User talk:T-man, the Wise Scarecrow

Attention!- We need more happiness aroud here. If you can make someone laugh, even a little, you've improved the Wikipedia community. Don't just be civil, be forward. Congratulate people when they do a good job, no matter what it is. Too many people have left Wikipedia. Let's not let the rest go, too. If you ever feel stressed, or are at all worried about something, please leave a message for me at my talk page. I want to listen, I want to talk, but, most importantly, I want everybody to feel better!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Superman's publication history, which T for Trouble-maker recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

List of villains

Don't worry about the edit conflict — I've fixed it, I think. You might want to double-check to make sure I got all the DC villains you were adding back in, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you fix it one las time? i won't edit anymore tonight, your spelling changes on comic book character were right, and also, the new titles are ok too. but remember that i'n new and i don't have you editing skills, so when we edited at the same time, i freaked out. I'd still like to keep sequential art firs and then "or Comics". Secuential art is amore wide concept, remeber that you could put hyerogligpics* or villains there, if you find the pictures!--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's true that "sequential art" is a wider term than comics, but "comics" is the more widely recognized term. It's supported by the existence of WikiProject Comics. Right now all the villains in that section are from comics as traditionally understood (comic books or strips). More serious sequential art works are less likely to have "villains" in the conventional sense. Even McCloud calls his book Understanding Comics, so I think that it's OK to have "comics" first and "sequential art" second. We can discuss it more widely on the talk page, as well, so that we can get other views. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Er... T-man? What's going on? I had fixed several DC Comics links (such as Klarion the Witch Boy, Professor Zoom, etc.), and in your latest edit you reverted back to a version before the changes (as well as moving the toy/action figures to the top of the list [alphabetized under "action figure"] instead of where I'd put them (alphabetized under "toy"). I'll back off for the moment, but I'd like it if you can restore the edits I made, like I restored your recent edits lost in the last edit conflict. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, ha, ha, i'm too tired, i worked several hours on the page, i can't think right, man. Try to fix it with out erasing my last aportations. Your changes, except the above mentiones are right.--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 05:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Klarion!!!!!!!!! that's the name!!--T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 05:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC) You are on. i think i finally got it right, i just copied your last edition, but changed novels for literature. --T-man, the Wise Scarecrow 05:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take care of it if you want, and do my best to incorporate all your additions from the last round. Edit conflicts are a pain in the ass, even for experienced editors. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Never mind — you took care of it while I was typing those messages above! :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your message

Hi, T-man. I left a response to your message on my talk page. —Cleared as filed. 13:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll at List of villains

Hey, T-man. Since 213.114.215.199 keeps reverting List of villains back to the old, alphabetical format, I decided that we ought to hold a straw poll to make the consensus on what to do about the page clear. (I thought it was clear before, but apparently it's not clear enough for 213.114.215.199.) I'd appreciate your input on the straw poll — apparently we're supposed to discuss the poll for a week or so before we vote, which seems silly to me, but I want to do this by the book.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikilinking headers

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, it should be avoided, because "Depending on settings, some users may not see them clearly. It is much better to put the appropriate link in the first sentence under the header." It's a usability issue. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating subarticles

It's not something to vote on, it's standard Wikipedia policy. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Long article layout before you do anything else. Dyslexic agnostic 01:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a link from List of villains#Superman to Enemies of Superman. Dyslexic agnostic 02:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Superman

Good job so far on the edits, man! You expanded "supporting characters of", but I'll let it go for now given your other reductions. Way to go Eddie! Dyslexic agnostic 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Batman edits

