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)

Please do not remove valid material from Wikipedia articles, or use inappropriate Edit Summaries, as you did to the Ultimates article. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete it every time when that badly written. Deleting valid information because it does not conform to your personal sense of aesthetics is not a valid criteria within Wikipedia policy. If you feel such material can benefit from a rewrite, then that is what you should do. Remove such information without a valid reason again, and you will be blocked. Nightscream (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you were going to rewrite it, that's fine, but I saw your edit over 11 hours after you had deleted it, and you had not edited it. If you're not going to edit a passage until a later time, then don't delete it. There is no "Wiki-standard" that calls for outright deletion of text simply because it's badly written, and is in fact a violation of WP policy. But if you can point me to a policy that says otherwise, please do so.Nightscream (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Ultron, you will be blocked from editing. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 72 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued removal of material. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Asgardian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unfortunately this is a rather petty act by an emotive user who is simply annoyed at the fact that things did not go entirely his way on the Ultimates article, and appears to be obsessive about the content. He then followed me to the Ultron page, and insists on keeping what is weak material. By that I mean poorly written, unsourced and flipping in and out of universe. This is not how articles are written, as I mentioned on the Talk page for the article. It should be obvious that the additions made are beneficial. These are meant to encyclopedia-standard articles, and should not read as fan pages that mean nothing to a layman. I put it to the powers that be that Nightscream should possibly have his adminship revoked, given he has shown no ability to read the situaion here and has responded with emotion rather logic. What I have done here is no different to the many, many other articles I have improved. Asgardian (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, reread this, if you haven't already. Engaging in the kinds of petty, churlish and bitter personal attacks that you just did will not get you unblocked. It is especially unwise when you are under ArbCom restrictions, and I may extend the block just for that. I have also read the diffs Nightscream provided. This has clearly been a long time coming. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I gave you another 24 hours of time-out as a result of your comments on the contributor in the above unblock request. Per discussion with Jc37 the whole block has been reduced to 48 hours with credit for time served. Although this does not come without a warning that continued incivility could lead to an indefinite block. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for incivility and personal attacks. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns about these blocks. As such, I've left a note for User:Hiding to review the initial block, and have also left a note about my concerns at Daniel Case's talk page.

Also, for the moment Asgardian, please do not add another unblock template. - jc37 05:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly advise you (Asgardian) to heed the warning concerning incivility.And note that this warning includes other disruptive actions, such as you have also been warned about in the past. - jc37 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Emperor if he would help mentor you. What this would mean in your case would be for you to drop a note on his talk page anytime you are in a contentious situation on a talk page, or anytime your edits are reverted, or anytime you would like a "second opinion" on anything. Another set of eyes might be helpful to (hopefully) prevent future situations.

If you agree with this, please leave a note on his talk page when your block has expired. - jc37 07:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that this is fine by me. Rather than things escalating I am happy to give my opinion on any dispute. I have this page on my watchlist and if anyone is welcome to drop me a line and ask me to look things over. Worth bearing in mind I will be working on the general principles that everything can be fixed with commonsense interpretations of the guidelines (and remember they are only guidelines not the Word of God) and talking things through (keeping in mind that the "D" in BRD is "discuss" not "do it again", and that consensus may mean compromise). So give those a go first but it looks like it is going to be important to intervene early to stop things getting out of hand - I think the one thing we can all agree upon is that it'd be better to head things off earlier as this isn't conducive to improving articles (which is why we are all here after all). (Emperor (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for the note. I you feel that someone is not seeing the bigger picture or broader plan then it is really your responsibility to try and explain it to them as it will avoid a lot of misunderstanding - if in doubt take it to the talk page, it might be slower in the long run but playing ping pong with the versions is ultimately even less productive. You should also assume good faith when suggesting they are following you around - as you edit a lot of Marvel articles anyone sharing the same interest will tend to also edit the same articles and it is also sometimes a good idea to check out editor's contributions to see what they are doing. (Emperor (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

I've asked Nightscream a couple of questions. I think it is likely the block will expire before we get this sorted, which is a bummer. What I suggest is that the next time you get blocked, don't post an unblock that amounts to a personal attack. Keep it really simple. Say, "I do not understand what this block is for". I really do not know how to make this point any clearer, so I will be brutally honest, if you can forgive me. You need to learn how to engage with people. If there is a medical condition which affects you, letting people on Wikipedia know about it may provide some understanding and help us better engage with you. But there needs to be respect of the rules of engagement. Civility and consensus are the rules of engagement on Wikipedia. They need to be respected by everyone. If you respect them, it makes it easier for you to argue your own case. Right. It's a new day, let's see where it takes us. Hiding T 09:10, 16 September 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)

Question about the publication history

Should it contain every appearance by the character? DCincarnate (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Criti Noll

Hello there again, Asgardian! How are you today? :) I noticed that you edited out much of Paulley's additions to the Henry Pym article. I say that we should wait until it is decided what will be done at the Criti Noll articles for deletion page, before you get to work on that certain section (Though I do agree with your edit, however. I just think that it will be good to not start a conflict in case someone takes something the wrong way!) In essence, I reverted your current edit. If you disagree, however, feel free to revert my edit. Thanks, and have a nice day! The link to the article for deletion page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criti_Noll CarpetCrawler (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GoldenAgeVision.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GoldenAgeVision.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Updates to the Henry Pym lead

Hello, Asgardian! How are you doing? :) I've noticed a person named "asgardian" that at one point was a member of the "Avengers Assemble!" message board. If this is the same person, then may I say, greetings, fellow member! I have worked on the Henry Pym lead, and would like for you to view my edits, which you can find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CarpetCrawler/Sandbox I would like it if you could tell me if there's anything wrong with it, that would make it unsuitable for the Henry Pym article. Is it too wordy? Too detailed? Any advice on how to change it and make it look suitable enough? You're more of an expert on this stuff than I am, so any comments are appreciated. Thanks, and have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:OneAboveAll.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) 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultron

Hi. Would you mind if I asked you a question? You said in your Edit Summary, "Remember, no mention of dates in the paragraphs unless a PH." What is the reason for this? Is this a policy or WP guideline? Explaining when this occurred would contextualize the passage. Without it, the way it starts off, "Previous contact with Iron Man's armor forces Iron Man to transform...", doesn't seem to make sense in terms of tense, since it doesn't tell the reader when this occurred. Many thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you modified the section I mentioned, describing it in your edit summary with "Clarification as per request". I'm not sure if this is intended as a reference to my above post, since it doesn't address my points about when the events in question occurred, or my question about the derivation of your statement "Remember, no mention of dates in the paragraphs unless a PH". Can we please discuss this? I started a discussion on that article's Talk Page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that it's in the reference, but don't you think the text is lacking in temporal context? Doesn't it raise the question to the reader of when it occurred, in terms of how it reads? Nightscream (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here, and would be interested in your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. I agree that this edit was an obviously good one, but for all we know, it might've been some kid with currently poor writing skills, and/or who is new to WP. Please don't assume vandalism in cases like this, as doing so is not in keeping with WP:Newbie and WP:AGF. Check out What is not vandalism for more on this. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Shark/Namor

