User talk:David A

Welcome!

Hello, David A, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

New Ranma section pages

Are you thinking of setting up separate pages by character to migrate that info out of their article space? If you could set up a sandbox and play around with what you're thinking of setting up, I think that would be a good idea for a test run (similar to what I did when I was suggesting breaking up the minor characters by anime/manga). If I am reading you right, the thing I have seen with separate pages like "battle records" or the like for other series is that they have a chance of getting nominated for deletion (AFD) because someone will think that they are non-notable on their own. So before you go ahead and create the new pages, set what you'd like set up as an experiment in a sandbox (not the WP:Sandbox because that gets cleaned out every hour) and we can discuss. --BrokenSphere 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle records in each separate page should be acceptable then?

Yeah, I'd second this. Unfortunately, as useful as some things are, Wikipedia community often doesn't see it that way. You can end up wasting a lot of time working on something that some admin just gives the delete stick too. Derekloffin 21:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be very unfortunate, given that this would be the best way to finally solve all this mischaracterisation trouble. :\

I could post what I have so far in the sandbox in the meantime, and let you work it over/shorten it down to what's most relevant then? Dave 12:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I worst case, could I simply send them over to the two of you so you could help keep the pages referenced? Dave 16:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How about doing one such page as a trial run so we can see how it would look and make recommendations, then use that as a model if it looks good, before you create x number of pages and potentially waste time and effort. --BrokenSphere 17:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently pasting the various pages here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A

The battle records should be ok, but many of the profiles need to be severely edited down (to a fourth the length or so), and have references added for a couple of additional volumes, and I'm not sure I'm up for any more. It would be great if other users could take it up where I left off. Dave 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, feel completely free to copy them for personal use or modify/improve/shorten them at will. (Including editing them here, if you prefer) Dave 00:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These are very comprehensive, but for Wikipedia purposes (and I may be wrong), I'm not sure how they could be set up for reference purposes. You may want to get either some more veteran editor's input or an admin or two to chip in and see how they can be used. --BrokenSphere 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we just make notices, so that any editors can look them up when they want quick check-through references for the profiles? That's almost what I originally intended anyway. The battle records should work as a separate page at least. Though we'd have to make them more easily overviewed. Dave 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean refer them back onto those records here in your user space? TBH, I have not yet seen something on here that is a comprehensive listing of all fights that go on in a particular series. --BrokenSphere 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much for the general character references (It's still possible for anyone to edit them right?). They should be very useful for all footnote editors. As for the battle records, we could always add them as a separate section for each character, or the appropriate 'fighting techniques' pages, but othervise, why not? A separate page should be a fun, informative and useful addition, as an external page to link to in each appropriate character section, much like the ones you're assembling, and it's not like it should be _against_ the rules. Dave 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

reflist2

See Template:Reflist. What reflist2 does is put in 2 columns, and reflist3 would put in 3 columns. So putting Nabiki's reference list in two columns shortens up the time it takes to scroll through it if it was just one straight list, as well as fills up the whitespace to the right of the list. Lots of large reference lists are formatted into columns for similar reasons.

Not sure if it applies to you or not, but if you aren't seeing a difference, it may be due to the browser and browser settings you use or something else technical. According to the documentation it only works in Firefox at the moment.

Note: multiple columns currently render properly only in Mozilla Firefox,[1] though the feature is included in CSS3, so it should work for a larger number of browsers in the future.[2]

Also, thank you for the comment on my talk page --kudsy 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