It really is not done here to enforce your view of propriety by deleting texts on aspects of your favorite topics that you are uncomfortable with. It is also against the rules to take controversial information out of an article and relegate it to a less conspicuous place. Can we resolve this between the two of us? Haiduc 22:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yucateco, eh? My Mexican friends refer to themselves as "Los hijos de la gran' chingada". We've all been screwed by the conquistadores, and one way that they have screwed us is that they hammered their twisted morality into our otherwise clean minds. Mas en Yucatan, donde los mayas si se querian entre ellos - los hombres querian y ensenaban a los muchachos asi como lo hicieron los griegos. And the Mayans were the highest culture Central America saw, more civilized than their Aztec and the Tlazcaltec neighbors. So now why do you have such a problem with hints of the same in Batman culture? And even if you do have a problem with that, why project it onto the article. Other people will see your deletion as the acme of uncool -- it is censorship, be honest. And ease up on the size argument, it is spurious in the extreme. Or, if you stick to that, take out something else since what you are doing is flagrantly against the rules but I do not want to go through the tedious process of RfC's and all that nonsense. You are clearly against the topic, you should not dump that on others. We have a duty to inform, period. Y un poco de orgullo en to propria historia, no? No te dejes colonizado! Haiduc 22:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Que seas poeta esta bien, y no te encuentro grosero, tal vez. . . autentico. Y lo de la historia no es de ser marica sino de ser hombre y no tener miedo de amar lo hermoso. No es cosa de espantar, ni a ti ni a nadie, pero que quieras tu de cortarle los huevos a Batman por que no te gustan, esto no es equitativo para los que tienen otra atitud. Es aquel mensaje tu ultima palabra? Haiduc 23:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, hice cambios q t deben parecer juto y q plasman mi punto de vista en toda la pagina. Tambien considero que hace justicia a los que estan de acuerdo contigo--T for Trouble-maker 03:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't the see the need to alter my contributions -- besides, most of what I did was fix a lot of the spelling mistakes you made.

gracias x eso, lastima que no estemos de acuerdo en nuestra perspectiva de batman--T for Trouble-maker 11:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Advice

If you honestly want my advice, stop reverting and work it out on the talk page before going back in again. Your edits right now sound too much like personal opinion and do not cite sources, leading people to believe that you're just making it up. Your spelling doesn't help create a good impression either, nor does your confrontational attitude when people ask you to justify your edits.

You need to read and understand Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you're basing something on something in an episode, it must be a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence present, and you need to explain where this comes from. Do not be surprised or angry if people disagree with you and do not revert them. Discuss it with them, and be open to being persuaded by their arguments just as much as you might want to persuade them. Again, cite your sources. Provide footnotes where needed, so people can check them out for yourself. Given your command of English is not as good, you should be open to the possibility that you might have even misinterpreted those sources, so let people double check them.

Screenshots for the purposes of illustrating a particular point in an article are permitted under fair use, but you have to make the reason for that clear. Otherwise, one screenshot per article is the recommended limit. See Wikipedia:Fair use.

Subarticles are there if the amount of detail in a section becomes so much that it deserves an article on its own, or if its continued presence in a page makes the page unweildy. Obviously, editors have decided that Superman or whatever needs sub articles.

Same with Batman, and the way the article is structured, or the way it is written. Other editors were here before you. They may have considered these issues before. So before you undo their work, it's only polite to check with them.

And once again, DO NOT BLIND REVERT. People are good enough to correct your spelling, and it gets really annoying if you just revert it back to the misspelled version for no apparent reason other than you want to win an argument. That's being a dick. You need to be civil when dealing with other editors. Don't scoff at them, don't mock them, don't challenge their credentials. Don't act like you know everything, that just pisses people off. I don't wave my credentials in anyone's face - but it's there if people want to check. You built a reputation as an expert here by performing good edits, and that means being able to work with other people and accept consensus even if you think it's wrong. Persuade, don't edit war, and be always mindful of Wikipedia:Three revert rule.