Hi, Asgardian. When you say that "we don't tag the original volume", are you citing an actual policy, style guide, or consensus decision? If you could refer me to this, I'd appreciate it. As for the subsequent volume titles, there was a 1984 miniseries by Bob Budiansky that was indeed called Prince Namor, the Sub-Mariner. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you revert

This is regarding the West Coast Avengers cover in Vision (Marvel Comics)

1. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Resolution images should be capped at 300px unless there is an exceptionally good reason for a more detailed (read larger) version. Since the use of the image is to illustrate the Vision, the image does not need to be any larger than 300.
   • Side note — convention has been to leave covers as published at 300px, even though if they aren't used in the infobox. Otherwise, non-box image tend to get capped at 250px.
2. As per the upload screen, do not use filenames that would be cryptic or obscure to the general user. "WCA-45" is cryptic shorthand. I believe we went through this point once before.
3. It generally isn't appropriate to replace an image with a near identical but differently named and/or formatted file. Cases can be made for when the old file is either manipulated to add or remove content or is of poor quality. Neither of those exist for Image:Westcoast45.png.
4. Yes, the png could use a FUR, but the solution is to add it there, nor upload a new file.
5. Considering you punted the png out of West Coast Avengers, you had the oportuninty to see that it predates the jpg.

- J Greb (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Henry Pym lead

WP:LEAD requires a longer lead - if you don't like the current one then feel free to edit it but do not simply remove it because you prefer the article the way you want it (raising WP:OWN issues). I was asked to point out the policies that apply in any content disputes you find yourself in and am doing so here. Getting into another round of disputes where the guidelines are so clearly against you is unwise, especially so soon after a block for a similar dispute. (Emperor (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

I have mentioned it because that is what happened - I'm not saying if it is right or wrong. You were blocked and I was asked to help out - that is pretty much a statement of fact. (Emperor (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

RE: Henry Pym

Yeah... that was years ago, though, so that's all in the past! Thankfully, I haven't had any problems so far in my return here. Then again, I'm only focusing on articles on things I'm interested in (Marvel Comics, Phil Collins, Genesis amongst other things,) so the chance for arguments is much less. Anyway, I'm very glad it's turned into a big civil discussion on there, and I'm also glad that we may very well all reach a compromise! CarpetCrawler (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, let me know. Also, I left a message asking you a question up above in the Black Bolt section. Nightscream (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Black Bolt

Regarding the Ultimates, Jeph Loeb stated his plans in an interview, which it was opined was not sufficient to pass WP:Crystal. This is not the case with Black Bolt's presence in "War of Kings". Marvel has not only confirmed this on its website, it did so in Marvel: Your Universe Saga, which is in print on in comic stores. Because of this, it certainly passes the following criteria listed for WP:CRYSTAL:

• 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Because of the aforementioned confirmed info, it is certain to take place, and not even "almost".
• 2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. This does not apply to this situation.
• 3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. None of the information is extrapolation, speculation, or "future history". When a publisher flat-out states a given fact about an upcoming storyline, and advertises that fact in books released prior to it, and on its website, it is factually incorrect in terms of plain vocabulary to call it "speculation".

Let me know your thoughts. Nightscream (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not revert the Black Bolt article again without citing an actual policy, or discussion. There is no policy or guideline that prohibits titles in FCB, and indeed, WP's policy on writing about serial fiction prescribes the opposite. The information in question does not constitute "speculation", and I described why above. If you feel you have a valid way to refute this, that is fine, refusing to discuss it openly, while continuing to revert it, constitutes disruptive editing. Nightscream (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the your final warning. The next time you blank valid page content, without citing a policy that justifies it, or engaging in discussion, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Your argument that titles do not belong in Fictional Character Biographies was already refuted multiple times on this and on that article's Talk Page. Either disprove that, or cease your disruptive behavior. Nightscream (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I responded to your most recent post on the Black Bolt Talk Page yesterday. Can you respond? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay as far as the third opinion, but shouldn't we try to talk it out before doing so? Why won't you respond to the details of my position as to why it does not fail CRYSTAL nor qualify as speculation? Nightscream (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you gotten the other person's opinion yet on Black Bolt? Will they chime in on that article's Talk Page, or elsewhere? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WCA-45.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WCA-45.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) 05:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What's with the info deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secret_Wars&diff=240830194&oldid=240617500

The aforementioned comics do foreshadow the Secret Wars with the footnotes even providing references. Plus I gave a source for the new What If? coming out (The December Solicitations). Antiyonder (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Based upon several diffs posted by others, and some checking I've done of your edit history:

You're starting to backslide into removing/changing sections of text, without noting it in your edit summary (often through multiple types of edits in the same page-edit). If there are too many edits in a single page-edit for you to feel that it's explainable in a single edit summary, then split the edits into more than one page-edit.

I understand that you feel that some of these concern WP:CRYSTAL (and Emperor (et al) is currently attempting to discuss those with you), but the edits I'm talking about are more where you seem to feel that "in-universe" history/events should be pared. (Something which was your opinion in the past as well, as you have explained repeatedly.) Whether or not the edits are correct or not, they should be noted in your edit summary per Arbitration.

(I have not posted diffs in order to attempt to reduce disruption, but I will if you request it.)

Consider this is a warning. The next edit (following this time stamp) in which you remove such sections of text without an exlanatory edit summary, will cause you to be blocked for at least 72 hours by me or another neutral admin.

Please understand the seriousness of this. This can be seen as recurrent disruption, and could lead to eventually being indefinitely blocked if this continues. - jc37 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of any backsliding as my edits have always been consistent. If you want more comment in the Edit Summary, no problem. However, I put it to you to monitor the whole situation and nip any "a ha! Asgardian's violated parole!" carry on from certain others in the bud. I still see very acknowledgement for the work done thus far into bumping dozens of articles from terrible to acceptable status. In the interim, what you could do is check out Black Bolt as Nightscream is getting too emotionally involved again. - Asgardian (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was a request for diffs. If you confirm that, I will. That said, I'm also aware of how posting diffs on your talk page may lead to various disruption (including edit warring), so I am hesitating unless you specifically request it.

And thank you for acknowledging the concern.

As for that article, I have been watching before and after User:Emperor left me a note about it. I think atm I'll leave the discussion to the participants. But if the edit reversions continue (by anyone), further sanction may be appropriate.

As an aside, accusing someone of being "emotionally involved" (whether it may or may not be true) doesn't help a situation, but can exacerbate it. Just because you may feel that others may seem to be attacking you or your edits, try to attempt to not respond in kind. I'm not sure if I've pointed out these links to you before, but please read WP:COOL, and perhaps Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks may be helpful as well.

