797:: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 …, the fair use of a copyrighted work … for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching …, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” The statue sets out guidelines for determining whether the use made of a work in a particular case is fair. A use for “nonprofit educational purposes” is considered fair. This part of the law is intentionally general and vague, because each case must be decided on its own merits. There is no “one size fits all” rule about what constitutes fair use. But one of the factors that always comes into play is whether proper attribution is made for the use. This is where I think you are “off base” in your refusal to credit Jim Amash as the source of the quoted material. Jim is the author of the Joe Sinnott interview; it’s his copyrighted work. Yes, Joe’s words are Joe’s, but the form in which they are presented belongs to Jim. Full and proper attribution to the source should credit Jim along with
562:(three of whom write books for a living, plus Roy Thomas and Joe Sinnott himself) and they disagree with you for the most part. I really don't wish to fight with you either, since we both have the love of comics in common. but my request for proper source attribution is not unreasonable. The magazines should be credited, as you have rightly done, but so should the people who write and conduct and own the interviews. And considering the work I've done, which as you know is extensive, it's not like I'm asking for a whole lot: just credit for the work I've done, which I do own. So, yes, I do intend to put my name back on my work and I hope you will respect this. In my first response, I gave my e-mail address if you'd like to respond to me personally. Though we aren't seeing eye-to-eye, I do like to talk to people who like what I like. -Jim Amash
809:
full anywhere you like. If the president later issues a collection of his speeches under copyright, you may not be able to quote without permission. If you doubt this, try quoting any of the speeches of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. without the permission of his estate. I’m not just talking through my hat here. I’ve worked in publishing for 34 years, the last 11 of them in legal book publishing. I deal with copyrights and permissions issues regularly. To my mind, the point here is proper credit. What you’re doing to promote knowledge about our unsung comics creators is a great thing, as so many of them labored for years in obscurity without the credit due them. Jim is a creator, too. Would you deny him the same?
910:
money and we all want to give credit to the unsung heroes of the past." This was a reference to my work on Alter Ego and has nothing to do with
Knowledge (XXG). You have cast an unfair, insulting, and inaccurate spin on my motives. I never said what you claim I did and you know it. Since you have read and used quite a bit of my interviews, you should have figured out by now that I'm doing this out of love for my profession and the people in it. In all the years I've done this, you and only you have reached the misguided conclusion that I've been doing it for other reasons. I was only asking for the same right I've seen others get and sadly, you don't think I deserve it.
902:
proper form for attribution should include the author's name (pages 180 and 187). Regardless of whose quotes you are using from my interviews, I am still considered the author of the interview, not only by established sources, but by the interview subjects themselves (I won't even get into what Joe
Sinnott has had to say about this beyond his extreme unhappiness over your attitude). To state that quotes are public domain, as you had earlier, is absurd and incorrect. I consulted writer David Hajdu,who also teaches journalism at Syrcuse and is a former editor at Time, Inc., and he agrees with me. His credentials are good enough for me.
483:
copyrightable, the quotes of the interview subject are not. An interview subject's quotes may be freely used. As someone who writes
Wikibios of often unsung comics professionals, and who believes in going outside the Web for printed sources, particularly first-person sources, and admire Jim Amash, Jon Cooke, Roy Thomas, and Dr. Michael J. Vassallo in particular, no one can change coopyright law and and assert they are the copyright holder of an interview subject's quotes. --
183:
493:
before publication. To me, it's not a matter of vanity, but wanting credit for the work I've done. Believe me, those of us who work on these fanzines make little money and we all want to give credit to the unsung heroes of the past. But since my work is being quoted so much by you and others, it just seems appropriate to me to credit the author of the interviews. I've seen many others quoted in the bios, so why not me, too? -Jim Amash <
49:
790:“Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending”
386:
365:
337:
242:
396:
215:
121:
97:
21:
252:
66:
131:
711:
taken from material under copyright. Your use of those quotes is a fair use by any definition of the term, and Jim concedes that. Under the
Copyright Act, you may make fair use of such material--but you must credit the source. I will be happy to quote the relevant section of the United States Code if you like.