If you want my opinion, right now between you and User:Dyslexic agnostic, you're the one coming off as being the worse offender. You need to step back and consider your actions and the impression you're giving to others. Above all, keep your cool and listen to people and what they're saying. They may have a point. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Superman's publication history, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 18:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexic agnostic

You need to lay off, too. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If I were taking sides, I wouldn't have told him to lay off, would I? The answer is no. In my view, what you have here is a content dispute, not vandalism. You two need to talk it out, not snipe at each other: both of you. On top of that, you should not expect me to answer immediately to every query; I have other stuff to do and keep an eye on as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You need to take a break. Just stop for a while, and consider that your edits might be bad and that is why they are reverted. If you violate Wikipedia:Civility by applying profanity to him again, I'm going to have to block you. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If that's the way you feel about it - I have given you advice; you just don't seem to want to accept that you may be in the wrong on this. Dyxlesic agnostic has offended too, but your behaviour is worse than his has been. Go find another administrator, by all means. But my warning still stands. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, I want to call a truce... it's Christmas (or was), after all! What do you say? Dyslexic agnostic 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Once we are friends, I will come to Merida and visit you and your mother, and we will drink Xtabentún at Chichen Itza and play ball. I was there before, and sipped tequila in Playa del Carmen. Dyslexic agnostic 22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you still seem to have pent=up anger towards me... see me comments to your comments on Martial Law's page. Let's be pals! Dyslexic agnostic 04:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just...

Just helping out where ever I can. You need assisstance ? Martial Law 01:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Batman

Could you respond to my actual points rather than re-editing your own points. Such practise is against Wikipedia policy. Also note, actual quotations are not needed, only references and citations. If you disagree with the text, read the work cited and see if it supports the view presented, and if it does not, then discuss that fact on the talk page. And please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA when addressing people. Steve block talk 11:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Back from (unscheduled) wikibreak

Hey, T-man. I ended up being away from Wikipedia longer than I expected over Christmas. I think I'm back now (schedule's still a bit up in the air until the New Year). I missed your messages from earlier in the week. I'll take a look at the Doctor Who entries in the villains list, but if it's all the same to you I think I'll stay out of the business between you and dyslexic agnostic. It looks like something that might be better resolved between the two of you. Hope you don't mind. See you around the 'pedia! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've come to an amicable solution. It's surprising how much can be achieved by simply assuming good faith, even — especially — from the people who you have less-than-pleasant experiences with. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Strikethrough

To have a line through a word or phrase, type <s> where you want the line to start and </s> where you want it to stop. So, to write "George W. Bush is a blithering idiot respected statesman," you would type "...is a <s>blithering idiot</s> respected statesman" . —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I see you figured it out while I was typing. Ah, well. See ya! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me try: "T-man is a blithering idiot wise scarecrow"... cool, it works! Dyslexic agnostic 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:banner

Fine with me. Cheers, Sean|Black 05:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

WAFE

See MY User page for more. Martial Law 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Beckjord has formed or is forming a organization called W.A.F.E. which stands for Wikipedians After Fair Editing. This could be another war, or worse, a Wiki Civil War, since he is soliciting people to join him. Martial Law 10:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Advice as requested

Hey, T-man. I'm honored and a bit surprised that you'd ask advice from me, as I've sometimes been less than polite myself — I've had to learn to assume good faith, just as you have.

I'm sorry that you're getting frustrated by the changes dyslexic agnostic is making to your edits. I haven't gone deep into your contributions, but I had a look at The Bat-Embargo and related pages, to get an idea of the content and manner of the debate. The best thing you've got going for you as a Wikipedia editor is your enthusiasm, and it would be a real shame to lose that. I don't know much about the DC Animated Universe (having watched only the occasional episode of Justice League or the old Bruce Timm Batman series), so I don't feel qualified to discuss the content of those edits. I do know a bit about the comics, though. I think that what may have happened in the earlier encounters with dyslexic agnostic is that he didn't recognize the worthwhile information you were adding because of your verbose style and occasionally weak English skills. Then, when you got upset and reacted badly, he decided that you were a problem editor and made it his mission to clean up after you. (This is just my interpretation of events, based on a fairly cursory look at edits on pages like Enemies of Batman, and may not be the whole story.)

It looks to me as if you're making a good-faith effort to mend fences with him, which is great. One bit of advice that I'll give you is that it's often not a good idea to try to use humor or sarcasm in situations like this, because a lot of humor depends on tone of voice and other contextual cues that are lost in writing. (That's why emoticons developed — silly as they are, they can serve a useful function. But, as Peter David would say, I digress.)