In addition, Wikipedia:Words to avoid is a guideline that I think you will appreciate and should find quite useful in your editing.

I hope this helps. - jc37 00:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Some good points. I really didn't think stating that someone was "emotionally involved " was offensive (which he is, as he threatened to basically block (misuse?) if not complying with his way), but I'll keep it even more neutral ("too close"). I'll also post your relevant comments on the relevant page as I've already suggested a quorum.

Asgardian (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope it helps.

Incidentally, note that threatening to block someone is not necessarily an indication that someone's emotions are involved.

And, as an aside, Wikipedia doesn't involve "quorums" (though it might be interesting if it did). Resolution of an specific situation is through discussion, and through the discussion, a consensus being determined (often by whomever "closes" the discussion - which is often an admin.) So using the word "quorum" may not be helpful. Perhaps try: "I suggest that we notify a broader forum by posting a note on the WikiProject's talk page." - jc37 05:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

I thought I'd give you this, for helping end the Henry Pym conflict.

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For helping and getting involved in solving the Henry Pym lede conflict. Thank you once again! CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Quicksilver

Hi. Regarding your Quicksilver edit, when you say that OHOTMU is not acknowledged as a source, do you mean that it's not considered reliable? If so, where/when was this decided? Was it a consensus discussion, or was it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? (Sorry for all the questions of late.) Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Bolt

I have been asked to look at recent issues regarding the article. Please don't simply revert to your preferred version of an article and then start discussion. Be prepared to discuss before you revert, and convince people of your position first. You may be right, you may be wrong, but reverting conveys the idea that you reject discussion as futile since your version is right. Discussing first is the way in which edit wars are prevented. There seems to be good discussion on the issue now, so much of what I say is redundant, but I think it is a point worth making. An article doesn't have to be reverted three times today if it can be reverted just the once tomorrow and stay that way a week or two. Hiding T 11:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I support the above advice. - jc37 15:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Living Laser

Hi. In this edit, you deleted an entire section of material, but claimed in your Edit Summary that you had "reworked" it. In what way did you rework it? Why was it removed? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see now that you made a mention of the What If? farther down in the article, and that your Edit Summary says this was reached through consensus. But I don't see any discussion on that article's Talk Page. Where is the discussion? Is it on the Comics Project page? Nightscream (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC

While I'm working my way through this stuff, trying to figure out what's going on, I have to support the removal of most of that What If? section per past discussions. The talk page for in the alternate character guidelines page which got started months ago pulls together a LOT of WikiProject Comics discussions. Put simply, a What If? story's details do not add squat to understanding the character's history. Although I strongly prefer "Created by Stan Lee, Art Simek and Don Heck, the character first appeared . . ." because it has better sentence construction, that's a separate issue. I think this was overall an appropriate edit. However, once someone objected to it, proper discussion is needed, not reverts. (Figuring out the rest of what's been happening here is going to take me a while.) Doczilla _STOMP! 08:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: "lead reached through consensus" Sorry, but I don't know when that consensus was reached and I'd have disagreed with writing it that way. I'd definitely support enforcing consensus even if I disagreed.

A person citing consensus needs to hunt it down before reverting and reverting. I know Asgardian tried to hunt it down by asking me about it[1], but I was useless. Too many people had way too many discussions about different aspects of the lead. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Some relevant exchanges from the WikiProject Comics talk page got copied to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Character alternate version guidelines and then additional discussion began. A huge portion of it has to do with a specific kind of alternate version -- that being the Amalgam Comics character. Toward the bottom of the page, I raised the issue of how much detail the What If? sections should have (I argued for a little as possible), but that particular discussion didn't go far enough to cite that as broad consensus. I had started combining ideas and consensus from various talk pages into Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Character alternate version guidelines under the watchful eyes of a lot of other people, but then I got too darn busy with real life. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Good points. The reason I always kept sections such as Alternates minimal is that subjective and unnecessary storytelling usually creeps in. Citing the fact that there is an appearance, without the "tell the story" component, is sufficent. We also need a discussion on what "encyclopedia standard" means as some need to understand what is and isn't valid content. There's also the issue of in and out of universe, which leads back to those very nebulous guidelines.

Asgardian (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Pym

Hi. In the Edit Summary accompanying this edit, you state, "Not well written - just the facts." First, I explained to you earlier that bad writing is not a valid rationale for deleting material under WP policy. Second, all the information in that passage is indeed factual, as I participated in editing it. Lastly, that Ultron took on the Yellowjacket identity is relevant enough to mention, as that is the only appearance of that identity in the Ultimate universe. Please do not delete material without a valid rationale. Nightscream (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy (Modern)

I've just made some edits on the GotG (Modern) page and raised a point on the talk page. I noticed your name in the edit history, and, recalling positive experiences with you in the past, thought that I would ask for your opinion on the matter whenever you have the time. -- Pennyforth (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I've done a little more tinkering with the team history, but your trimming to the "gist" was well done. I moved the "proactive/reactive" bit from my prior edit to the top of the section (I think it makes a good segue to the team roster), clarified a couple of points and made a note that Cosmo works closely with the GotG; the sentence simply stating his role on Knowhere feels flat and out of place without a specific connection to the team. -- Pennyforth (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Boy, I want to help, but that got hashed out over numerous articles, including some discussions you weren't in on regarding other articles. I know a few talk pages got a disproportionate amount of that discussion, though. I'll have to think a bit to see which comes to mind. The AWB program might offer the easier way to search my own edit history for a clue. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IM-153.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:IM-153.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) 05:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week

Per discussions with Emperor, I have blocked you for a week for this latest episode of reversion without discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the appropriate reaction here is ??? Where is the link for the supposed offence? The question from you to me that comes before action? There is also no link to the discussion you have supposedly had with the other user. There is only a simple statement re: a block with no concrete reason. I've never seen another administrator do this. Please explain if you can.

Leaving aside the implied insult in "if you can" and the fact that you're plainly intelligent enough that I'm pretty sure you know what you're blocked for and thus asking me to provide the relevant diffs has a whiff of wikilawyering to it, I will point to this and this as reasons for the block (incivility). Your edit history from the period prior to the block shows no edits to any talk pages for the eight days leading up to the block. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, that is very weak. Very weak. There was an explanation in the Edit Summary, and the other addition was clumsy. It made no sense. If you think that is uncivil, go check out some of the DC articles and the arguments that ensue there. Everything is in the Edit Summaries, and I was searching for a link to a past discussion, which Doczilla can attest to. I've since found one of the relevant links.

Clumsy it may have been, but I don't see some exception from WP:CIV for that. As for your other argument, please see WP:NOTTHEM. Daniel Case (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've also just seen that this was the recommendation of Nightscream. I don't agree with this as he is not objective and needs to learn a few things about advanced editing and what keeps an article at encyclopedia standard. He erroneously blocked me on a previous occasion.

