Merge time[edit]

I have looked around, and the only example I have seen of "other media" appearances being separated into another article is Joker (comics). Keep in mind that particular article has always been loaded with bullets and original research, which contributes to its excessive length. I think its premature for Lex Luthor in other media to exist as a separate article. Johnnyfog 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lex-luthor1.jpg[edit]

Image:Lex-luthor1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LexLuthorSV.jpg[edit]

Image:LexLuthorSV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lexlutsupermanii.JPG[edit]

Image:Lexlutsupermanii.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JohnShea Luthor.JPG[edit]

Image:JohnShea Luthor.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Luthor in Lois & Clark[edit]

There should be an image of a bald Lex Luthor. But the one with hair still stays. It be like a 'before and after' thing. - Mediadimension (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan speculation[edit]

Could someone else please remove the speculation that was added with this edit? I'm nearing the 3RR.--Rockfang (talk) 02:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lexlutsuperman.jpg[edit]

The Lex Luthor character is bald, therefore, he should be be presented as he was supposed to be in the film. Xnacional (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, the Lois & Clark image should be change to a later season image - where Shea whears a blad wig - instead of the current early episode one. That's even though Lex loses his hair during the course of the show. No, the notable presentation of the character for that show is the early, and longer lasting character depiction of "Lex with hair" even if it is at odds with the primary comic book depiction.
For Superman and Superman II Lex is present for the bulk of the films as being vain and wearing a wig, and frankly the notable bits from the movies are the scenes where Hackman isn't wearing a bald wig - and the "'Australia'" frame is a prime example of that.
And please note, in most cases the images used in an IOM article are to illustrate when/how the primary depiction in the film/show/whatever diverges from the source comics. Not the few limited points where such adaptation either "got it right" or "almost got it right". - J Greb (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But I regret that Lexlutsuperman.jpg will be deleted. Xnacional (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Metro[edit]

Simply isn't a reputable publication, Hearfourmewesique. Stop trying to reinsert that information unless you can find a better source. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 18:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't negotiate with sockpuppets[1] ?
Seriously Hearfour, you need to stop editwarring and start bringing things to the talkpage after the first revert. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 14:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not negotiate with sockpuppets? What is there to negotiate? You are adding rumor. Just because someone isn't an established editor and makes an edit you don't agree with, you fly off the handle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.38.168 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an edit war when you're against a myriad reverts by either vandals or suspiciously acting changing IP's. Yes, you do not negotiate (meaning ask their permission on the talk page or elsewhere) with anons who try to corner you by exhaustion (while not initiating any talk page efforts themselves). As for the source, Hillbillyholiday81, I can easily find others, but guess what? So can you, since Wikipedia is (still?) a collaborative effort... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit you were editwarring then? "Vandal" isn't an appropriate term for someone who disagrees with, or reverts an edit you make, especially when your edit isn't a good one in the first place. I reverted you, does that make me a vandal? The accusations of sockpuppetry, bullying and vandalism are not helping. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism if you are removing rumors from Wikipedia, whether you are an established user or an IP. Further, two established editors have removed it. You are the only one wanting that rumor added. You say consensus is what matters but disregard the comments of editors other then yourself. Further, I looked at the Bryan Cranston talk page. You were ok with removing references to the Lex Luthor casting there (even agreeing with another editor that it is rumor and shouldn't be added to his filmography), but NOT ok with removing it here. Further, other editors on that page removed it because it was rumor. Yet, you haven't been adding it back on there for the last few days or fighting as adamantly as you are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.39.209 (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's get some things straight here.
  1. Hillbilly, how on Earth did you conclude that I admit to an edit war after I said the exact opposite? Also, the bullying bit has nothing to do with this thread. I was bullied elsewhere and responded aptly. As for sockpuppetry, why is the IP reverting from a different location every time? When this happens during a dispute, we usually call it sockpuppetry. Why do you keep defending mischievous behavior? Call it what it is. As for the Metro, I'm not even sure how an established WP:RS can become unreliable just because you don't like it. Perhaps you should take this issue with the appropriate noticeboard, but here a reliable source is a reliable source.
  2. IP, are you a block evader? Answer honestly. You keep hopping from IP to IP and reverting on the same article, which is unacceptable. By the way, you're also a liar, and a pretty bad one at that: I didn't agree with removing the report, but with keeping it along with the conflicting reports. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*You state that you aren't editwarring because you believe you're reverting vandalism or dealing with sockpuppets. That is admitting editwarring, and yes, it can be acceptable in the case of actual, obvious vandalism (or reverting banned users or copyright/egregious BLP violation), but it's clearly not acceptable in this case. Furthermore:

Now, are you gonna bark all day little doggy, or are you gonna bite? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 04:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only applicable point for you would be meta:Don't be a dick, but I guess it's too late for you. And what wild accusations are you talking about here? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cranston being cast as Lex Luthor is being disputed by multiple sources. I suggest we strike the line from his filmography and introduce a sentence at the bottom of the career section to the effect of: While Cranston has reportedly been cast as Lex Luthor by the Cosmic Book News website,[1] this has been disputed as rumor by multiple sources.[2][3][etc.] Deadbeef 18:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Fair enough – after looking it up again I have to agree. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC

Further, the edit history. The reference to Bryan Cranston being Lex Luthor was removed the 29th. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bryan_Cranston&diff=next&oldid=570708935. yOu haven't edited on that page sense then. Yet, you keep adding rumor here. Hmm, and I'm the liar? I'm the bad guy? Hillbilly isn't being a dick. He keeps proving you wrong. Donquixote removed it. That's two editors. You're the one who keeps adding it. Further, not floating a block. I didn't even know I was coming on here under a different ip until you said something. I have been having connection problems, which easily change an address. IPs are allowed to make occasional edits but are supposed to become established editors when they keep making edits. I only intended to get involved in this article to remove that rumor. But you keep adding nonsense. Pure rumor. Once this is done I intend never to edit again. You have been nothing but uncivil and rude and holding onto a point, not because you are right, but out of spite. You said wiki is consensus. Well, two established editors have removed your edits. You are the one holding on it. You keep getting rebuffed yet keep fighting the point. Consensus is, it should be removed. Further, you don't add unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.69.162 (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further: from the words of wiki

All mainstream news media can make mistakes. Particularly with breaking news, corrections will need to be made and should be watched out for, and much tabloid journalism will be sensationalist and gossip-driven. Fact checking has reduced generally in the news media over recent years. For more on the trend of churnalism, see Flat Earth News, a book by Nick Davies. Specific examples to treat carefully include: State-associated news organisations in undemocratic countries, such as the Chinese press agency Xinhua, Russia Today, the North Korean Korean Central News Agency, and Press TV in Iran. They may be propaganda organisations. TMZ - has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies (1, 2, 3) The more extreme tabloids such as the National Enquirer should never be used, as most stories in them are intentional hoaxes. In general, any tabloid newspaper, television show, or site, such as The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The Register, and so on, should not be used when a more respected, mainstream source exists.

Metro is a free tabloid newspaper available in parts of the United Kingdom and published by Associated Newspapers Ltd (part of Daily Mail and General Trust).

Tabloids=unreliable. You are using a tabloid. Metro is a tabloid. That is all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.69.162 (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you quoted me agreeing to add a line that reports on both aspects, which has been my point all along. Second, you seem to confuse between tabloid (newspaper format) (which is just a regular newspaper that is formatted in a certain manner, and this is what the Metro is) and tabloid journalism (which is the unreliable rumor factory that you mean). Third, one more IP hop and we'll continue this on SPI. I've been patient enough. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not The Metro is reliable, what they do say is "The Breaking Bad star is said to have signed up to play Superman’s long-time nemesis for a minimum of six films which could extend to ten." The key words are "is said to have", which is just them repeating a rumor. DonQuixote (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rumor mill. They are reporting on a rumor. Most of what they report is rumor. You didn't even research your source before you added it. You threaten, bully, complain, and accuse people of showing bad behavior when that is all you do. You are a terrible editor, as your multiple blocks, threats to other editors, and inability to accept when you are wrong clearly shows. You keep getting proven wrong, yet you keep saying you are right. I'm done with this. You've clearly lost. Yet you'll keep going on. But at least now there are established editors who are proving you wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.83.147 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a shouting competition, your remark "that's at least three people" can be easily countered by the editors on the Cranston page who happen to agree with me. The point is that it may or may not have been a rumor, but it's notable enough for multiple sources to report on – as well as reports that dispute it. This is why the solution that was proposed on Talk:Bryan Cranston was perfect, and if you pay attention, Drmies, you'll notice that your buddy the IP utterly ignored that discussion and just kept reverting while IP hopping. Does that look remotely OK to you? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, as I already explained. Your supposed agreement is, as I argued in my second paragraph at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2.122.107.103, nothing more than pointing at other editors who reverted because the IP didn't explain. That doesn't mean they're agreeing with your untenable position in regard to the content of the edit. And the "solution" you're indicating involves only one editor, not a handful like this one, so calling that a perfect solution that we should all live with is ridiculous. This very thread proves otherwise.

I predict that that the SPI will be closed with no action taken, and that the merit of your argument will not meet with any consensus anywhere: basically, you're saying there was a rumor and it was disproved. Big deal. We're an encyclopedia, remember, not a collection of trivia, like unimportant rumors that were disproved. I'll point something else out to you: in that SPI, you're saying I give the community the finger because I'm encouraging admins to drop the stick. I don't know if you inadvertently grammarized incorrectly: you are not an admin, and I'm not telling admins to drop the stick. Au contraire: I am an admin, and I am urging you to drop the stick, again. Finally, this "my buddy the IP" stuff, do you have any idea how unintelligent that sounds? My buddy? When you're in a hole, stop digging. I am glad that you're not continuing to insert the rumors; if you do, it will be a matter for WP:ANEW, or you might find yourself blocked for edit warring even without a thread there. Yes, consider this a warning. And all of this regardless of what the SPI delivers: there are registered editors here who disagree with you and who are not implicated in the SPI, so you're clearly editing against consensus if you persist. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I stopped editing the page right when I joined the discussion, so you can tone yourself down at ease, sergeant. I know better... but this is a valuable lesson for me: <sarcasm>next time I'll just log out and start IP hopping and reverting senselessly like an a-hole, maybe I'll be taken more seriously?</sarcasm> And speaking of opinion and original research, "trivia" and "unimportant rumors" is your opinion. Apparently, they were so "unimportant" that Cranston himself had to refute them, as multiple reliable sources have reported ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6]). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion nominations[edit]

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 31. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great[edit]

How many versions of the character are named for Alexander the Great and should this be mentioned in that article (which unfortunately is a good article in which that might be regarded as trivia)?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories