User talk:Asgardian

Removing Bibliography from Graviton

I see your point that "References get top billing". But Thunderbolts - Life Sentences, for example, is part of the character's blibliography and is not under the references. Bios106037 (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:GOTG.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:GOTG.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing old posts and Ultimates

Two points:

First, deleting entire pages worth of posts by other people on your Talk Page is considered poor Talk Page etiquette. This is especially true when those comments include admonitions about your behavior by moderators. The proper practice is to archive a page, not delete its contents.

Second, do not remove the sales information from the Ultimates article again. Your arguments against it are irrational and unsupported by reason, the common practice on the site is to provide sales figures for works of art when the information is available, and the consensus on that article's Talk Page agrees with this. Nightscream (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not issue you an ultimatum. I pointed out to you that deleting entire pages worth of posts from your Talk Page is considered poor form, and told you not to remove valid information from the Ultimates article, as there is no valid basis to do so under WP policy, and consensus has agreed to keep it. I have indeed responded to each of your arguments. The inclusion of sales figures is not an opinion, it is a common practice on WP for movie and comics-related articles. Sales are not "subjective", as they are tallied numerically. If you could elaborate on how sales are "subjective", please do so. Your argument of "So?" seems unintelligible, and I don't know how to respond to it other than to point out that sales figures are as legitimate a piece of information in an article about a comic book as any other. I have not advocated the reversion of legitimate grammar edits, so bringing this up is irrelevant with respect to me. Also, could you not put large spaces in between your signature and your posts? It helps make the posts easier to identify by author. Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Ultimates, or remove valid information that consensus has agreed to include in the article, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First, saying "That IS vandalism because you didn't even look - information take from Reception in PH and then repeated in rv, and added spelling mistakes and didn't see note on Film. Sloppy." is a personal attack/insult. Saying, "also undid flaws rv by careless editor as obviously didn't look." is an personal attack/insult. These comments violate Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia: Civility, and are not justifiable. Your statement therefore, that "No personal attacks have been made, only comments to the effect that some editors have undone solid edits that go to style." is untrue.

Second, the above post by me is a warning, not an "ultimatum", and your arbitrary redefining of such terms is irrelevant. "Taking it upon myself" to admonish others not to violate policy, and warn them that they face blocks when they continue such behavior is indeed one of my responsibilities as an administrator, regardless of your indication that you are ignorant of this reality. There's a reason, after all, that those templates exist. If you think administrators do not or should not have this ability, and that you can recast such legitimate administrative activities in terms of "tone", then perhaps your issue is with Wikipedia and its policies, and not with me.

The arguments you made about the sales figures were indeed responded to by myself and four other editors on that article's Talk Page. An appropriate reaction on your part would be to respond to them, perhaps to elaborate on your position, and explain why you do not feel convinced by others' counterarguments, not to claim that no such responses on our part have been made, and to engage in edit warring against consensus.

If you wish to ask others to participate, then I encourage it. Just make sure you follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Canvassing. I would also encourage you to take a look at some other comics articles that feature sales figures, such as All Star Batman and Robin, All Star Superman, "Batman: Hush", etc. Nightscream (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Falsely accusing others of vandalism, calling the work of other editors in your Edit Summaries "sloppy", and referring to the legitimate warnings by administrators of policy violations is not "pointing out where editors have gone wrong". These are insults and personal attacks that show either in ignorance or apathy toward Wikipedia policies, regardless of whatever euphemistic attempts you make to redefine this behavior. Reading "what goes happens on some pages" will not change this, and given the stuff I've read on Wikipedia over the years, is hardly likely to "shock" me. I've been editing a bit longer than you, and trust me, there's nothing new about your behavior, as I've seen it before. If I were you, I'd worry more about learning about Wikipedia yourself, and not the sensibilities of others, since it seems that you're the one who could benefit from this. Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

An interview in which Jeph Loeb flat-out explains that he is going to leave some elements unresolved, and names the upcoming books in which he is going to resolve them, and is properly sourced and cited in the text, is not "speculation". Nor is there any information that he's not going to finish the series, which is completely unsupported, and is quite speculative itself. Please stop deleting valid information from the article. Nightscream (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:LivingTalisman.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:LivingTalisman.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Action -254.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Action -254.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the nice note. It's much appreciated. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Henry Pym lede