It wasn't just him. Emperor also assented to this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And? On the strength of this a week long block is imposed? Did you try talking to me? Or note that none of my edits were in fact detrimental and that Nightscream was stuck on content issues, and may be wrong?

I really expected better from the likes of you.

You're under ArbCom restrictions already; you've gotten plenty of talking to. The question here isn't your edits; it's your tendency to revert repeatedly without much in the way of discussion. Content disputes are to be addressed on talk pages. If you feel like you're just going to revert and revert to settle it, you could certainly request the page be protected while you has it out. As I said above, while you were doing these reverts you made absolutely no edits to any talk pages. One attempt to discuss instead of revert might have made a lot of difference. Daniel Case (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, I found your comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

All in all, that's a pretty weak case.

Asgardian (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Asgardian. Even though you're currently blocked, I think it's a good idea if we try to discuss our disputes, since the block will eventually expire, and I'd prefer to talk things with you instead of edit warring. Regarding your use of the word "fancruft", according to Wikipedia:Fancruft, fancruft refers to material of importance only to fans of the subject. It carries the implication that the content is unimportant and the contributor's judgment of importance of the topic is inhibited by their fanaticism, may be therefore regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. It is often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research.

To be honest, I didn't think there were any disputes in play. Fancruft is a word I actually saw

Tenebrae first use, and yes, it refers to material that is "poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research" and so on. Happens all the time. Most folks on Wikipedia mean well, but (and I say this gently) lack one or all of three things:

1. Writing skills 2. Subject Knowledge 3. Vision (tricky one - knowing what makes a great article is a mindset. You have it or you don't)

hence any edits beyond minor grammatical efforts need reworking. As for Living Laser, you mean well, but have a tendency to want to include more than is necessary. In the FCB, it is best to just state the facts in a neutral, factual manner. When citing an alternate version, all that is needed is a mention that the story exists, rather than a blow by blow account. Remember, these articles are required to be encyclopedia standard, meaning there can be no unnecessary elaboration, POV etc. Here, it is a simple What If? issue, and only requires two sentences, tops. If the reader wants more, they can track the issue via the accurate source. I hope that helps.

Asgardian (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not particularly a fan of most Avengers-related titles, so I am not a fanatic, nor did the material fit the other criteria mentioned. Obviously, there's going to be a subjective element to edit disputes, but that's not the same thing as saying that material you personally disliked is "badly written" or "fancruft". Nor does "fancruft" refer to material that is outside a mainstream Fictional Character Biography, as you stated in the above-linked Edit Summary. So please avoid using that term, and try to avoid similar Edit Summaries, in which you refer to others' writing as "clumsy" or "badly written", even if you don't specify an editor by name, as this does not create the most positive atmosphere for collaboration. If we disagree on an edit, let's talk it out instead of just reverting, okay? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I indicated above, most efforts are unfortunately substandard, but I'll leave out the inferences. Of course, you may wish to convey that to the dozens of editors that fight out it out on the DC articles...

Asgardian (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fancruft is a word I actually saw Tenebrae first use..." If he used it in the same way that you did, then I would say that he was wrong to do so as well. It's possible that he was unaware of its perceived meaning, or that he indeed used it correctly. Since you did not link to this instance, I cannot conclude one way or another which it was.

"Most folks on Wikipedia mean well, but (and I say this gently) lack one or all of three things: 1. Writing skills 2. Subject Knowledge 3. Vision (tricky one - knowing what makes a great article is a mindset. You have it or you don't)...hence any edits beyond minor grammatical efforts need reworking." Let's take these in order. 1. First of all, while editors copyedit material all the time, it's best to concentrate on the material, and not on others' "skills", since this is a personal comment. Everyone has their work copyedited at one time or another, either for purposes correcting spelling or grammar, or because one editor may have different ideas about a bit of wording. This latter point is partially subjective, which is why it's best not to make personal comments. For my part, the Living Laser passage was perfectly fine in its writing. If you feel otherwise, that's fine, but it's still your opinion, and not something that can objectively measured as a question of fact. The fact that you object to my version's length (which I'll get to below) is one thing, but differing ideas about length/detail and quality of writing are two different things. Please do not confuse one with the other. 2. As for Subject Knoweledge, editing Wikipedia is not based on reliable, verifiable sources, and on subject knowledge, and arguing that it is is considered one of the examples of editors trying to own articles, as seen here. 3. Your thoughts on "vision" are similarly subjective, and personality based, and not a valid basis for dismissing material as cruft. It's best to stick to policy, standards of writing such as grammar, syntax, spelling, etc., and where subjective elements are an issue, consensus. Dismissing material as "cruft", and engaging in edit warring, even when the other editor tries to talk to you and engage in compromise, is not acceptable. Referring to this behavior as "reworking" is simply euphemistic, and will not be tolerated.

"As for Living Laser, you mean well, but have a tendency to want to include more than is necessary." In your opinion. And where opinions of editors differ, you talk it out. You do not unilaterally revert it without discussion or reference to a specific policy or guideline. The fact that more than one person, for example, wanted a bit more detail in the Film section of the Ultron article should've been cause enough for you to discuss with them, in order to reach a compromise, instead continually reverting it to one line, as if you possess such authority that your personal aesthetics are to be treated as the one and only dogmatic interpretation of WP policy.

"In the FCB, it is best to just state the facts in a neutral, factual manner." Nothing in my edit was non-neutral. You are again confusing two different things, conflating differences over length/detail with neutrality. One has nothing to do with the other. Neutrality refers to material presented in a way that implies a point of view on the part of the article, or that betrays one on the part of the editor(s). It has nothing to do with level of detail, and no opinion was conveyed by my version.

"When citing an alternate version, all that is needed is a mention that the story exists, rather than a blow by blow account. Remember, these articles are required to be encyclopedia standard, meaning there can be no unnecessary elaboration, POV etc. Here, it is a simple What If? issue, and only requires two sentences, tops." In your opinion. In the opinion of others, a small synopsis regarding such a story does not constitute a "blow by blow" account (yet another example of you mislabeling something), nor does it violate encyclopedic standards in any way. That WP has standards is a given. That your personal interpretation of them is the only one is not. Nightscream (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

When this matter is resolved, Living Laser be can be sorted out. Remember, however, less is more.

Asgardian (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It sometimes is, depending on the situation. At other times some elaboration is reasonable. Nightscream (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not in this instance. Unfortunately, it still reads as being rather fannish and is not encyclopedia standard. There is also some POV. I'll show you another way to write it once this business is resolved.

Asgardian (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, level of detail has nothing to do with fannishness, nor is there any opinion or viewpoint expressed in the passage. But if you can point to one, then do so. There's no need to wait until the block expires for you to do this. As far as the "other way" to write, I'm aware of the edit you favor, but hopefully you'll consider discussion and consensus from now on in presenting it. Nightscream (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Try this:

In an alternate reality, the Living Laser is employed at Stark Industries. Three different scenarios are presented - each with a different outcome - in which he attempts to cure the-then critically ill Tony Stark.

