User talk:DrBat

User talk:DrBat/Archive 1
User talk:DrBat/Archive 2
User talk:DrBat/Archive 3
User talk:DrBat/Archive 4
User talk:DrBat/Archive 5
User talk:DrBat/Archive 6

Stewie

It's a little irritating. Before now there was a case to leave it unlabelled, but now editors seem to come to the page with their real-world cultural understandings of age and sexuality and labels and then try to apply them beyond the sources at hand to a fictional character. Is there a centralized discussion taking place? I believe the old one on the talk page got archived.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Stewie

STOP your vandalism against Stewie! Get a new consensus if you want the category added! CTJF83Talk 22:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what is your problem?? CTJF83Talk 22:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How many consensus do we need before you accept the consensus. CTJF83Talk 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You think by now you would have learned not to keep reverting, and to get a consensus CTJF83Talk 22:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ultimately, Stewie will be gay or a very unhappy repressed heterosexual" CTJF83Talk 22:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, recount this has nothing to do with our dispute. CTJF83Talk 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So where does Seth say he is gay now, all I see is future tense. CTJF83Talk 23:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your counting is wrong CTJF83Talk 23:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stewie Griffin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Don't re-add the category. Instead, take the discussion to the talk page. tedder (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Time to start writing! See here: [1] I'm all for it, but let's have no reversions to the inferior material. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deliberately messy is a point of view, and you just blindly reverted. Do you really think the poorly written colloquial additions to VG that you just retained are an improvement? I'll start the ball rolling. Asgardian (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That said, I did appreciate the contribution earlier on Secret Invasion. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, I think you need to study the changes at Abomination, as more information is being added daily. The lead and peripherals are all fine and in accordance with Wikipedia Guidelines, and the PH is being reworked and improved upon. Blindly reverting to an inferior version does not help at this stage. Asgardian (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise against the constant reverts to inferior material. You've been warned about this (and blocked), and still seem to be making the samekneejerk reactions you were making over 18 months ago. More material is going to be added to both Abomination and the Rhino, and these will be valid edits. We also need to retain the Wiki-correct material. Claims that something is a "mess" and "too much work" do not help your cause. Finally, the claim there is no need to cite every appearance of a character is untrue. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We add appearances to present the whole picture. It if it worth doing, it is worth doing well. As for blocks, I've learned and don't ever make blind reverts, certainly not just on opinion. But, it seems I'll be the only one doing the research. Asgardian (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the interest of accuracy, Asgardian did a blind revert one month ago. While the issue of dates or issue numbers was the point of dispute, my fix to a ref name tag (which I explicitly mentioned in my edit summary) was not, but he reverted that too. I even pointed this out on that article's Talk Page, but Asgardian's response was to refuse to respond to this point, and tamper with my signature of a prior post of mine. Just for the record. Nightscream (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What Nightscream fails to mention is that this was a very minor edit, he also committed another serious blunder as a administrator by imposing a restriction on an article he was involved in editing (and came close to losing the whole ball of wax) and has been overly dramatic about what was an innocent typing error. The above mentioned post is immature and spiteful, to say the least. There is also the question of what you placed in a recent edit summary [2].

October 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Abomination (comics). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Calling another editor a "troll" is a personal attack:[3]. You've been here long enough to know better. If things get frustrating, seek dispute resolution rather than personally attacking those with whom you disagree - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Response

There is an answer to this, and it has several components. Firstly, the example cited from Hawkeye was an example of a poor addition as that was part of a blow-by-blow, issue by consecutive issue narrative for a primary character (by that I mean a character that appears every month in one or more titles). We don't do that for any character, even the big guns like Spider-Man and Batman. Secondly, we can do this for the secondary characters like the Abomination, as these lesser known types often only have a finite number of appearances. As this character is currently deceased, there are obviously no further appearances. Given this premise, it is reasonable to chart the few appearances they have, so long as it is presented in a Wiki-correct format (which I have been doing).

Thirdly, it is reasonable to do all this at the article under discussion as there were requests to move away from the previous "list" format, which you yourself said was messy and overdone. All the other pertinent information is still there, but in a correct format with even more information added, so others can learn about the character - a good example being the layman who doesn't read comics, but sees the Hulk movie and wants to know more. They check Wikipedia, and hey presto, there's an accurate and complete history.

Finally, the same applies to Rhino, which is being upgraded from both "list" format and the original, poorly written and unsourced version.

Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, where you keep falling down on the Rhino article is you keep reverting back to an inferior version. As you've been told, we adhere to the Wiki-correct lead and other peripherals, which the old version you keep reverting to lacks. The current version needs to remain. With the exception of one section, the article is almost complete and avoids the "list" format, which no one wants. At this stage, I would suggest contributing rather than reverting. Have you read any of those Rhino issues? Can you contribute some information? This is what is needed at this stage. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Crystal

It's relevant because it shows Lockjaw is loyal to Crystal above everything else, noteable in such a royal society. Lots42 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea why you came to either of those conclusions but eh, whatever. Lots42 (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)