AFD nomination for Items in Ranma ½

I don't know if you know, but the article was nominated for deletion 2 days ago. In view of the issues raised with it, I'm trying to rectify those to justify keeping it (e.g. minimizing plot summary details) and am asking you for help, since you've been making detailed references, that could help out with getting the article properly sourced. --BrokenSphere 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really have the energy and commitment and energy for more than at most very few adjustments. At the moment I'm quite busy, but I will back you up in the discussion. Couldn't you just start to add a few references yourself in the same style as those I've provided myself (Tilte, Volume & Chapter references) and then ask for delay time to insert more of them? Dave 11:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy myself; the thing is, I don't own the Viz translations, which would help in adding manga cites. However, I'm looking at the descriptions and trimming down plot detail where possible. --BrokenSphere 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just own the Egmont ones myself and am only motivated to improve the fighting techniques page right now, but if you simply check up your fan-translation chapters and look up the ISBN numbers for the Viz stuff (or use the ones I posted for the Swedish volumes, since Viz may not overlap perfectly with the Japanese editions) you should be ok. It's just notes about the chapters the items appeared in after all. If the censors can be stalled/give you a respite for a few weeks, you could chip off small parts now and then. Dave 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you've been following the debate, but the page was recently deleted. :( I've asked the admin responsible for a copy of the page and its talk page for archival purposes. --BrokenSphere 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that sucks, and is completely unfair, especially given that only one person thought it should be deleted, while everyone else voted for keeping it. At least by the last time I checked the discussion 2 days or so ago. Why couldn't they simply have waited a while until the problems cleared up? Should I send a complaint somewhere?

Btw: Make a wikifarm of it in the meantime. Dave 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

TBH, I had the feeling that the article might get deleted in its current state, but have been busy and didn't think it would get deleted so quickly, although it has been a week. As to the Wikia or whatever, I'll look into that when I have more time; something similar was done with Sailor Moon and I'm not sure what they were able to or not able to put on it. If you have issues with the deletion, I would address them to the admin responsible, but I don't know if you'd get very far. Until this Wikia thingy is set up, it might be better not to create anything similar in the meantime, as that stands a chance of getting deleted too. --BrokenSphere 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Service award

Just came across these today. Here's one that you merit, as per [1].  :) --BrokenSphere 22:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This editor is a Journeyman Editor, and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Heh. I suspect that it's not something to be proud about, but thanks anyway. If nothing else it may get a few overzealous, pompous, irrational butt-ins off my back. ^_- (Most objectors have been reasonably sensible, but that 'President' David Palmer guy actually severely annoyed me) Dave 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw: Shouldn't you have a higher badge yourself? Dave 23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of edits, but, haven't been on long enough yet to qualify for the others. --BrokenSphere 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lime manga image

Can you get one that shows him better? The Mint one gives an idea of what he looks like, but for Lime it's harder to tell because of his position in it and relative size. --BrokenSphere 17:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it had to be good battle shots that emphasised the nature of their abilities (Lime is overwhelmingly strong but doesn't rate nearly as high in speed, while Mint is the opposite), and I think those two were the best ones available, but I'll do another check to make sure. Dave 19:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The new one fulfills both needs ok. Dave 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Re: smile

Hey... thanks! :D Gscshoyru 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• And from me, too. :) Happy that I could help. Moonriddengirl 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

CrystarB4 edits

He is rightly suspected of being a sock-puppet for JJonz, including that he uses JJonz 'Gaashooru' when addressing Gschoyru, but he didn't vandalise Powers and abilities of Superman or Sentry (Robert Reynolds). He's currently either blatantly trying to bait both you and User: J Greb with harmless and completely pointless, non-vandalism, edits, while feigning 'harmless pacifist' comments, or is simply some unrelated guy doing semi-stupid but harmless edits. Please keep track of whether he does reverts or just adds an 'and' or similar here and there, or he'll lure both you and J Greb into a pitfall/ban. Ridding you of much credibility with the admins with JJonz getting an open market to do whatever he wants/act silly petty tyrant again. Dave 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll note I've stopped, a while ago, for that reason. I realized. I explained what's going on on AIV, so as soon as a blocking admin gets around to it, he'll be blocked. Then I'll explain myself on the sock report. Gscshoyru 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm sorry if I came across as patronising. Dave 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

re:CrystarB4 edits

If, and a mighty big if, if it were just an arguably useful or relevant a word here or there I'd agree with you.