Hello! :) You took out my edit of the lede I wrote to the article on Henry Pym. The lede/lead is supposed to be a summarization of the sections that are below it, as stated in WP:LEAD. I summarized the PH and FCB, since I thought those were the most notable sections. Just wondering why my edit was reverted. I haven't edited in a long while here, and don't know if there was a rule change, or if it was because the PH and FCB were the only things summarized. If it was because of the PH and FCB thing, then I can add a summary of the other sections to the new lede/lead as well. Just wondering why the edit was reverted, and if there's any way to have a compromise. Thank you, and have a nice night (Well, it's night here... :))! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I wasn't insinuating that I thought you were being spiteful, so my apologies if that's what it sounded like!! I'm just a bit clueless on current policies now-a-days, not having edited for a while, so forgive the bad edit. I was always under the impression that articles that are considered Good/Featured articles had a multiple paragraph lead. If the new rules say otherwise, then I apologize. I want to see if this article can become a GA or Featured article (I'm a big Henry Pym fan over every other character, so forgive my fanboy-ish goals! ;) ) Thanks, and have a good night! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Respect Thread Conversions

I'm looking for folks to help convert Respect Threads to wiki formatting on Project Fanboy: WikiFans. Respect Threads, showcase scans of feats performed by comic book characters and have gained an audience on several comic book message boards. A few other wiki editors and myself are trying to convert them from the unprofessional look of a bunch of posts on a message board to the formatting common with WikiMedia wiki's. To view an example of what we're doing, here is a link to Respect Silver Surfer.

I was wondering if you might have time to contribute your comic book knowledge and/or scans of comic book characters performing feats, and help us out with our Respect Articles project?Millennium Cowboy (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Great to hear! I look forward to the help! Muchos Gracias amigo! Millennium Cowboy (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This might interest you

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Source for creative origins and development? BOZ (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Odin and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance

I would like to hear your opinion on this: Talk:Odin (Marvel Comics)#Marvel: Ultimate Alliance

vol 1

I haven't reverted yet, but would you explain why you removed all the volume clarifiers from Odin? - jc37 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And nor should you revert. The Wiki-way for original volumes is to just state issue and dates. If it is Vol. 2 and onwards, it gets a mention.

PS. - please don't jump in when someone else has asked me question. This is not a 1984 scenario. --Asgardian (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The "wiki-way"? Presuming that you mean some guideline somewhere, would you please point to it?

As for commenting on a talk page. My comment does not preclude you responding to the question. After all, I could have just as easily responded on their talk page. That's one of the wonders of Wikipedia, discussion is just a click away : )

Anyway, I look forward to your citation for the initial question. Else, yes, I (or others) may indeed revert the removal. (Honestly, I could have reverted the edit already, per WP:BRD, but I thought I would ask if you had a "good reason". Which I'm still waiting for...) - jc37 07:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No cited reasons? (I note that you have edited since the post above.) Very well, then I'll revert. - jc37 22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hangon... I though I'd give Asgardian a chance to dig this up. But...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles with numerous volumes last sentence. - J Greb (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the citation. That's all I was wanting to know in regards to the edits in question. It's a shame that Asgardian couldn't be bothered to explain his edits. - jc37 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thor Enemies

I would like to know if I can get the OK to start a "List of Thor enemies" page since every other superhero has his own Rogues Gallery page. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold (but not reckless). And be willing to discuss upon request (or even proactively). And you should probably be fine. Just my two pence : ) - jc37 06:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is up. Now we need a template and page for Namor. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:07, 7 Auguest 2008 (UTC)

Speed Demon (comics)

1. Break up your edits.
2. Unless there is some where else the DC bit is included, it stays in the article. It is as relevant as the Amalgam bit and since the article is under (comics) it is the de facto dab article.
3. If you feel the section still needs to go, bring it to the articles talkpage instead of editing it out by fiat.
4. Lastly, if you're going to fix the "vol. #" by the MoS, fix all of them in the article you're editing. you missed a few "vol. 1" and left the "vol. 2" in the wrong places.

- J Greb (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thor image

I just caught your link that you put on my talk page. I thank you for it. It's much appreciated. --12.217.237.175 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)