I guess that if I were in your shoes I'd try to lay off making major changes to the pages dys. agn. is heavily involved in for a while (at least for a few days), to let things cool off. I know that's difficult and frustrating, especially if the pages have errors on them that need correcting. But if you come back in the new year and show a cooperative attitude, I think that dys. agn. and the other editors should recognize that you've got worthwhile contributions to make. You've already shown that you understand that your contributions need polishing by native speakers of English. I think that the next thing to focus on is consensus, which is especially important on well-established pages like Batman. If a page has reached featured article status, it's probably a good idea to discuss major changes on the talk page before you make them. Be bold is better advice for pages in earlier stages of development than it is for featured articles.

I've been going on for a while and not saying much. I guess the most important thing is not to give up hope — you've done a lot of good work on Wikipedia, and you recognize the areas where you need improvement. That's worth something. If you keep your temper and remain polite, you and dyslexic agnostic will work out your differences in time, and you'll be able to go back to editing the Batman pages. I hope this is helpful and not too long-winded — that's one of my failings as a writer!

Best, Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks, man!! that was exactly what I needed to hear! I'm lating you know a couple of things: first, I'm trying to drop the sarcasm; second, you were wrong, you were always very polite, and that's precisely why I personaly admire you so much. You really showed me better (from the begining, not just right now)!!

I hope you had a merry xmas ans happy new year!

--T for Trouble-maker 07:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I did, thanks. I'm feeling very fat and happy after the Christmas feasts (and all the leftovers)! I hope you had a good holiday too. We actually had a Mexican dinner of sorts on New Year's Eve (although it probably wasn't very authentic). My wife fried up chimichangas (which I understand originate in Arizona rather than Mexico), and we had them with salsa, guacamole and refried beans (frijoles refritos). It may not have been authentic, but it sure tasted good!

I'm glad that you found my advice helpful. I hope you won't mind if I give you a bit more. I happened to notice your recent comment on dyslexic agnostic's talk page, because I had just been communicating with him about some Doctor Who pages. I saw that you seemed to be quite upset with him. I haven't looked through your contributions and his to see exactly what made you so angry, but that really isn't important (or my business). What is important is that your comment was a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, a very important policy. No matter how upset you are with another user, it's never a good idea to attack them (no matter how much you might want to). It makes you look worse in their eyes, and is unlikely to change their behavior or attitude towards you.

I know that when you get angry it's hard not to express it. But you should strive to stay cool, especially with users who get under your skin.

Based on your comments a few days ago, it looked as if you and D.A. were beginning to find common ground and ways to work together amicably. It would be a shame to scupper that now with one post written in haste. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

New relationship for the new year

Look, T-Man, it is not my goal to get you down or to dampen your excitement for wikipedia. I admit to a tendency to be critical, and sarcasm may not be the best way to try to get my points across. Reverting you is NOT the first thing I do each day (it's the third) (See! The sarcasm is too deeply engrained...), but I do check on you because I know your edits are sometimes too out there for me, and I don't think I'm alone in this, by looking at other editors' reverts of you (I'm not the only one). If dates of appearances of enemies of batman are wrong, then fix them, and we will all be the happier for your obvious keen knowledge of comic book history and lore. But your large chunk of rewrite to the enemies of batman did not flow, and when I see it reading poorly as a whole I am guilty of a blind revert rather than looking for the parts which are good and could be used.

Yes, I am an admitted minimalist: I don't see why we have to say the same things over and over on various wikipedia pages. I have reasons for this:

(a) size: not that I fear wikipedia will run out of server room, but because big articles risk the danger that readers will waver and lose interest, thereby missing out on the good concise info we should be offering them;

(b) consistency: A big write-up on "Enemies of the Batman" on the Batman page and the subarticle too means more chance of an inconsistent error in one page and not the other. For example, if one page says Bane started in the 1980s and the other the 1990s, then people are confused. If this fact only shows up ONCE, then there is no inconsistency; if the fact is wrong, talented comic buffs like yourself will catch it;

(c) the nature of wikis: this is not a paper encyclopaedia! With paper, books have to repeat info, because the reader of "X" may not take the trouble to flip to reference "Y": here, it's a click away... let's use the wonder of this wiki format to our advantage!