However

• The user is hitting the same articles JJonz ran through;
• This spate came right after JJonz2 was blocked indefinitely and JJonz had 2 months tacked on for blatant socking;
• The edits, as a whole, did hit a point where it could be considered dissipative editing;
• Based on the Sentry (Robert Reynolds), since he was adding information that was in the same line it definitely moves to disruptive. At least as I understand it.

Your concern though is noted.

- J Greb 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point isn't that I disagree about him and JJonz rather blatantly being the same person, it's that he's currently being a more devious than I would previously have given him credit for, given his consistent embracement of Lobo as a personal role model. I.e. he's doing a 'nudge-nudge wink-wink, I know you'll get this vague reference but the admins wont' double-play where he's perfectly feigning victimhood to get fallback for when admins quickly browse through his history the next time. I.e. he's blowing a few sock-puppet vandal identities, while keeping one of them officially 'pure' and hopefully getting all of us out of the way in the process, before his ip has time to get perm-banned. Sacrificing a few pawns to gain an extra queen with much looser restrictions.

He's without a doubt the by far worst and most detrimental wikipedian I've ever encountered. Exactly the type of vandal that is very hard to handle, since _everything_ he does is deliberate lies, distortion and censorship, without adding anything of value whatsoever, and he's relentlessly using the loopholes to get away with it. Dave 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey... not to discredit what you're saying here... but the admins are a bit smarter than that. They know it's a sock. Socks are desperately hated, oddly enough. And after seeing what they can do, I begin to understand why. So don't worry about it... they will assume good faith about what you were doing.

P.S. you're a regular contributor, not a vandal fighter... there are some really, really evil people who wish us harm. This guy is pretty bad, though, seeing as stayed under the radar for this long. Poke them and they show their true colors, it seems... Gscshoyru 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: barnstar

Hey... thanks! :) Gscshoyru 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Although I noticed that you already had one afterwards Dave 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The more the merrier! ;) Gscshoyru 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Character images on main Ranma page

I've seen the discussion regarding these on the discussion page and the deleting admin's reasoning was what I suspected when they were pulled last night. Personally I somewhat agree with the reasoning because 1) those characters already have images on their own article pages and 2) the images were taken from Furinkan.com, some of which I've replaced based on an older message left by the webmaster months ago. If you look at other anime articles, they don't tend to have character pics on the main article space, saving these for a list of page or those characters' respective page --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor Ranma character image reduction

Since an admin's tagged the main minor characters page as possibly containing too many fair uses images, as Derek and I discussed here, I'm going to start going through this and the manga-only and anime-only pages and pulling images for the characters with the smallest writeups. If you disagree with some of the pulls I make, add them back in before they get deleted as a result of being orphaned. TBH, I was expecting like this to happen eventually as I saw what happened a few months ago to the Naruto character pages. However I think it's better that we start pulling images where applicable and at least we were somewhat warned about it first, as opposed to someone else going in and pulling them all. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Silver Surfer

I deleted your POV statements on the SS entry again. The Surfer did not prove to be weaker than the Hulk in SS #125, Defenders #2, or IH #95. In SS #125 the Bannerless Hulk (a physically stronger albeit less durable version) proved incapable of physically harming the Surfer.

He didn't harm the Surfer, or at least not significantly, but the latter was thrown around without anything to set against him except for force-blasts, and those didn't do any damage to the Hulk either. From my perspective you're the one being incredibly POV.

The Hulk was treated as a non-threat by the Surfer the entire issue, at one point the Surfer allowed the Hulk to attack him to better analyze the Hulk's energies.

He was thrown around like a rag-doll without having anything to set against the hulk hand-to-hand.

In Defenders #8 no strength comparison can be drawn and your interpretation is dubious at best, the force bubbles effected the mentality of everyone in them, only the Hulk's rage allowed him to continue to struggle.

No everybody else was drained of energy. Hulk was the only one still capable of breaking free by getting madder and more powerful.