Asgardian (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the first place, it doesn't explain what this "alternate reality" is. There's no reason not to mention titles in the text, especially since policy requires us to write about fiction in an out-universe perspective, a point from a previous discussion that you still haven't addressed. Second, this version is incorrect, as it does not present three different scenarios, but one scenario that stems off into three different endings. Lastly, we're back to the original point of disagreement: That a small basic synopsis is perfectly reasonable. I understand that this is a fundamental point on which we disagree, so perhaps we'll have to have a consensus discussion. Nightscream (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no designation for that universe (unless you know). The link to an "ar" is sufficient. Titles appear in the reference tags for the sake of consistency as a good FCB is in-universe events. Therefore:

In an alternate reality, the Living Laser is employed at Stark Industries. He attempts to cure the-then critically ill Tony Stark, with three different outcomes being presented.

That is sufficient for what is a minor appearance in a minor title, given the scope of the article. Remember these articles have to be encyclopedia standard, not read like a fan entry.

Asgardian (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep arguing that any edit or opinion other than your own constitutes a "fan entry"? There is nothing in the version that I wrote that reads like a fan entry, or is not up to encyclopedic standards, and I already stated this. Rather than refute this, why is your response to simply repeat the same comment over and over? If you can point to some reference source, policy, guideline, etc. that defines encyclopedic standards and fannishness in such a way that clearly shows this, then fine, please do so. If you can't, then please stop dismissing others' viewpoints as such, since the only basis you seem to be using for this is your own personal aesthetics. What constitutes a given standard is not determined by one editor by mere fiat.

As for designation, what exactly do you mean? A name? Who says the universe has to have a name or designation? What does this have to do with level of detail?

I know titles appear in the reference tags. We already discussed this issue, and you already said that. And my response is that it does not read coherently to a reader unacquainted with the material, who would naturally want to know where or when this occurred. When one says "This character will face the Shiar empire" or "in an alternate reality, this character did this...", the reader is naturally going to wonder what the passage is talking about, and should not have to click on the footnote for an explanation, and therefore, click back and forth between the text and the Notes section in order to understand the chronology of such events. References are used for purposes of verifiability. They are not used for, and do not address, readability. There needs to be a historical narrative context for such information. Mentioning where and when a given event took place is only logical. I opined this to you earlier, and again, you did not answer. Why won't you answer this point? Why instead do you just ignore it and repeat the same statement over and over?

FCB is not in-universe. These articles, to use your own point, have to be written to encyclopedic standards, and Wikipedia's policy on writing about fiction requires that we write about it in an out-universe perspective, not an in-universe one. When I pointed this out to you earlier, thereby providing an example of an actual policy that defines part of these "standards", your response was to state that "guidelines are just that, guidelines." When I pointed out that this is not how Wikipedia works, that there has to be a specific rationale to set aside a given policy or guideline in a given instance, and that this seemed at odds with your other-times position about "standards", you again did not respond. Can you respond to this point? Nightscream (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of a neutral user -- I have not read this page entirely, I am not acquainted with the conflict discussed here. I only think that it is really not worth arguing so much: the lenght of this discussion is longer than that of the article living Laser, while this article is of Low importance. Such arguments are ridiculous and users should get involved in more useful projects. I also strongly think that users of good faith should not be blocked, whatever their errors or their obstinacy. As for the article at issue, it obviously does not comply with standarts for a good article. It needs more explanation, not a sole summary of the biography of the character. The best solution to end the conflict would be to compare the article with a good article about a comics character, and to imitate it. In particular, the desrption of the character must be more neutral, and an history section must be added. --Pah777 (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion I too am not to sure what the situation is, but I have come upon (I think) similar situations in the past with articles about fictional characters. I've seen cases where entire character biographies have been reduced to two sentences. On the other hand, I've seen bloated entries which describe issue by issue of details. I suppose, after reading the arguments, I agree more with Nightscream's view, although I suppose I'd need to see diffs of what Asgardian wants as opposed to Nightscream's. And like Pah777 said, maybe we could look at existing Good Articles of similar subjects and try to emulate those.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside Opinion
I was asked to read and comment by Nightscream.
General thinking: I certainly concur with Pah777 that there are more important things to worry about - why does article creation seem to be so subservient to circular arguments about minor details? Why does content removal seem to be so favoured over content addition..? etc., etc.
(I also sometimes think that the allegation "fancruft" is as often misused and misapplied as terms like "witchcraft" once were. With less problematic consequences, thankfully...)

Specific: I haven't followed all of this, but I have noticed little bits occasionally. I think Emperor and jc37 (and J Greb) deserve large amounts of praise for attempting to wade in and try to mediate. I certainly think there's "fault" on all sides - but more than that, I think that most of the "fault" isn't particularly problematic. Differences of opinion - particularly between fans of various things - are not unreasonable. Certainly there are conflicts between information pertinence, sourcing and article length in very many cases. (And I don't always do a great job of solving those debates.)
I don't feel Asgardian is wrong to ask for a link at the start of this section, although it can't have been much of a surprise. I can't find much blame in Asgardian and Nightscream having a hard time to enter fully into a dialogue, because its annoying to have to justify yourself. BUT. This is a collaborative effort, so you first and foremost have to have logic, reason and justification, and second have to be willing (and preferably able) to try and communicate that. There's something of a lack of proper communication on all sides here. There are links galore, tacit (and overt) criticisms which sometimes seem tailored to wind up rather than explain, but not much point-by-point discussion. Which is a lengthy, tedious and irritating process, so: I have sympathy on that front.

More specific:

• "Fancruft" can irritating; SOME allegations of inserting "fancruft" are an attempt to squash debate; ALL allegations of "fancruft," insertions of "fancruft," opinions on notability, edits, etc., etc. are wide open to interpretation.
• The specific "fancruft-y" Living Laser edit seems to be up for debate. It's a fatuous argument. The lengthy information doesn't need to be there, but it doesn't need to be totally stripped out either. It's perfectly reasonable to detail - briefly - the major points of difference between the What if and main characters - as Asgardian's edit did. However, a (shorter) overview of the alternate endings is also worthwhile.
• Asgardian is right to generally criticise the structure and tone of many articles. But wrong not to stress that opinions will inevitably differ over what is "unnecessary elaboration". 'Less is more' is, quite frankly, a soundbite nonsense statement, even if the sentiment is well made. But not blanket-true.
• "Badly written" is not synonymous with "fancruft". "Fancruft" is an inherently insulting term. It's also (clearly) an absurd one, that shouldn't ever be used. Living Laser is badly phrased. Ill-sourced. Perhaps skewed or slanted. It's in-universe, but that's a) not a vital criticism, b) what readers are likely after, and c) hardly a surprise in a fictional character's article, which will inevitably be mostly sourced from the comics.
• Nightscream is right to say that most of Asgardian's criticisms are subjective, and its also clear that many such comments can seem pointed and offensive - whether intended or not.
• It's a bit of a thorny issue as to whether all of Wikipedia needs to adhere strictly to the same criteria regarding "Encyclopedia Standards"; whether those standards can actually be strictly noted and interpreted, or whether some areas might bend the rules. Certainly if that latter option is seen as viable, fictional subjects and comics in particular need different guidelines... and a very minor character arguably needs less attention than more major individuals.