One more thing... please don't back edit your prior comments on talk pages once someone else has replied... it makes things very confusing to read, and I have to look up all the "diff" and "hist" pages to follow it. Just add a new comment below the last!

My resolution to you for 2006 is to read your edits critically, try to glean the wheat from the chaff, and not to be (too) rude or abrasive. This doesn't mean I have time to pre-copyedit things you post on my user talk page, cause I fear I don't. But I look forward to getting along better next year. Dyslexic agnostic 17:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!!

Hope all is well. Dyslexic agnostic 19:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I seriously hope you are doing well, and look forward to working with you on edits. Send me a line! Dyslexic agnostic 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are back!! Glad to see it, as I was worried. But whatever are you talking about? What did I blind revert? Dyslexic agnostic 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh... the Bat-Embargo thing... see the discussion at Talk:Justice_League_Unlimited#Merger_of_The_Bat-Embargo; the consensus was to merge. If you want, you can help with the editing of Justice League Unlimited to trim it down. I can help you with your copyedit, if you like. Trying to be your friend... Dyslexic agnostic 16:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

About you being a fan of Batman:TAS and JLU... I have actually never seen an episode of either. I will try though soon. Dyslexic agnostic 20:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We need you back, T! Dyslexic agnostic 12:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo that: I hope that my second bit of advice above didn't scare you off! We don't want you to leave, T-man! I hope you're just busy with real life stuff, and will be back soon. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, guys!!

I'm sorry, I've been busy with real life. but i'm not sure i can come back, with someone erasing whatever I do instead of copyediting it this takes me four times more time than it should and in the end none of my edits are considered useful, they erased the whole bat embargo article. my contributions seem to be seen as useless and I even started to get depress when I see them eresed even if it is by one guy and a couple of sympatizers of his cause. (forgot my password) t-man--201.152.90.181 00:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC) ps: josiah, I need to get in touch with you, i'm kinda writing a comic book with my drawing sketches. and I need a native English speaker to help me. My e mail is ajtorrepuerto@hotmail.com

Superman T-man returns

Hey, glad to hear from you! I was very worried... hope you remember your password soon, or else start a new account! Dyslexic agnostic 01:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

the bat embargo

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Dyslexic agnostic 06:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

DON'T REDO the Bat-Embargo page... you'll just get reverted and then be pissed off. Just revise the bat-Embargo section of Justice League Unlimited. IF it gets really good, then maybe, just MAYBE, someday it will merit its own page. But start with baby steps... Dyslexic agnostic 06:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, ask yourself... why do we need to know more about the bat-embargo than is on the JLU page? Why? It's enough to know it exists, and that's it. Can't we find you a nice project? Let me think... Dyslexic agnostic 06:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Canada should take over the Mayan Riviera... BWAHAHAHAHA. Seriously, check out my awesome creation, limited series (comics). Dyslexic agnostic 07:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

limited series

Better? (P.S., JLU ROCKS!!!!) Dyslexic agnostic 07:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, did you know that instead of writing [[limited series (comics)|limited series]], you can just write [[limited series (comics)|]] and get the same result? See the title to this section for an example! Anything in brackets just disappears!! Dyslexic agnostic 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Crisis on Infinite Earths and Secret Wars were each 12 issues, and therefore not part of the point I am making... guess you never read them. Dyslexic agnostic 07:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

All dude, of course. Dyslexic agnostic 07:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

- yeah! but in mexico was printed in six issues and I forgot. But 7 to 9 issues is not a new thing--T for Trouble-maker 07:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