In IH #95 both the Surfer and Hulk were weakened, however the Surfer proved to be a threat not only to the Hulk, but to the Hulk along with his Warbound -- which have proven to be extremely powerful characters in their own rights as evidenced by WWH. The Surfer decimated the Hulk hand-to-hand in that issue and the Hulk only incapacitated him through a well executed plan which included a distraction.

No the Surfer didn't decimate him. In the final one-on-one combat, the Hulk pounded him to the ground into unconsciousness and cracked his hide as far as I remember, but I'll re-read the issue to check.

Do you not recall Heroim's statement to the Hulk? You show your Hulk bias on this one, the Hulk pounding relentlessly on a Surfer while he was on his knees in the process of thanking the Hulk is no proof of any physical superiority. In fact, I can make the case for just the opposite because the only scene in the entire issue where the Surfer and Hulk physically locked up it was the Hulk who was sent to the ground and got up bleeding. The Surfer was also back on his feet just panels later after the undefended beating by the Hulk. Like I said in my edit summaries, the Hulk has not proven a strength superiority to the Surfer in any of your referenced issues. Continue to make the changes I will continue to revert them.

So it's ok for your completely unwarranted deleting of that the Surfer had been extremely powered-up and leeched the Hulk's power on the one occasion when he matched the Hulk's strength, and that Hulk managed to overcome the strength of a 10x more powerful than normal Thor with a single arm when far more enraged (the Surfer was completely outmatched when the latter entered this warrior's madness mode), but not my far more accurate entries. Gotcha. Continue to do POV changes, and I will continue to revert them. Dave 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after checking up the current layout I don't have any objections. It simply states that the Surfer can increase his strength to Incalculable levels, which he can. What I objected to was the completely unfounded "the Surfer can power himself up to insane Hulk levels". Dave 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-read Hulk #95, and the battle rundown went as follows: The Hulk greets Surfer as a friend, Surfer sucker-punches him full force to the head with a mace. When Hulk is still in a state of great surprise to be attacked by one of his perceived last friends (which he states out loud) the Surfer follows up with another hard blow. Hulk is still conscious and apparently unharmed, but the warbound attack Surfer on their own. Given that Korg was the only one of them who was moderately formidable at this point in time (Miek hadn't mutated, Hiroim hadn't received the old power and was strictly stated as a 1-ton level warrior, Ihloe didn't have a power-armour and was strictly an expert fighter human) Surfer swiftly kicks the crap out of them. Hulk and Hiroim attack simultaneously, the latter distracting the Surfer to let the Hulk land a blow, destroying the slave-disc. Surfer thanks the Hulk and is pummelled into unconsciousness by the still enraged usual friend, but wakes up 2-3 minutes afterwards and frees everyone else. You're right it's not a good gauge. The only thing we're shown is that Hulk can beat the Surfer unconscious with a few hits, and both were weakened at the time. The Defenders case is definite however, and in SS #125 the Surfer didn't seem able to compete through physical force, didn't manage to harm the Hulk with his blasts, but likewise wasn't hurt (or at least not significantly so) by the pummelling he received. Dave 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Surfer never tried to compete through physical force in SS #125, he was attempting to help the Hulk the entire issue. He did comment that he could easily disintegrate the Hulk if he desired to, however. Defenders #8 provides no strength comparison whatsoever. If you want to use IH #95 as evidence of the Hulk's physical superiority, I can make the same case for a Doc Samson physical superiority over the Hulk since he has K.O.'ed the Hulk with a single sucker shot. TheBalance 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Surfer only boasted that he could, that's completely irrelevant. He was attempting to fight back through force-blasts (which made no damage) but was thrown around like a rag-doll on a physical level. He stated himself that the current Hulk was stronger than the one he 'matched' (through severe cheats of power-up and draining) in issue #250. If I remember correctly this was also at a time when his emotions were virtually shut off, and his compassion was considerably more limited. But I'll try to find and re-read this one as well.