Asgardian says that there's a third way to write this article. Why doesn't Asgardian produce a version in userspace and invite comments there? Or Nightscream do likewise? Battle it out off-page, as it were. But I don't think blocks are the answer (here), since it's opinions, interpretations and methods that differ. So there either needs to be a massive, fully-supported, theoretical discussion OR an agreement to differ in opinion. Since both parties seem tied to specific articles, and an agreement to differ doesn't appear to have happened, I suggest the former. And if there's a mass-theoretical debate, maybe Asgardian or Nightscream should produce brief bullet points detailling their key thoughts, and it could branch into a wider debate. Which has probably already been played out a dozen times, but, still.

Not much help, too many words. In short: this is a pointless side-debate with right and wrong on all sides. Single queries may bring responses more easily and swiftly than longer multi-questions; Explanations rather than Soundbites are more helpful; politeness, an understanding that opinions and interpretations differ and dialogue are key. ntnon (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

From the sidelines

(edit conflicts not withstanding...)

If this were just confined to singular article on a 3rd tier (being generous) comic book villain, I'd fully agree with Pah777's comments. Unfortunately the situation is not limited to just Living Laser or similar low level, marginal comics characters. The editors involved also apply this same situation to articles on characters viewed as more important.

Since that is happening, and given the tone of some of the edit summaries and lack of desire to work with others, good faith can and does get strained to the breaking point.

As for what should and should not be in an article... there is a middle ground: text that isn't padded a panel by panel, or even an issue by issue, recap of the stories involving the character and also isn't so short that it relies on the assumption that the reader knows exactly what is referenced, or what is not. This is especially true about the "Alternate version" and "In other media" sections. If there is another article covering an alt or a character's use in a game, film, or show, then it is reasonable to give a lead-like short paragraph and point the reader to the fuller article. In most case though, there is no other article, or the relevant information is as short, or shorter than the "see also" explanation. In such cases it isn't a bad thing to make sure the section covers enough so that a general reader can understand the information. Asgardian, remember that while you have an extremely good understanding of the material Marvel has published, remember that you are not writing or editing for yourself or your peers, the target audience is the guy who isn't familiar with Marvel Comics.

As for the edit summaries... Nightscream has a very valid point: watch the phrasing used. Using terms like "poorly written", "clumsy", and the like can come off as condescending. More so when the result of the edit is to just remove what was added. At the vary least it's biting, at worst it is going to be seen as an attack on the editor not a comment on the content. "Copyediting" is a good, neutral, catch all for things in line with the MoSes, an even better method would be to break the edits down so that in one pass a general copyedit (spelling and grammar) is done and then passes with an edit summary of "Copyedit as per <Foo> MoS" with a link to the MoS in question. That way the standards are pointed to and comments about the abilities of editors is avoided.

As for fannishness and crufft... Yes, both hyping (fannish writing) and needless trivia (crufft) creep into articles (and this isn't a phenomenon limited to just comics...). And both need to be watched. But some degree of both is going to be unavoidable and what is avoidable should be cleaned up through copyediting (fannishness) and removal after it becomes apparent that a point cannot be incorporated into the body of the article (trivia). The later though is going to require working with others at times.

- J Greb (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to the situation more specific Diff links. After contacting all the people I did, I had to go out. Here are the specifcs:

Section length

Asgardian says that two sentence is sufficient for a section on alternate or other media variations of a character. In my opinion, there is no reason it has to be two sentences. There can be a compromise on this. This edit shows the version on the Living Laser in What If?" that Asgardian reduced to a single sentence. This edit was the slightly more detailed (but still brief) synopsis that I suggested as a compromise. Asgardian reverted that one as well. Regarding ntnon's suggestion that we "battle if off page", I don't see why such conflicts have to be "battles", and the issue isn't where it takes place. The problem is that Asgardian acts as if he has the unilateral authority to declare by fiat what a proper edit is, without discussion, and ignores attempts at discussion by others. This is not permitted by WP, and is certainly not "good faith".

Mentioning of titles in the Fictional Character Biography

I attempted to discuss this with Asgardian in the War of Kings section on the Black Bolt Talk Page, and we've touched up on this here on this page, so I think his position and mine have been presented. He says titles of comic books should not be mentioned in the Fictional Character Biography. I see no reason for this, and omitting them makes the material decontextualized and read confusingly, IMO. Pah777 says we should compare the article with a good article about a comics character, and to imitate it. I did this on the Black Bolt Talk Page.

Fancruft and Other Language Issues

The issue of Asgardian's incivility is more of an issue for the admins, as it is part of his euphemistic and deceptive misuse of language, though the subject of what is "cruft" should certainly be discussed, particularly the subjective aspects of it. If something is not wikified or sourced, that's easily measurable by objective means. But if something if only of instance to a fan (and I am not a fan of Avengers-related titles), then it should be asked what constitutes this. The problem I see with Asgardian's use of the term is that he seems to use it (and other terms) to refer merely to subjective elements that do not mesh with his personal aesthetics. If someone can point to a more objective metric for this, that would be advisable. Otherwise, terms like "cruft", "clumsy" "badly written" and even "vandalism" should not be used. He's been doing this for some time now, and I tried to explain to him about this back in July. I again did so again recently, following an instance of his doing this, that he should not accuse editors--even ones whose additions are clearly badly written--of vandalism. He never responded to this. He again made personal comments here, and I tried to point out to him that he was doing so, he again used euphemistic excuses to justify it, when Wikipedia flat-out instructs us no to do this. Nightscream (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in to express the opinions of another member of the comics wikiproject. I'm not sure there's as much need to pillory this user as others seem to have expressed. There are some things however which I feel are less negotiable. 1) A single sentence stating the mere existence of alternate versions is unacceptable and unencyclopedic. You may as well not have the section at all. This does not mean that blow-by-blow plot summary is okay too, but there is a middle ground, in which the substance of the character, the different thing that makes them "alternate", is concisely and comprehensibly explained. 2) The appearance of titles in the text is not only acceptable, it is advisable. These are characters that appear in works of fiction. They do not have a "biography" that exists independently of the text in which they appear, and acting like they do is tantamount to original research. 3) Calling the edits of others any variety of "cruft" is pejorative, and disrespectful of the time and effort spent by your colleagues on Wikipedia. While it isn't covered under any guideline (falling well short of a violation of WP:CIVIL), I'd like to encourage the use of more neutral edit summaries. Ford MF (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Some good comments. Most of that seems to be about the tone of my editing comments. That is easily fixed, although take note! A lot of what I do cull is substandard. People mean well but we have need uniformity. By the by, some edits are vandalism. Happens all the time. Anyway, moving on, I'd like to see two things come out of this in the short term:

- No more essays on my conduct from users. This is not life or death and can be worked out. I find such efforts to smack of obsession, and this is not healthy. Wikipedia could be gone at any time, and what then? Note that this does not mean I expect a six paragraph answer in return.