909:
You said, "But
Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for self-promotion, and that is the only reason Jim Amash is doing this. His rationale has nothing to do with accuracy or verifiability. He's said so himself." This is a misquote. I said," Believe me, those of us who work on these fanzines make little
913:
To
Herculaneum (I wonder why you guys don't use your real names?): I've tried to act fairly and responsibly, and only expected Knowledge (XXG) to quote and attribute the same way I've seen Historians do in their books. That's not childish. Roy Thomas, who is aware of all of this, doesn't think so
905:
I also called the
American Society of Journalists and Authors about this matter and they said, while it is not illegal to leave out the name of an author, they considered it "tacky and ill mannered" to do so. The National Writers Union also agreed with this assessment. Both organizations said that
808:
No one disputes that your use of Joe’s quotes from Jim’s article is a fair use. I think your are wrong in your contention that “a person’s quotes are public domain.” It depends on the person and the circumstance. If a public figure (such as the president) gives a public speech, you can quote that in
779:
Mike again: I apologize if you found my use of the word “rational” offensive. I did not mean to imply that anything about the foregoing dialog was irrational. Perhaps a better word choice would have been “reasoned.” On the other hand, you go on to accuse me of “ballot stuffing,” so maybe we’re even.
710:
Mike
Ambrose here. If I may inject a bit of rational third-party observation: Tenebrae, you are way off base here. The quotes you extract from Jim's interview with Joe are part of an article copyrighted by Jim Amash. That those quotes are by an individual who is not Jim is immaterial. The quotes are
492:
I'm not sure whether you are right or not
Tenebrae, and maybe I'm a bit touchy because I have been plagarized twice in the past year or so. I've been led to believe the interviews I do are copyrighted to me, especially since many of the quotes are rewritten (with permission of the interview subject)
561:
I appreciate your respect for my work and in that spirit, it does surprise me that you'd think I'm trying to squeeze my name in with others for vanity's sake. When people write articles, they are credited when footnoted and the same does go for interviews. I have asked several professional writers
515:
To squeeze your name into the spotlight next to Joe Sinnot or Will Eisner or whomever takes away from them, adds to Wiki clutter, creates potential confusion over whether something is the interview subject or the interviewer speaking, or a paraphrase by the interviewer. Also, it's just unseemly. If
901:
As far as quoting name and source, I've many, many examples of such in history books and even on
Knowledge (XXG). I've tried to follow that example and had expected Knowledge (XXG) to do the same. The Modern language Association of America Handbook, by Joseph Gibaldi, 2003 edition, states that
897:
First of all, Tenebrae, if you'll look at the indicia, you'll see this: "All material is copyright their creators unless otherwise noted." That means articles, art, interviews, etc. So, yes, I own the copyright, no matter what you think. That's what the statement means. The editorial matter
642:
It does not add to the fact of or the sourcing for the citation itself. Your rationale that "those of us who work on these fanzines make little money and...it just seems appropriate to me to credit the author of the interviews" says that it's a quid pro quo. By that standard, why not credit the
482:
refers in his History page note to Jim Amash being "copyright holder" of the Joe Sinnott interview. A person's quotes are public domain. While the format of the interview, the questions in the interview, the introduction to the interview, and the images and graphic design in an interivew are
609:. I've aksed, on this page, above, for comments by other, disinterested Wikipedians. I'd rather not invoke the three-revert rule and bring this to mediation or arbitration. We're supposed to get comments from other Wikipedians first. So I ask you to respect
507:
Well, I'm not going to get into a revert war about it. I understand the money thing and the need for recognition. But Knowledge (XXG) doesn't exist to give you recognition, and so it's not a reasonable use of this encyclopedia.
823:
interview citation where anyone listed the interviewer; I'm sure an example exists here or there, but the vast majority of references rightly just give the periodical, issue, date, and page number. Why? Because the point of the
688:
Lastly, and I urge you to talk to the magazine's attorney about this, no one owns the copyright to people's quotes. What someone says in a newspaper article or a magazine article is public domain. I'm talking only about
511:
It's important to cite the source from which a quote comes -- title, date, page number. But an interview is very different from an article that one has written from scratch and which may contain quotes from a subject.