In issue 95 the Surfer was the one doing the initial sucker-attacks when the Hulk was completely open and didn't expect it, similarly to how Doc Samson took out the old far less powerful Byrne-Hulk (a man whose stated goal was to depower the Hulk to a level far below Thor) but the Surfer failed to take the Hulk out. The Hulk didn't sucker-punch him to nearly the same degree, since the Surfer was already into the battle, and was aware of the Hulk's charge, who then knocked the latter out with a few blows. Afterwards he's been powered-up far beyond this level by absorbing energy from the explosion that destroyed Sakaar.

I just re-read it, and the Surfer actually explicitly screamed "You must be stopped" and blasted away full force without any effect. Dave 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Full force"? Please show me where that is indicated in SS #125. Once again, more useless, biased, unsupported POV estimations with no basis in what actually saw print. TheBalance 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Screaming "You must be stopped" at the top of his lungs would certainly be taken by most as that he was doing his utmost to stop the Hulk.

"At the top of his lungs?" This just keeps getting better and better. TheBalance 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes certainly. See your "it was never stated that the Surfer was powered up in issue #250" reference above, when this was the most repeated phrase during the story, or your refusal to admit that the Hulk currently has a higher base level than he's ever had, despite that this is the most repeated statement in the story from virtually every character. Pot meet kettle. To return to the topic: Quote: "Your heart is a cauldron of the darkest, most savage and repugnant emotions known to man. You are periliously out of control Hulk..." Zoom out to an airline view several hundred meters away. There is a globe of energy at least 200 meters wide, blast flying out of it as the Surfer unleashes his power. The Surfer's voice booming in bold text, with the speech-bubble with two additional outlines of plues and black to emphasize it, despite the faraway distance: "And you must be stopped." Zoom in to the Surfer blasting away at the Hulk but not succeeding to hurt him. As usual I do have solid reasons for my deductions, whether you agreewith them or not.

You have yet to prove the Surfer was "extremely" powered up when he caught the Hulk's fists and held them. Powered up, yes, "extremely so" a POV estimation as I have maintained from the beginning. You're just not getting it, your interpretation of events is just that, your interpretation. There was no indication the Surfer was extremely' powered up when he caught the Hulk's fists in Hulk #250. The was no indication of the Surfer being physically outmatched in SS #125, nor was there any indication the Surfer "tried his hardest" when blasting the Hulk in SS #125 or that the Surfer yelled "at the top of his lungs". And so on.... TheBalance 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The "top of his lungs" bit has already been proven given that the voice was bold + extra blue circle emphasis + extra black circle emphasis even at a several hundred metre distance. Of course it could be argued that he could scream even higher, agreed, but it's was certainly extremely high. Given that he nonetheless screamed (this we can at least agree on) "You are dangerously out of control and must be stopped", with an accompanying "awe"-moment (surrounding energy manifestation) and blasting Hulk several times over going by the stray force-blasts, I think you can agree that it would be very far-fetched to say that he wasn't trying hard under those circumstances.

However after rereading it I agree that there is no _certain_ indication that Surfer was physically outmatched, just because he was thrown around like a rag-doll. Excepting the massive force-blast barrage, he was essentially strictly passive/defensive. However, when the Surfer opting to use these instead of his fists Hulk had no trouble grabbing hold of him and doing so. So it's a definite "maybe so, maybe not, no go". In any case agreed on this point as well.

The only things we were shown in Surfer 125 and issue Hulk 95 was that Hulk can withstand the Surfer's force-blasts, and can knock the Surfer out for a few minutes with 3 blows. That we can also agree on.

As for the power-up in Hulk 250, "extremely" is of course relative to what you consider extreme, but it was explicitly stated several times that his powers and strength now increased in direct proportion to his rage, and that his rage against the barrier was boundless. To me that's "extremely" powered-up.