- The user who imposed the block respond. No information has been provided and it's a weak case.

Once that's done, anyone who is up for it can pull up a chair and we will nail down some of these issues. If that means guidelines need to be reviewed, so be it.

Asgardian (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"A lot of what I do cull is substandard." In your opinion. Much of what you delete is based on your personal aesthetics and whims, and Wikipedia is not going to be edited purely on that basis.

Not true. I have corrected hundreds of poor edits from well-meaning but inexperienced users. This is fact and easily proven. Just look at my Edit History. You should also heed Doczilla's words. We have worked together on tiding up many projects, including the infamous Almagam effort. There's a lot that happened before you ever came along.

Asgardian (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"People mean well but we have need uniformity." If you look at the examples listed as Comments signifying Article Ownership, you'll see that the last one sounds quite a bit like this: "Thank you sooo much for your ideas. It is wonderful to know that so many novices like yourself have taken an interest to widgets..." Comments about "meaning well" and "needing uniformity" smack of someone doling out decrees from some higher plateau of wisdom. In fact, no one editor determines what's "substandard", who "means well", or what that we need "uniformity", at least not if the uniformity in question comes from unilateral editing. It comes from collaboration and consensus.

Inference from you. I am all for uniformity.

Asgardian (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"By the by, some edits are vandalism." But this one and this one are not. And those are edits we're talking about. If you can refute this, then please explain to us how those edits constitute vandalism. And if you can, then why did you not do so when I told you that that second instance was not? Why instead did you ignore me?

Heh. This time it is my turn to say your opinion. And this - Why instead did you ignore me? - is not a magical shield. I'm not going to respond to every query from you when you have become obsessive about tracking my movements. The length of your responses should tell you something. Work on it, please.

Asgardian (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"No more essays on my conduct from users. This is not life or death and can be worked out. I find such efforts to smack of obsession, and this is not healthy. Wikipedia could be gone at any time, and what then?" So long as you exhibit conduct that violates Wikipedia policy, and ends up in your getting repeatedly blocked, your conduct is going to be an issue, regardless of whatever edicts with which you attempt to proclaim that it's off-limits. The fact that this is not life or death, and that WP may be gone tomorrow does not justify your behavior, nor make discussions of it unreasonable. You can just as easily flip this idea and say that because it's not life or death, you shouldn't take it so seriously that you ignore attempts at consensus and violate WP policy. If anything, a single user making unilateral decisions to make large edits that may violate guidelines, repeatedly ignoring attempts at discussion by others, and trying to declare that others cannot talk about this, certainly smacks more of obsession than those others trying to speak with him in collaboration, doesn't it?

No, I don't repeatedly ignore requests from others, and I note you said may violate guidelines. Again, inference.

Asgardian (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"The user who imposed the block respond. No information has been provided and it's a weak case." I can't speak for Daniel Case not responding to you, but it is not a weak block. You violated Wikipedia policy repeatedly by ignoring attempts at discussion, and continuing to make edits during those discussions. If you can refute that you did this, or that this is block-worthy, then do so. If you can't, then you shouldn't make this assertion. Three different administrators (myself, Emperor and Daniel Case) agreed that you needed to be blocked for this. Are we all wrong? Any idea or conclusion is to be judged on the reasoning or evidence offered for it. If you can illustrate thus that the block is weak, then do so. If you can't, then you have no basis for this assertion. Nightscream (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to take a step back. You were wrong to impose a block (as you were involved in the editing), and questioned about it by others users. You have become far too involved to be objective. The block is weak, and the person who imposed it has yet to offer any comment. He will be questioned once the block expires.

Asgardian (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a weak case since I myself was the victim of behavior quite similar to what is described here, and when I pointed it out on the involved article's talk page was simply accused—by administrators who chose that moment to jump in to the discussion—of violating the "no personal attacks" reg. After making the case that this position was indefensible and attempted to report the behavior to the incident board, I was equally indefensibly told that what I described was no more than a content dispute, and "this board is not a court," which of course I was well aware of. You don't report law-breaking to the court, but to the police, who investigate, report to the prosecutors' office, and they decide whether or not to take the alleged offender to court. But all this was administration's position, and they can't take action against one person for doing something which they thoroughly dismissed when somebody else did it. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. There appears to be alot of "rules for some and regulations for others" on Wikipedia. One of the biggest problems I have is administrators' misuse of their power and failure to accurately read the situation. I've been the subject of at least four blocks that would get laughed out of court if it was a formal process. We'll see where this goes with time.

Asgardian (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that what you did was the same thing that Asgardian did, and the same admins involved in your block are the sames one so involved here, then you'd have a point. For my part, I was unacquainted with you, Ted, prior to Asgardian's block, and don't know if what you did was the same or not. If you did indeed violate the NPA policy, and continued to do so after warnings, then yes, a block was justified. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the Incident Board said it was a "content dispute". Are you saying that they judged your block invalid because it was a content dispute, and not a case of you violating policy? If so, how is this "indefensible" on the Board's part? If you could provide links to this, it would help, but Asgardian's block cannot be judged by virtue of what happened to you, especially since it is not clear from your description what happened to you. In any event, I asked you to participate in this discussion to comment on the issues of 1. Titles in the FCB, 2. What level of detail is appropriate for sections on alternate versions or other media appearances of characters, and 3. More generally, the importance of not discussion and consensus and not reverting during those processes, the use of terms like "fannish" and "cruft". Nightscream (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Not true. I have corrected hundreds of poor edits from well-meaning but inexperienced users." Which has nothing to do with the specific ones mentioned here that do not fall under that description. The fact that you have indeed corrected poor edits does not mean that all of your edits are so valid.

"Inference from you. I am all for uniformity." You already said this, and my response is the same as before. The only "uniformity" imposed in articles is that which is achieved through collaboration, discussion and consensus. Not unilateralism. You've shown yourself capable of the former, but too often, and recently, you engage in the latter.

"Heh. This time it is my turn to say your opinion." The difference being, of course, is that I make sure to illustrate my opinions with evidence and reasoning. In the first example mentioned above, you claimed that sloppiness was vandalism. It isn't. In the second one, you claimed that it was vandalism because it was poorly written. It wasn't. Vandalism has nothing to do with sloppiness or poor writing. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia, and making such false accusations is a violation of Wikipeda's Assume Good Faith and Civility policies. Now, if you can provide evidence or reasoning to invalidate this, or say, testimony from others to corroborate your point of view on this, then do so. If you can't, then saying "your opinion" is merely rhetorical. Either you have something to support your position, or you don't.

