User talk:Lots42

Hi Lots42, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are a few helpful links to start you off: Avoiding common mistakes, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, Policies and guidelines, Help, Merging pages.

If you need help or are curious about something, feel free to ask on my talk page or the village pump. You can sign your name and a date stamp on comments using four tildes (~~~~). If you have any further questions, feel free to ask, and I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Andre (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hulks strength

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. The reason for this is that the Wikipedia Comic book Project policy prohibits the use of adjectives such as vast, immense, or great. These terms are subjective because they arnt clear. Thefro552 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Just some advice when posting wikilinks for comic book characters. A lot of characters have common-word names, and if you link to just that word, you probably won't get what you're looking for. For example, see: Wolverine, Cable, Angel, Nova, Justice. Note that none of those links come anywhere near close to linking to the comic characters (even if they link to disambiguation pages, that's still one more link you have to click to get to where you're going). I've fixed a few articles that you've edited, but in future you might want to check to see if the links you're posting actually work before saving a page; try hitting the "Show Preview" button instead.

Good luck in future editing!  :)

Citations

It is better to request citations than to simply delete an entire section. --RandomHumanoid 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding subsections to 'Other versions'

I appreciate that you've added the Mutant X sections to Doc Samson and Mister Fantastic, but those sections look a heck of a lot better if the subheading in them are alphabetized. I already took care of that for you, but in the future please add them in alphabetical order. I encourage you to continue adding sections like that, it's very helpful, but be mindful of the layout when you do it.

Sidenote: You say that you want Mickey Fondozzi and Archie Corrigan pages to be made. Why not make them yourself? If you don't know how to make a page and need help, just post in my talk page and I'll help you(though I won't be on Wikipedia over the next few weeks). -Freak104 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be able to create a full page right away, that's why we are allowed to edit them. :-) Give me some basic information about Mickey and I can start the page. Then you can add the rest yourself. I'll put a stub tag on it, and hopefully others will help it grow. -Freak104 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Mickey. Okay, in War Zone #1, drawn by John Romita JR, the Punisher shoots up a bunch of made men, leaving one alive on purpose. He tortures this guy, mentally (shows him a hot piece of metal, shove a harmless popscicle into his back) until he cracks and agrees to work with Frank. Mickey introduces him to the Carbone crime family as his, Mickey's, cousin, Johnny Tower. Mickey gets one up on Frank by implying he is a moron and that Mickey speaks for him. Eventually all the Carbones except Rosalie are dead. Mickey gets involved with the Punisher again and again and again and guess what, again. Usually against his will.

Oh yeah, a character based off him appears in the Travolta Punisher movie.

P.S. How do I put my name down on the WikiComics Project name section? I can't figger it out at all (in fact, a whole -lot- of the Comics Project section is confusing as banannas)

Wonder Man

And now you see how pointless it is to try to edit one of "Asgardian's chosen" articles, because he will just revert any change he doesn't like. 204.153.84.10 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit; to Asgardian: No flamewars on my talk page please)

I gave you the answer you asked for. The other user made the silly comment and I asked them to desist as I was mindful that it is your page. Can't have it both ways, friend.

Asgardian 09:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not silly at all, and has been pointed out by numerous editors on talk pages for various articles. See the talk pages for Whizzer and Vision (Marvel Comics) for just the latest in a long series of Asgardian's antics. 204.153.84.10 18:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

1) Where can I read up on doing references better? You know, the little HTML you click on and it takes you to the bottom of the article and it says 'Spiderman #442 July 9 Whatever'

Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes are probably the best guide, you need to wrap in special tags the text which forms the source for your information, and place it near the info it references. If you have any queries don't hesitate to ask.

2) What is the right amount of references in a comic book article?

As many as are required. Generally, each source used to write the article should be listed, so that people can verify that what is asserted in the article matches the sources provided, presents them fairly and isn't original research.

3) Is it frowned upon to delete disruptive comments off your own topic page?

Yes, per WP:TALK.

4) I did get all verklempt and I did do a full revert on Asgardian's changes on the Wrecking Crew article. Was the reverting in and of itself a bad thing? I know, I should have stepped away from the whole mess for a while. Acting while ticked off is never a good thing, even if the results are nuetral.

We have an idea on Wikipedia of making a bold edit, and then when it is reverted we discuss. So in part you were wrong, but Asgardian was also wrong in not opening a discussion after the first reversion.

5) When I make a comment on a discussion page, do I need to make a little summary in the box that usually appears down below?