Come to think of it there was an official Marvel Role-playing game a few years back (much, much later than the old incarnation) which had much better power-gauges than the regular handbook (going much higher, and replacing the silly "class 100" scale with "this guy can lift a bus, that guy can throw an ocean liner). In it Thor and Juggernaut were listed at level 19 strength. Surfer at level 20, Thanos at 22, Destroyer at 24, Hulk starting at 20, but going up to 30 when sufficiently . I've long since lost it, but maybe there is a site displaying the stats somewhere?

Btw: I restored the lost text from yesterday. It seems like you accidentally omitted it during a double-edit. Dave 18:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In Defenders 8 what was explicitly shown was that all the Defenders were being drained of energy from the same contraption and the Hulk was the only one reaching a high enough power-level to break free despite this handicap. This was pretty damn explicit, much like your previous attempts to censor the far more incriminating circumstances in Hulk #250, ignoring that Hulk has been shown to reach at least 20 times his calm level to push warrior's madness Thor towards the ground, which pretty much makes your argument ridiculous, and falsely stating that Hulk was teamed up with all his warbound when attacking, who with one exception were very low-level at this point. The only help he received was a distraction from Hiroim. Dave 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk has never fought a "10x strength Warrior Madness Thor". Peter David made no mention of a 10 fold strength increase in the issue and true Warrior's Madness is an incurable disease that results in banishment from Asgard. This is not what the Hulk dealt with. That "10x strength Thor" was also totally powerless just moments before taking on the Hulk.

Peter David stated outright in the comic that Thor was in his Warrior's Madness mode, which was stated to increase his strength tenfold simply by entering the insanely raged state later in his book, regardless if it was forcibly triggered due to absence from Asgard, and PAD confirmed that the latter was 10x his usual level in an usenet post, like it or not. The previous powerlessness is irrelevant, Thor was stated to temporarily be fully repowered, but it decreased afterwards, he was hardly powerless however, he retained part of his abilities for a few issues until being fully repowered again. It was a gradual decrease.

Another check-up. In Warlock and the Infinity Watch (gawd nearly all those 90's Starlin books were horribly awful when reading them nowadays) it was explicitly stated that Thor did in fact not suffer from the warrior's madness when simultaneously beating up the Surfer and the Watch, he was strictly an insane normal Thor, which would go a long way in explaining how Beta-Ray-Bill could possibly hold his own. I.e. the _only_ time we've ever seen it in effect was Hulk #440, where Hulk oupowered an insane Thor 10x his usual level with a single arm. Again, you entire argument is ridicilous. Dave 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are arguing that the Hulk was able to match Thor at 10x his normal in TRUE Warrior's Madness only shows how little you know about the character.

Oh yes, that must be why I've read the entire Simonson and Jurgens runs. More bland statements in the "if it's the Hulk it doesn't count" "if it's the Surfer or Thor it does". It was explicitly stated that he was in 10x warrior's madness mode. Nothing you've said has changed this and you are trying to hide it behind inane accusations towards someone who has shown far greater flexibility of thought than yourself.

Show me, in comic, where it says Thor's strength was multiplied 10-fold in this encounter. There was no such indication in comic. This was not an example of true Warrior's Madness, true Warrior's Madness is an incurable disease. TheBalance 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "But the time for words is long past. The Maestro knows this as as he sees the berzerker rage in Thor's face. He has no name for it. Although it is known to Asgardians as the dreaded "warrior's madness". In the end though words don't matter. Only power does. Only strength." Fact: In Infinity Watch #25 it was stated that Thor did not suffer from the warrior's madness during his encounter with Surfer, he was just insane. Fact: In Hulk #440 it was explicitly stated that he suffered from the madness. Fact: It has been stated in Thor's own book that he was 10x his usual level, which was personally affirmed by Peter David. Again, you very easily accept that Thor can get 10x stronger than normal when completely insane, but not that Hulk can outdo it. What I "feel" should be "right" is irrelevant. What you "feel" should be "right" is irrelevant. What matters is what is explicitly shown or stated. As is stated in Thor's own profile page. He currently can enter the warrior's madness and eventually leave it through supreme effort.