-- really... name three other seven issue limited series. Plus, can I buy your six issues? Dyslexic agnostic 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---I have an idea! Why don't you stick to editing Marvel Comics items? Just a thought... Dyslexic agnostic 15:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bat-embargo

hi; I have multiple reasons for thinking that this article should be deleted, so I'd rather not directly do much editing, since I'm not sure I could do it in good faith. However, here are some general comments about getting such articles kept:

• try to give examples of concern about the issue outside the specific group of fans.
• for verifiability try to find mainstream media coverage of the issue, link to that;
• try to cut down material to key important points, which make it clear that the issue is valuable
• consider instead making a small paragraph in
• for new items and ongoing stories, you might want to consider other projects such as wikinews.

Altogether this means, show it isn't original research and make sure that people can verify that.

I don't know enough about wikinews to tell you if this page would be suitable for them, so I don't want to directly suggest you put this article there, however, there are many wikis and there must be one which would be an appropriate host the article. I, personally, just don't think that it's right for wikipedia at the present moment. There has to be a balance between "Wikipedia is not paper": so we can include lots of stuff Britannica wouldn't and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia": so we only aim to include stable, well discussed, verifiable information.

If you do find mainstream sources, you might find that footnotes are useful in makeing it clear how each source supports each particular part of your article. Mozzerati 22:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW; please don't remove the tag directly yourself; that's not considered a good idea. Instead vote against the deletion and answer queries on the deletion and discussion page. If you can persuade people then the deletion tag can be removed when the vote is closed after a few days. Mozzerati 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, please, don't take this as a personal attack. I have no desire to start an flame war with you over the Bat-Embargo. I believe you that all of the external links mention the Bat-Embargo (I've seen many a cranky post about it at World's Finest myself.) I'm certainly not denying the fact that the Bat-Embargo exists, or even that I find it annoying.

What I don't agree with you is that the Bat-Embargo is important enough for it's own encyclopedia article. It's "neat" to have it, sure. Then again, I think it'd be "neat" to have an article on me (which I'm sure would promptly and rightfully be deleted.)

Furthermore, there isn't a mention (in my quick read through) of the bat-embargo on The Batman, on the Aquaman article, nor on the Teen Titans. If you think these places deserve mention of the Bat-Embargo, please, edit them. I just don't think there is enough encyclopedia-worthy information to have it's own article. I think we're going to have to peacefully (hopefully) agree to disagree on this point. I think the two paragraphs we have on the JLU page suffice myself.

I see you've voted on the AfD. Let's see what the consensus is again.--Gillespee 06:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again; you have listed sources and they are sources that should be included in an article, but none of them are major media sources (think New York times / The Guardian / Reuters / Pravda etc) or major independent organisations (Human Rights Watch) . The best source seems to be the company producing the themselves. This means that the information will not have been investigated by specialists / jouralists / peer review etc. The problem with verifying this is that we would be unable to spot if the issue was made up or misrepresented (e.g for publicity reasions) Mozzerati 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

a Stalker says:

It's pre-Crisis, stalker. -- Dyslexic agnostic 05:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You are a moron. Get lost and let me edit productively. The bat-embargo is going DOWN! Dyslexic agnostic 05:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

STALKER T-MAN.... GET LOST. EDIT YOUR OWN SITES AND LEAVE ME THE $&)($(^*! ALONE!! Dyslexic agnostic 05:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I've offered the same advice to Dyslexic agnostic. -- Curps 05:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dyslexic you can moot yourself if you call me moot, you punk!" T-Stalker, why am I finding this hidden in code in Talk:DC animated universe, specifically here? That really hurts, that you malign me, especially when I have no way of finding it other than following you, which I would never do. That hurts, man, just when I am such a helpful friend, supporting you on the Bat-boycott or whatever it's called. And I have never called you moot. Moron, yes, but not moot. Dyslexic agnostic 07:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

who are you kiding? you found my hidden message, that proves my point that you are following me. And please don't be sinical, you'd call me whatever word I use whether is moot, stalker or whatever. I rest my case. --T for Trouble-maker 21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)