Edit summaries are required for article edits. When editing a talk page it is usually helpful to use them to indicate who you are replying to, so that anyone watching the page will know whether they need to respond. Hope that all helps. Steve block Talk 11:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and effort. Lots42

Warwolves

Hey, thanks for adding to Warwolves, and a number of other articles written by me and other people. Thanks to your addition to Warwolves, I think this was the first article I wrote that got rated as a Start rather than a Stub.  :) BOZ 20:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words, they are always appreciated. Half the reason I like Wiki is that despite what Wired says, there's just so much information -lacking- online. I like to know I'm not the only one who can recheck what's what without tracking down the comic. Lots42 23:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

**Laughing my a$$ off**

Totally agree with your comment on your recent edit comment on Amalgam Comics. Its always that one damn typo.... LoL. :D Zidel333 03:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mathemanic

Thanks for the help! When there's an issue of copyvio on a character, I much prefer the tactic that some editors use of removing all the bad text, rather than deleting the whole article. That forces anyone who wants to improve it to start the whole thing over rather than just make fixes!  :) BOZ 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Conviction

Thanks for trimming down "Conviction". So many of those articles are SO wordy, it's daunting to even start the process of getting them to a reasonable length. So thanks! Kweeket 06:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Somnambulist

What copyright did the expanded summary violate? Kweeket 17:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

In researching your question more throughly, I have discovered a vast contradiction in Wiki-policy, so I shall be backing away from the whole topic for some time until I can figure out what in the name of fish sandwhiches is going on. Lots42 09:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is going to make me sound like a big dork, but just what -is- Wiki's policy on the hugely extensive plot summariers we have seen in the Angel TV series section? I know, this question doesn't make sense but I'm confused to, I just did some research and I've discovered a huge contradictory policy. Lots42 09:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it might help if I linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot seems to be saying 'The more detailed the better' and that just doesn't sit right. Of course, my attempts to find one of those crazy 'This plot is too long' warnings I've used to see everywhere has failed. Lots42 09:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not an expert in Wiki policy by any means, but the plot guidelines for television episodes say "As a rough guide... no more than ten words per minute of screen time. For example, a 45 minute episode would warrant no more than 450 words." The guideline you linked above recommends plot summaries be "between 400 and 700 words." So I think a reasonable length for a 50-minute Angel episode is no more than 500 words, unless the episode was more simple than most.

For example, "To Shanshu in L.A." (at 490 words) is acceptable, although I think there is still some extraneous detail that could be easily cut without affecting a reader's understanding. "Eternity" is 540 words, so it's a bit too long. At a whopping 1,840 words, "Blind Date" is verging on copyright violation because the derivative work stands in for the commercial product.

The tag I think you're looking for is {{Plot|date=March 2008}}, which produces this:

Would you want to go through the Angel episodes tagging the ones that exceed 500 words? Actually, what would probably be even more helpful would be to compile a list of the worst offenders (the 1,500+ ones) and post it on the List of Angel episodes talk page or on WikiProject Buffyverse. Kweeket 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked which copyright the expanded summary of "Somnambulist" violated because I thought you had discovered it was ripped off another site. I see now that your concern was that the excessive plot summary itself was infringing Angel's copyright. I think a 500-word-or-less summary of a 50-minute episode constitutes Fair use under United States copyright law, but you might want to do some digging into copyright issues as well as the Wiki policies surrounding them. Hope this helps! Kweeket 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Heya

I noticed you working on some of the minor Morlock characters lately. Someone tried to speedy delete Cybelle (comics) recently, if you want to work on that one.

I've also "rescued" a number of speedy deletes lately, that were deleted due to copyvio. You already noticed Mathemanic lately and built that one up quite well. Notice that I've also re-added Shamrock (comics) for the same reason, and will bring back Plasma (comics) soon which was also speedied for copyvio.

Also, if you're looking for articles on minor characters to work on, I recently added my user page, and will put more characters on there before long.  :)

Keep up the good work! BOZ 16:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I'll think about what you said. But it's only fair to say I've proposed the merging of Scaleface, Blow-Hard and the other related articles into one, they all concerning X-Factor 11. And the only reason I was able to update that is I had the issue with me. I'm not at all familair with the other names you've mentioned. I'll look into it. Lots42 01:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for the work on Plasma - I wasn't that familiar with the character, but I didn't think that article should have been deleted just because someone copied some text from a website; I like it better when an editor just strips the article down to the bare bones, because then at least it doesn't have to be started over from scratch!