Berserker's Rage and Warrior's Madness are seperate and distinct conditions. Warrior's Madness is an incurable disease - Fact. Warrior's Madness is clearly not what Thor was afflicted with in Hulk #440 since Thor came out of it. TheBalance 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact: The book itself and Peter David have explicitly stated that he was in it. Thus he is now able to enter and leave it at will. Odin said that the madness was dangerous because it would eventually infect all asgardians around him, which might also hold true for the current disease. He also didn't _think_ that the true madness was possible to cure, and that the same held true for Thor's then prevalent psychosis, but was proven wrong about the latter, and later shown as wrong about the former. Perhaps Thor's experience gave him control, due to eventually breaking free from a display of will? Regardless, the explicit statements hold.

FWIW, Peter David has also said that the considers Thor to be more powerful than Hulk, and considers both Thor and Hercules peer to the Hulk in raw strength. TheBalance 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether he considers him more powerful is irrelevant to an issue of strength, and as has been stated in the handbook the Hulk has long started out a bit into the 'class 100' league, just like they do. As for Hercules, he was shown as completely outmatched in Hulk 108 (or was it 109?) where he stated himself that the Hulk could have crushed his skull whenever he wanted, but held back. Hulk can reach _far_ beyond his usual levels when sufficiently angered. That's nothing new.

You mean the issue where Hercules let Hulk pound on him? Come on. TheBalance 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that Hercules tried to reason with him (and eventually succeeding) directly after the initial tussle, but Hulk's blows did far more damage, and to quote Herc (who is a character I like _more_ than the Hulk, probably my favourite in Marvel's stable along with Black Panther, Meggan and She-Hulk) himself, in reply to Hulk's attempt to chase them away by stating that he's a monster: "If that were true Hulk my skull would be as shattered as my pride." Pretty damn explicit. Dave 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In Hulk #250, the Surfer had not yet drained the Hulk of his power when he caught his fists and held them. The Surfer held his fists in order to drain the Hulk's power.

He was _extremely_ powered up at the time and was draining Hulk's power from the moment he touched the fists, leaving the latter cured just a few panels afterwards.

There was ZERO indication he was "extremely powered up, there was NO indication just how powered up he was. Once again, bias.

Uh-huh. Quote: "Anger into strength? My anger at Galactus' barrier knows no bounds! If an infusion of gamma-rays could turn that rage to unlimited power? The nothing could hold me on Earth! Nothing!" "You want to pierce that barrier by adding to your own unimaginable might the sheer raw power of the gamma-radiation. A power that would increase your strength in direct proportion to the rage you feel?" "I think I can invest you with the power you need Surfer, but it's not going to be easy. Much of the machinery has to be adapted to our purposes." "The infuser draws gamma-rays from space. Then, modifying themso that they'll combine with your unique genetic structure.It will bombard you with a massive dose of gamma-radiation until it permeates your every cell. As my power was converted into raw power when I was the Hulk so will yours be. Until not even the space-barrier of Galactus can withstand your rage. But Bruce Banner has overlooked one fact. He was a man before becoming the Hulk whereas the Surfer possesses the power cosmic. Will not the additional power make him like unto an angry god?" "Continue! I must feel the gamma-rays seething within me. Power, pulsing, pounding in every fibre of my being. Power enough to rend a world asunder or to be free of one forever." "I need more power! More!" "Feed the power to me even as I assault the accursed barrier." "Growing angrier at the thought of his imprisonment. Growing stronger as his rage consumes all else! Witness as god gone mad! And if such power can drive a deity to madness what can mere fear do to those made of common clay?" "and the heaven-directed stream of gamma-rays is immediately cut off depriving an enraged Surfer of his added power!" "If it was you who destroyed the gamma-infuser robbing me of its power." "You are the receptable of gamma-radiation which added to what I have already absorbed will give me the power I need to smash through Galactus' barrier!" They briefly slug it out with either budging when Surfer is in this state and then he catches the fists while the power transfer is glowing from the start turning Hulk to Banner in a few panels. I'm seriously beginning to think that you're not for real. SImply a troll having fun at my expense.