793:
Section 107, “Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use,” addresses the rights of others to use copyrighted material. I won’t quote the entire section; you can access the whole thing at the copyright office's website
832:. If the magazine is being properly cited, if not one single word of Amash's is being used, why is he being so insistent on squeezing his name in? Anyone who checks the citation will see his name. Interviewers at
1130:
197:
516:
you want to go through Knowledge (XXG) and add your name to every footnoted quote from an interview you've done, then that's your thing. But at the very least, before adding all that, you might want to go to
914:
either. At any rate, so long as I'm not being plagarized, this is not worth any more of my time, so this is the last of this discussion, so far as I'm concerned. I've spent too much time with this as it is.
1125:
805:(4th ed.), section 4.7.1, specifies the form of a citation to a periodical as author’s name, title of the article, and publication information. I really don’t see where “vanity” figures into it.
531:
None of this in any way detracts from my immense respect for you, Roy, et al., in finding and interviewing these pillars of the form. I'm probably one of a select few who can't wait for the
346:
225:
192:
107:
819:
is copyrighted to Roy Thomas, so Jim Amash's supposed copyright isn't even an issue. Many published Q&A's don't even bother with a interviewer's credit. And I've never seen a
759:
For the second time now, I reiterate that I have brought the issue up so that disinterested Wikipedians may comment. That's the proper way. Incidentally, Knowledge (XXG) frowns on
535:
interview on which one of you is working! The work you do is a valuable exploration of pop-culture history, of a genuinely indigenous American artform, and thank goodness for you.
456:
1135:
1155:
940:
Additionally, Mr. Amash did not change the citations to the style he / his friend mention, with full title, etc., but merely added his own name. That speaks to intent. —
1180:
446:
1053:
1049:
1035:
815:
Quoting three sentences from Joe Sinnott's own words in Q&A is not the same as taking Jim Amash's words from an article. I also see that all editorial material in
763:. BTW, your statement that your "third-party" observation is "rational" implies that other observations are not. That's personally offensive, and I ask you to respect
697:
possible. So honestly, and I've asked this before, please stop claiming you own the copyright to Joe Sinnott's words, or Will Eisner's words. That's just not true. —
275:
422:
281:
679:, or any of the other dozens of magazines I cite for their brief interview quotes have ever pursued this. It's only you, which I think needs to be considered.
1165:
285:
725:— the community and the Admins have the final say. Attempting to supersede the community for vanity's sake is really unseemly, in that Knowledge (XXG) is
1175:
784:), he brought this to my attention, and he asked me to comment on it. Maybe that disqualifies me from being a disinterested Wikipedian. If so, so be it.
1115:
327:
149:
787:
Anyway, that aside, I promised to quote relevant sections of the copyright law. This is from 17 U.S.C. § 106, “Exclusive rights in copyrighted works”:
721:
crediting the source; I'm not sure your unjustifiable implication that the source is not being credited is warranted. In addition, we are also talking
1160:
409:
370:
883:
Hi. I really don't see what the fuss is about. Mr. Amash isn't the one being quoted. I don't see Gary Groth or Roy Thomas acting so childishly. --
1150:
1140:
317:
153:
1170:
780:
I don’t know what you mean by that; you did invite third-party commentary. Jim is a good friend and a frequent contributor to my magazine (
648:
722:
602:
293:
148:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
1120:
157:
144:
102:
1031:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
567:
By the way, Joe's last name is misspelt in the Tom Sawyer caption and I can't seem to fix it. Can anyone here do that? -Jim Amash
1145:
1015:
517:
265:
220:
77:
926:
reads: "All editorial material copyright Roy Thomas." I don't believe I'm misunderstanding the defintion of the word "All".
659:— and we're talking brief quotes here — that are important — not the person asking the questions. No Q&A interview from
630:
521:
500:
866:
reason Jim Amash is doing this. His rationale has nothing to do with accuracy or verifiability. He's said so himself. --
1096:
289:
48:
979:
605:. God knows I've been at this for months, and I still stumble over rules inadvertantly! Knowledge (XXG) works by
1052:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
991:
83:
1087:
1025:
971:
744:
anything more than that, inserted by a not-disinterested party interested not in accuracy (since the source
401:
906:
an interview deserves the same attributions as written articles, which is contrary to your assertions.