I know you won't work on articles you're not familiar with or interested in - usually no one does!  :) I just added a new section on my user page of articles I've started; if you see anything there you'd like to improve, go for it! I know you've worked on a few of them already, so choose whatever you like if any. BOZ 15:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, sometimes I go hogwild on a somewhat boring article simply because it's full of mistakes of all imaginable sorts. I'll take a look at your page later. Lots42 16:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions!  :) BOZ 15:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Before jumping on the Bandwagon...

More reading, less assumptions. Who's been doing for what Wikipedia lately?

Asgardian 04:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who's been doing what lately? Well, for one thing, Asgardian landed himself in arbitration case lately. It's not just a request any more.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae Mediators unanimously agreed to take it on.

And as for "less assumptions" -- Asgardians makes a lot of assumptions about what other people are and aren't assuming. - Wryspy 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

American People category

It's funny that I happened to stumble across this Asgardian thing. I was just coming here to say amen to your remark about the American People category. American people as opposed to what? American aardvarks? - Wryspy 21:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Yep, still active at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian. You might also want to stick a note here about a revived discussion.

Also, here is some history that may be relevant to bring up. If I continue to help regarding this disruptive presence, just ask.--Tenebrae 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lots42, thank you for your contributions on articles related to Family Guy. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Family Guy, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of Family Guy articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

/ edg ☺ ☭ 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hand

Thanks for the heads-up on Hand. Feel free to just hit the "undo" link in the history page (for the page that has been vandalized). If you are intrested in doing this in a more automated way check out these tools: WP:LAVT, WP:TW. They are really handy in general, even if you are not actively working on anti-vandalism activities. —Noah 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi. I know you contribute a good many deal to improving G.I. Joe entries in Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to a fan wikia dedicated to G.I. Joe. wikia.com hosts a great many wikis dedicated to many interests. Somebody has started gijoe.wikia.com but the last update I saw before I logged on was way far back in March 2007 and nobody has been doing anything to improving it. There are currently only 235 articles. However, much of the information are only on loan from My Useless Knowledge or copied verbatim from other sources including Wikipedia.

A fan wikia presents more possibilities and greater freedom than Wikipedia would ever allow us. It would also be nice if we could get others in on this too. --Destron Commander (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tunnelers response

What would that mean if those characters never appeared together in any other media? It's like those that merged all the Pokemon and all the Digimon into one page! Rtkat3 (talk) 8:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, what? Pokemon and Digimon are huge. The tunnelers appeared in what, like three issues total? Lots42 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New Enforcers

Didn't the team from Web of Spidey 100, the Outer Circle of the New Enforcers, consist of Blitz, Eel, Vanisher, Dragon Man, Dreadnought, Super-Adaptoid, Plantman, Thermite, and Tangle? 24.148.15.188 (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody's perfect. If you have evidence the team was bigger, put them in. And I'm sure Dragon-Man, Dreadnought and Adaptoid were trying to -kill- Vanisher and his morons. But see above about perfection. Lots42 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't criticizing, just letting you know.  :) Had to leave in a hurry this morning and didn't have time to get my thoughts together on how to phrase that to come across any better. Maybe I'll add that in info into some article(s) later, but probably not any time soon. 24.148.15.188 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I knew you were being nice. Lots42 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI: New Enforcers. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Amalgam merge

Re: Lack of merge source "What does that mean, please?"

I could only fit so much information into the edit summary.Your question has prompted me to compile an explanation at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Character_alternate_version_guidelines#Reasons_for_Amalgam_removals. You certainly aren't the only person to ask about these deletions. #3 addresses your particular question. I will post links to the past discussions which relate to each point. Please join the discussion on the guidelines talk page to help figure out the best way to deal with the Amalgam characters. Doczilla (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Why not do it yourself? Freak104 (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Annoyance

It has nothing to do with Wikipedia. That mistake has annoyed me since I started collecting comics (needless to say, that's a long time ago), whether it is in the newspaper or anything where it should have been caught and fixed already. And I have to ask, why/how did you notice those edits of mine? Those were on two pages that are rarely edited, so I doubt you have them on your watchlist. -Freak104 (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess that explains how you noticed. Have you ever thought deleting some from your watchlist? Doesn't such a long (I'm assuming it's long if there are ones on there you don't even realize) watchlist get annoying? -Freak104 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Collins

I think Collins had a distinctive enough career he should get his own page.