"And this - Why instead did you ignore me? - is not a magical shield. I'm not going to respond to every query from you when you have become obsessive about tracking my movements." Asgardian, you can attempt to mischaracterize the situation all you want, attempting to portray legitimate administrative actions all you want, but it's not going to change anything. The fact is that monitoring articles and policy violations are among the legitimate duties of administrators. Pretending that doing this is "obsessive" will not make it so, any more than arguing that placing template warnings constitutes an "ultimatum" or "threat", as you attempted to assert months ago, and serves only to underline your inability to cease making personal comments. The issue is not whether you respond to "every query". The issue is that Wikipedia recognizes a distinction between what is and is not vandalism is, and making false accusations of vandalism, and ignoring administrators when they attempt to politely talk to you about it shows you to be uninterested in following the site's rules.

"No, I don't repeatedly ignore requests from others, and I note you said may violate guidelines." You have done so repeatedly recently, as when you kept revering the Living Laser article, and refused to discuss it, even when attempts were made to do so with you. The evidence of this is on the relevant Talk Pages and Edit Histories, which is why Emperor agreed that you had to be blocked, as seen on his Talk Page. Brazenly denying this when the evidence makes it plain will not change it.

"You need to take a step back. You were wrong to impose a block (as you were involved in the editing), and questioned about it by others users." Yes, they questioned whether I should've been the one to initiate it, and subsequently, I decided to accept their admonitions not to impose blocks under those specific circumstances. They did not, however, question the block itself, as they upheld it as legit, and confirmed it after you further violated policy by making personal comments towards me.

"You have become far too involved to be objective. The block is weak..." You have yet to demonstrate that with anything beyond an assertion to that effect. But if you really wish to continue laboring under the belief that repeatedly reverting articles without discussing the edits with others who disagree with you is not block-worthy, or that you did not do this, or that the various admins and other editors here are all wrong, then by all means, continue. You'll only get blocked for longer and longer periods of time. One would think that four blocks by different admins would tell you something. It's unfortunate that the only thing it does is reinforce your belief that you're right to do as you please on a site with rules and guidelines and everyone else is wrong. Nightscream (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you have become too involved and it is now reaching ludicrous levels. Take a step back, and hold off on further comments for now. If anything needs to be said, others such as Doc will say it. Perhaps have a short Wiki-break.

Asgardian (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To Nightscream: When I said I was the victim of the same behavior, I meant that I was on the opposite side of Asgardian's situation, that the other people were doing what Asgardian has been accused of doing, and initially admins merely faulted me (on the article's talk page) for pointing out the fact that the other two editors were committing misconduct. Once I posted a convincing case that that position was irrational (I was more diplomatic there) those admins simply shut up. I then reported the others' behavior on the incident board, and received the equally irrational two-pronged reply I previously described. Asgardian's immediate response to my first posting here is right on the money. The word is hypocrisy. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I sorry to hear that happened to you. I find it sad that at times this whole project becomes emotive and when a ruling is required it is often so subjective and has a whiff of "holier than thou."

Asgardian (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature

To be clear from the outset, this is merely a request from me only from the POV of wearing the "hat" of "just-another-editor".

It would be greatly helpful in trying to read what would ludicrously be called "threads" on this talk page, if you would not have your signature on a separate line as your final sentence/paragraph.

This especially when you start to inter-thread your comments in your own comments, and then others do the same.

I will tell you honestly, that it's just not helpful in trying to figure out who said what.

That said, this is merely a request, and you are of course welcome to sign as you prefer, per WP:SIGN. - jc37 12:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. It is confusing sometimes. I've noticed that it sometimes leads people to post their replies between your comments and your signature. Doczilla _STOMP! 03:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually just refactor the threads. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whirlwind

Hello there, Asgardian! Long time no see. ;) My laptop's been a pain for me, so I haven't been able to focus as much on comics as I am for other easier to work on things. Anyway, I just have a slight question involving Whirlwind's page, specifically this edit: [2] While I agree with the removal of the portion where it repeats the same sentence (Where it mentions Charles as her chauffer,) I think that the other parts that you took out are still good pieces of information. The bits with references to Marvel Feature help in giving a background to the sudden explanation of his fascination with Wasp. Just my opinion, and I was just wondering why you took out a lot of it. I agree with some of what you took out, but some of the FCB that you took out could very well easily be good enough to fit into the article. Also, the second mention of him working for Jan had the reference attached to it (Avengers #46, I know because I added the reference, and have the specific book in my collection,) so I think that reference should be added back into the article. Thanks and have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you need dates for the Marvel Feature references? I have those books, I would be glad to provide the dates! If that's what you need, do tell me! Have a good day. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I got a chance to look at my collection, and have added the dates, as requested! Now, what is this about a major change in stance about comic books in Wikipedia? I apologize, I am not up to date because I've been busy, and my laptop is busted! CarpetCrawler (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

in-universe

I take your point about the Living Laser but the problem with an in-universe perspective is that it's at best vague ("several years later") or at worse simply wrong - the Ultron article for example, makes events as they actually happened occur out of order. This idea of having a seperate "fictional" history" seems to a hangover from the early days of wikipedia, it's just a bad idea from the point of view of an encyclopedia article (I guess you are sick of people linking you to captain marvel at this point). The other thing is, when I talk about an article being a dog - I mean in terms of it's potential rather than it's present content - Living Laser is never going to go anywhere because the material simply doesn't exist to do anything beyond plot summary. If all we can do is plot summary, frankly we shouldn't have an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't remove a legitimate tag and we will not have a problem. As for what's agreed in our little comics ghetto and limited AFDs, I wouldn't expect that to get very far if pushed in front of the wider community. The idea that certain articles get a pass on reliable 3rd party sourcing is laughable. Is the tag reasonable ? yes, does placing it there confirm to project norms? yes. Do I give a toss how wikiprojects try to get away with lower standards on their pet articles? no and I'll challenge it where I see it. I am a massive massive comics fan but when I come here, I'm an editor first and foremost. Oh and good job on the clean-up (people could erase all of my work if it results in better article, I don't care) but it's entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand - that of tagging. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are currently under arbcom restrictions for revert waring, a restriction that was reset after you used sockpuppets to try and get your way, so you will have to excuse me if your warning of "administrators will take note" rings hollow. If I come across comic articles that need secondary sources, I will continue to add {{primarysources}} to them, as I would any other article, because that's what the tags are for. As far as I am concerned, this matter is now closed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Thunderbolts-17.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Thunderbolts-17.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Re this: Don't be so sarcastic, it's disrespectful, and be careful not to comment on the contributor when commenting on the content. A simple, "I'll finish the job" would have been enough. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)