764:
1071:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1059:
421:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
970:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
33:
65:
1056:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
840:, etc., seem more concerned with history and proper citation that their own self-aggrandizement.
1072:
182:
20:
833:
541:
1016:
http://www.webcitation.org/6O28VVwgM?url=http://www.comic-con.org/awards/eisners-current-info
621:
Here's why I think the addition of your name all over Knowledge (XXG) for brief quotes taken
884:
418:
136:
1079:
849:
No, you are not a disinterested party — you're advocating for a friend, which is laudable.
760:
1038:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1019:
837:
1078:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1045:
1109:
1003:
941:
867:
768:
698:
552:
484:
257:
532:
985:
963:
494:
767:. If I'm "off base", pls cite the Knowledge (XXG) policy I'm not observing. --
520:
and ask for some consensus on this. Just because I believe this is contrary to
385:
364:
120:
96:
1044:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
980:
http://cbgxtra.com/knowledge-base/for-your-reference/comics-industry-birthdays
929:
I checked into some of the sources Mr. Amash / his friend cite. They refer to
589:
588:
Secondly, congrats on your spanking new User page! I've set one up for you at
479:
414:
391:
336:
251:
247:
126:
1009:
992:
http://www.mrmedia.com/2007/07/joe-sinnott-spider-man-fantastic-four_25.html
547:
241:
214:
27:
1026:
http://www.mrmedia.com/2007/07/joe-sinnott-spider-man-fantastic-four.html
643:
Q&A's art director? Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for that. (See
997:
270:
748:) but for his own self-aggrandizement is offensive to the community.
26:
A news item involving Joe Sinnott was featured on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1101:
944:
887:
870:
771:
701:
601:
Thirdly: Jim, I know you mean well, so why not give a read over at
555:
551:
rightful credit and links as well wherever I can. All the best, --
487:
156:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
649:
Knowledge (XXG):What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
539:
Thanks, too, for your reasoned discourse on this. Hell, I give
59:
15:
795:
335:
181:
47:
269:, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
1131:
Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
974:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
413:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
280:
If you would like to participate, you can help with the
967:
691:
the actual, verbatim words someone is quoted as saying.
40:
1020:
http://www.comic-con.org/awards/eisners-current-info
1126:
B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
1048:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1004:http://www.adelaidecomicsandbooks.com/sinnott.html
1034:This message was posted before February 2018.
526:it's only proper to ask for consensus on this.
986:http://www.comicartville.com/archerstjohn.htm
8:
431:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject New York (state)
803:MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers
1136:Arts and entertainment work group articles
359:
292:the attached article or discuss it at the
209:
91:
1156:B-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
1010:http://www.inkwellawards.com/sinnott.html
962:I have just modified 8 external links on
937:, many of which don't even carry bylines.
898:copyright notice is for Roy's work only.
717:That would be great. And Knowledge (XXG)
1181:Low-importance New York (state) articles
750:There's a reason for anti-hype policies.
723:Knowledge (XXG):Policies and guidelines
603:Knowledge (XXG):Policies and guidelines
361:
211:
93:
63:
742:The Q&A source is being credited;
611:this established policy and guideline.
801:magazine. I’m not alone in this; the
434:Template:WikiProject New York (state)
193:the arts and entertainment work group
166:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography
7:
1116:Knowledge (XXG) In the news articles
407:This article is within the scope of
263:This article is within the scope of
142:This article is within the scope of
1166:Comics creators work group articles
82:It is of interest to the following
998:http://www.maelmill-insi.de/jscbi/
579:First off, caption spelling fixed.
518:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Comics
302:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Comics
14:
1176:B-Class New York (state) articles
966:. Please take a moment to review
631:Knowledge (XXG):Vanity guidelines
522:Knowledge (XXG):Vanity guidelines
503:or not? Ask the Wikipedians! : -)
501:Knowledge (XXG):Vanity guidelines
1161:B-Class Comics creators articles
860:not the place for self-promotion
746:is accurately and properly cited
524:doesn't make it so, but I think
394:
384:
363:
250:
240:
213:
129:
119:
95:
64:
19:
1024:Corrected formatting/usage for
1008:Corrected formatting/usage for
1002:Corrected formatting/usage for
996:Corrected formatting/usage for
990:Corrected formatting/usage for
984:Corrected formatting/usage for
978:Corrected formatting/usage for
451:This article has been rated as
322:This article has been rated as
1151:Low-importance Comics articles
1141:WikiProject Biography articles
169:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
945:21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
425:and see a list of open tasks.
344:This article is supported by
190:This article is supported by
888:22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
871:19:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
772:01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
702:00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
572:Set you up with a User page!
556:22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
488:07:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
410:WikiProject New York (state)
154:contribute to the discussion
1171:WikiProject Comics articles
592:. "User" it in good health!
305:Template:WikiProject Comics
1197:
1121:B-Class biography articles
1102:15:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1065:(last update: 5 June 2024)
959:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
457:project's importance scale
347:Comics creators work group
328:project's importance scale
765:Knowledge (XXG):Etiquette
450:
437:New York (state) articles
379:
343:
321:
235:
189:
114:
90:
731:advertising or self-hype
1146:B-Class Comics articles
955:External links modified
858:But Knowledge (XXG) is
402:New York (state) portal
665:Comic Book Marketplace
340:
186:
108:Arts and Entertainment
72:This article is rated
53:
339:
185:
145:WikiProject Biography
76:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
51:
1046:regular verification
273:on Knowledge (XXG).
1036:After February 2018
623:not from an article
294:project's talk page
1090:InternetArchiveBot
1041:InternetArchiveBot
862:, and that is the
782:Charlton Spotlight
695:works of biography
693:That's what makes
661:The Comics Journal
474:"Copyright holder"
341:
266:WikiProject Comics
187:
172:biography articles
78:content assessment
54:
1066:
834:Comic Book Artist
542:Comic Book Artist
471:
470:
467:
466:
463:
462:
358:
357:
354:
353:
208:
207:
204:
203:
58:
57:
1188:
1100:
1091:
1064:
1063:
1042:
629:is a matter for
439:
438:
435:
432:
429:
428:New York (state)
404:
399:
398:
397:
388:
381:
380:
375:
371:New York (state)
367:
360:
310:
309:
306:
303:
300:
260:
255:
254:
244:
237:
236:
231:
228:
217:
210:
174:
173:
170:
167:
164:
150:join the project
139:
137:Biography portal
134:
133:
132:
123:
116:
115:
110:
99:
92:
75:
69:
68:
60:
43:
23:
16:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1106:
1105:
1094:
1089:
1057:
1050:have permission
1040:
972:this simple FaQ
957:
922:The indicia of
830:subject's words
761:Ballot stuffing
657:subject's words
574:
505:
476:
436:
433:
430:
427:
426:
400:
395:
393:
373:
308:Comics articles
307:
304:
301:
298:
297:
256:
249:
229:
223:
171:
168:
165:
162:
161:
135:
130:
128:
105:
73:
52:Knowledge (XXG)
39:
12:
11:
5:
1194:
1192:
1184:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1108:
1107:
1084:
1083:
1076:
1029:
1028:
1022:
1014:Added archive
1012:
1006:
1000:
994:
988:
982:
956:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
938:
927:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
876:
875:
874:
873:
853:
852:
851:
850:
844:
843:
842:
841:
838:Comics Journal
777:
776:
775:
774:
754:
753:
752:
751:
737:
736:
735:
734:
729:an avenue for
709:
707:
706:
705:
704:
683:
682:
681:
680:
677:The New Yorker
645:Self-Promotion
637:
636:
635:
634:
627:from a Q&A
616:
615:
614:
613:
596:
595:
594:
593:
583:
582:
581:
580:
573:
570:
569:
568:
564:
563:
537:
536:
504:
498:
475:
472:
469:
468:
465:
464:
461:
460:
453:Low-importance
449:
443:
442:
440:
423:the discussion
406:
405:
389:
377:
376:
374:Low‑importance
368:
356:
355:
352:
351:
342:
332:
331:
324:Low-importance
320:
314:
313:
311:
262:
261:
245:
233:
232:
230:Low‑importance
218:
206:
205:
202:
201:
198:Low-importance
188:
178:
177:
175:
141:
140:
124:
112:
111:
100:
88:
87:
81:
70:
56:
55:
45:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1193:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1111:
1104:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1061:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1037:
1032:
1027:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1011:
1007:
1005:
1001:
999:
995:
993:
989:
987:
983:
981:
977:
976:
975:
973:
969:
965:
960:
954:
946:
943:
939:
936:
932:
928:
925:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
889:
886:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
872:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
855:
854:
848:
847:
846:
845:
839:
835:
831:
827:
822:
818:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
806:
804:
800:
796:
791:
788:
785:
783:
773:
770:
766:
762:
758:
757:
756:
755:
749:
747:
741:
740:
739:
738:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
703:
700:
696:
692:
687:
686:
685:
684:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
641:
640:
639:
638:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
617:
612:
608:
604:
600:
599:
598:
597:
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
578:
577:
576:
575:
571:
566:
565:
560:
559:
558:
557:
554:
550:
549:
544:
543:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
523:
519:
513:
509:
502:
499:
497:
495:
490:
489:
486:
481:
473:
458:
454:
448:
445:
444:
441:
424:
420:
416:
412:
411:
403:
392:
390:
387:
383:
382:
378:
372:
369:
366:
362:
349:
348:
338:
334:
333:
329:
325:
319:
316:
315:
312:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:current tasks
279:
277:
272:
268:
267:
259:
258:Comics portal
253:
248:
246:
243:
239:
238:
234:
227:
222:
219:
216:
212:
199:
196:(assessed as
195:
194:
184:
180:
179:
176:
159:
158:documentation
155:
151:
147:
146:
138:
127:
125:
122:
118:
117:
113:
109:
104:
101:
98:
94:
89:
85:
79:
71:
67:
62:
61:
50:
46:
42:
37:
36:
35:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1088:
1085:
1060:source check
1039:
1033:
1030:
961:
958:
934:
930:
923:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
863:
859:
829:
825:
820:
816:
807:
802:
798:
792:
789:
786:
781:
778:
745:
743:
730:
726:
718:
708:
694:
690:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:.) It's the
644:
626:
622:
610:
606:
546:
540:
538:
533:Leon Lazarus
525:
514:
510:
506:
491:
477:
452:
408:
345:
323:
286:notice board
284:, visit the
276:Get involved
274:
264:
191:
143:
84:WikiProjects
41:27 June 2020
32:
31:
964:Joe Sinnott
885:Herculaneum
478:The editor
38:section on
34:In the news
1110:Categories
1097:Report bug
590:User:JimAE
480:User:JimAE
415:U.S. state
1080:this tool
1073:this tool
924:Alter Ego
817:Alter Ego
799:Alter Ego
607:consensus
548:Alter Ego
163:Biography
103:Biography
28:Main Page
1086:Cheers.—
942:Tenebrae
935:Q&As
931:articles
868:Tenebrae
769:Tenebrae
699:Tenebrae
655:and the
553:Tenebrae
485:Tenebrae
419:New York
226:Creators
968:my edit
933:— not
828:is the
821:Playboy
673:Playboy
455:on the
326:on the
74:B-class
30:in the
836:, the
653:source
647:under
299:Comics
271:comics
221:Comics
80:scale.
826:quote
496:: -->
864:only
669:Time
625:but
545:and
290:edit
152:and
1054:RfC
1018:to
727:not
447:Low
417:of
318:Low
1112::
1067:.
1062:}}
1058:{{
719:is
675:,
671:,
667:,
663:,
288:,
224::
200:).
106::
1099:)
1095:(
1082:.
1075:.
733:.
633::
459:.
350:.
330:.
296:.
278:!
160:.
86::
44:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
-logo-v2.svg.png){kind=logo}