Lots42 05:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Up to you.  :) I just expanded the info on both Manning and Collins, so they might be viable as separate pages, if you want to give that a try. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs

Ha, thanks for your edits, finally someone has the cojones to remove all that crap, I think I'm going to edit it down even further now that we're started.--The Dominator (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The cast was added as a compromise, I'm sorry I reverted your last edit, but there have previously been separate articles for each of the characters and I made a proposal that a cast article be created, we have come to consensus that it should be merged into the film article. I agree that the influence section is a mess, but Reservoir Dogs had a big influence so I suggest toning it down the references to specific films and merge the remainder to reception, Links to other Tarantino films is very trivial though, I questioned that section from the beginning, and you should have seen "Cultural Impact" before I got through with it, it had around forty unsourced bullet points.--The Dominator (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the citation needed is done by adding {{Fact|date=March 2008}}--The Dominator (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You think we can merge Reservoir Dogs (soundtrack) into Reservoir Dogs? The soundtrack article doesn't have much to say and the "soundtrack" section of the film article literally doesn't have anything to say except linking to the soundtrack.--The Dominator (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to eXistenZ, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Has your account been compromised ??? TINYMARK 00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ultimates talk page

responding to threads which are months old and finished (because, say, the issue DID come out), doesn't help much. Please check the dates on threads before responding to them. ThuranX (talk) 12:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

??? I was making a Public Service Announcement; the people were talking about adding solicitation info; that is frowned upon. Lots42 (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comics Articles for Deletion

One or more articles you’ve been involved in editing (Melter, Ringer (comics), or others) has been nominated for deletion. If you feel you can make contributions to the article to improve it and make it worth keeping, please do so. BOZ (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's canon.

Anyway, all my edit really does is reverify that he's really damn strong and put more of a absolute level to his strength. Saying he can 'crush someone's skull' or 'throw someone across a room' is all well and good, but giving that strength a value just helps to show how strong he is. HalfShadow (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Handbook considered 'bad', anyway? Barring retcons/character updates, I felt it was a pretty solid guide. Of course the info is pretty old and for a lot of the characters is out of date, but some characters (like the Kingpin) never really change much. HalfShadow (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dannik Jerriko

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dannik Jerriko, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dannik Jerriko. Terraxos (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Abusive Reversion

Carrying on the dot_cattiness vendetta against me isn't "wikipedia-worthy", either. (Profane opinion of you and your abusive edit self-censored.) -- Davidkevin (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

It is when there is a case of straight reversion, which was not the case here. I helped the article by adding multiple appearances and trimmed some unnecessary POV. That said, I added a note.

Asgardian (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

El Stingray

When you removed trivia from this article, you also removed the categories. Please take more care in your editing.-Mr Adequate (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Original research"

This is not original research. It is clearly sourced from the Ninja Golf article. Have you even played Ninja Golf? Did you read the article? Did you read beyond one sentence of what I wrote before mashing the undo button? I'm trying to assume good faith, but you have clearly failed to do so, defending your fandom by dismissing any obvious facts as original research when no original research was done whatsoever. I am a fan of ATHF as well, but I am not obtaining this information off-site. The removal was wrong and is disrupting the article's neutral point of view by censoring potentially negative facts.

Regardless, I won't put the information back in for now. The information will keep finding its way back in by others, though, so please don't try and take ownership of the article. SashaNein (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of things resemble lots of other things. Noting this means little in the ways of wikipedia. If I went to the article about Callisto from Marvel Comics and started talking about how she resembles Cthullu because they both have tentacles, someone would probably delete it for being original research. However, if there was an article say, written by Chris Claremont, a popular comic book writer, saying 'Cthullu inspired the modification to Callisto', then that would be worth noting. As in linking to hypothetical article and summarizing it. As for the rest of your comments, believe what you will, though you would be wrong. Lots42 (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You are deliberately understating how many similarities there are between Ninja Golf and ATHF: Zombie Ninja Pro-Am. If that is the best excuse you can come up with, then you are truly disrupting the article's neutral point of view. SashaNein (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop assuming I am being disruptive on purpose. Secondly, I have no doubt the games have many similarities. But unless there is secondary citations to illustrate this example, any talk about these similarities is simply original research/speculation. Thus, not wanted on wikipedia. Like I said, many things resemble many things. Lots42 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach discussion page.

Um, okay? If you want the cited information in the article, then by all means, go put it in. I fail to see what the problem is

I just wanted to take it to the discussion page first to see what other people thought. I hate edit wars.