or are you just tossing out generalisations?  It depends on what it is sourcing.  Exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  Hiding T  22:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaaand I just noticed that Pat lee Productions, Pat's own website, is listed as a source, even though I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight there. Plus, it's a primary source. Zing.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Hiding isn't saying ALL internet sources are out - we kicked this issue around a while back on the Comic Project talk page. Online gossip columns are out (even if Rich Johnston is right more often than he is wrong, he still maintains a traffic light system by which he grades how likely the rumours are - so even he knows not everything can be trusted) and while other guidelines have exceptions where it comes to online sources (you can use an artists blog posing on what style he was aiming at or what his ideas where for a character design, for example) once there is a whiff of controversy they are out. If we are going to claim someone is engaged in illegal activities then we are going to need some rock solid sources and if there aren't any then it raises the question on the notability of the topic. He is notable for his comic work, which we can clearly source, and it should be given the proper weight in the article. (Emperor (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the latest LitG: "Apparently this column is not a good source - which is fair enough. So, anyone care to put a few more reliable sources online?" I am surprised there are so few good sources - you'd think a local paper would be interested at least. Hopefully his request for reliable sources will turn up something we can use. I'll keep an eye out and see what comes of it. (Emperor (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant policy

message: Why does "born" keep getting added back into the intro? Does this person hold dual citizenship or something?? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hes born in Canada, but obviously, he looks Asian because hes of Asian descent. Thats whats stated in his Wizard interview and its cited †Bloodpack† 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And George W. Bush is born in the USA, yet looks "European". So? Is the Canadian "standard" Caucasian?--87.164.110.51 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am reverting per WP:MOSBIO. Not sure what "looks" have to do with anything. --68.9.116.76 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality in lead

message: And now the article is just claiming total and utter BS. While extremely popular and profitable for his company, Lee's work on "Transformers" drew much criticism due to accusations that the title was actually drawn by artists recruited by Lee for work at Dreamwave Productions. That is not true at all. Pat Lee is credited for drawing Transformers: Generation 1 (vol. 1; aka "Prime Directive"), Transformers: Generation 1 vol. 2: War and Peace, two issues of Transformers: Armada and one story from the Dreamwave Transformers Summer Special. Edwin Garcia is credited as a background artist for the Generation 1 limited series. To my knowledge, none of those credits have ever been disputed, and all the other Transformers stories and titles that were drawn by other artists are credited correctly. The only Pat Lee credits that are contested are issues of Cyberforce by Top Cow and an issue of Superman/Batman for DC. In both instances, Alex Milne claims being the original artist, and Rich Johnston has posted original pencil artwork from those issues.--87.164.114.188 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay, WTF?

message: All info from the beginning of lead intro (including his real name, DOB, birthplace) down to his quotes were directly taken from his Wizard interview. Please dont remove. Thanks †Bloodpack† 05:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-installing his quotations 

message: Everyone editing this article should first read the BLP policy, and note in particular that unsourced controversial content about living people is not permitted. I understand that the subject of this article is somewhat controversial - in the realm of online fandom, at least - but no criticism can be added to this article unless references to reliable sources can be provided. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it's important we get it right - unlike pretty much all our other policies, failing to observe WP:BLP can cause harm to people in the real world. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remember [[WP:BLP]] 

message: It's Rich Johnston again. Interviewing Pat Lee.--93.130.179.178 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends exactly what claim you're using it to support, but in general, yes it would be. This article would still have to comply with Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view, however - it can't read like an attack piece. Robofish (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, anything along the lines of "Lee was directly confronted with specific accusations in an interview he himself sought out to give, then either gave vague answers, or dodged answering them altogether and instead returned to a previous question" would be NPOV, right? Lee is given an opportunity to counter the claims, yet he completely dodges a lot of them. The interview is not evidence that the accusations are "true". It is, however, evidence that Lee is a) aware of the accusations, b) considers them important enough to give an interview to someone he knows will bring them up, and c) did not take the opportunity to counter them.--217.187.31.151 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Okay wait, looking through the history, someone removed the source for a controversial statement, and then subsequently the statement was removed for alleged lack of sources. Is that how it's done these days?--217.187.52.45 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, is THIS a reputable source? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pat Lee (comics). 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/20140714151701/http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA496791.html?q=Dreamwave to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA496791.html?q=Dreamwave
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 06:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I split the following paragraph at the sentence beginning with "[o]ther allegations" (links not included and citation removed):
"In December 2010, Pat Lee gave Johnston an interview, in which Johnston reiterated all of the above claims. While Lee admitted that 'many artists had delays in payment' even before the bankruptcy and 'regret[s] not being able to speak to everyone' beforehand, he also claimed that 'most creators at Dreamwave were aware that we were going through financial difficulties. We didn’t announce it, but people were not being paid in full, and it was pretty obvious.' He also claimed that 'I barely paid myself at Dreamwave, and didn’t pay myself for extended periods so that the company could pay other bills." Regarding the Porsche, Lee claimed that it "was leased by Dreamwave and I was personally responsible for the vehicle at the end', whereas the apartment was a 'small apartment in Toronto that I paid a mortgage on'. Regarding Alex Milne's work as a ghost artist on Cyberforce, Lee claimed that he 'forgot to adjust the credits at the end of the job', which was 'definitely my error', and offered Milne to 'provide me the appropriate documentation and evidence' that 'Dream Engine owed him money'. He also claimed that 'I don’t recall firing Alex', and that he 'expressed to him via email in May 2007 that I understood he was paid in full'. Other allegations brought up by Johnston in the interview, namely that Top Cow had told him [Johnston] that Lee had specifically assured them that he was doing all the work on Cyberforce himself, and that Marvel had told him [Johnston] that they were 'asked to stop paying money to Dreamwave [for outsourced projects such as the X-Men/Fantastic Four limited series] but send it to Dream Engine instead', were not addressed by Lee at all. Lee also did not respond to the specific request to offer evidence to counter the claim that he was trying to "siphon money from big gigs away from Dreamwave to Dream Engine in the months before the bankruptcy'. However, Lee announced plans to set up a 'Creative Refund Movement' with the specific intention to "raise funds to pay former Dreamwave artists who were financially affected by the bankruptcy'. As of 2015, no Dreamwave employees have received any monetary compensation for their work at the company through the 'Creative Refund Movement'."
Could anyone please tell me if this was a good edit?--Thylacine24 (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split paragraph