The Surfer's response to the Hulk's exclamation that no one has ever been able to do that? "No one has ever possessed the Power Cosmic!" Your assertion that the Surfer was "vastly" powered up at the time is a POV estimation and not supported by the story.

Now that's just plain deliberate lying, given that you've just read the issue. The Surfer stated himself that his power was vastly increased in direct proportion to his anger. It was the entire point of the story/the machine the Surfer and Banner built and exposed him with. You're far more POV than myself as usual, despite your arrogant delusions to the contrary.

The Surfer only had sufficient power to breach Galactus' barrier after totally draining the Hulk of all his power.

Curing the Hulk, by draining the radiation then available in his cells. When empowered the latter draws his power from extradimensional sources. It's not a constant thing, and it only provided the final push.

Once again, Defenders #8 provides no direct strength comparison what-so-ever, there is nothing explicit about that issue at all. If you believe the Hulk's strength is greater than the overall power of Dr. Strange or the Surfer you seriously need to pick up a few comics without the Hulk name on the cover.

I've picked up plenty, and unlike your own severely biased downgrading/underestimation of the Hulk, I do consider both of them as far more than a match for him if using their vast array of abilities intelligently rather than just slugging it out in close quarters, (although the Hulk did shatter the Cyttorak bands once) but it was explicitly shown that the draining managed to incapacitate both of them, while Hulk retained enough energy to break free. Hulk overpowered Onslaught in terms of pure power, when the latter channeled energies greater than Galactus' and comparable to a Celestial (Franklin Richards + X-Man at the same time).

More useless POV estimations. There is no evidence that Onslaught's energies were greater than Galactus', only flawed ABC logic. Franklin Richards permanently burned out his so called "Celestial-level" power reconstituting Galactus during the Abraxas Saga. To this day he remains totally powerless. As for X-Man, the Surfer recently defeated Cable at full potential in direct combat. "Beyond Galactus" indeed. TheBalance 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No more useful explicitly referenced stuff. Onslaught has been stated outright to have possessed their combined powers along with Xavier's and Magneto's. He created a second sun and Franklin was stated by Ashema to have power rivalling her own. All completely verified facts.

He's currently set to slug it out with Zom, who is at the same level. His power is in rapid flux from time to time, that's the entire point of the character, despite your completely blindsided perspective.

If you think the Surfer's comment in SS #125 was a "boast" you are also mistaken. The Surfer was completely devoid of emotion at the time and he even stated that it was just an observation in the response to the Hulk asking him if that statement was a threat.  :::::::His being devoid of logic severely counteracts your argument that he was trying to help the Hulk or holding back in consideration. Just because he made a statement still doesn't make it true. On a purely physical level he was shown as outmatched, resorting to energy-blasts to defend himself, and it was stated outright that the Hulk was now far stronger than the one he 'matched' when severely powered-up.

The fact that you try to argue that the Hulk didn't receive help from the Warbound during his battle only shows your incredible Hulk bias. TheBalance 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's rich coming from you. The rundown above explicitly shows that the Surfer made two sucker-punches when the Hulk was completely unprepared/not expecting them, using a bludgeon in his hand, increasing the force of his blows, didn't manage to hurt or knock out the Hulk.

The hit caused Hulk to bleed, indicating damage. Wrong again.

As I stated right below, _beyond causing temporary pain in his jaw_. Not anything further whatsoever. He was still completely awake and not even dizzy.

beyond causing him temporary pain in the jaw, and aside from Hiroim (who was just above Captain America level at this point in time) the Warbound strictly attacked the Surfer on their own, also explicitly shown.

As Hiroim stated, if the Surfer was allowed one more pass they were all dead. This was a weakened Surfer who was unable to utilize the Power Cosmic due to the obedience slug. Take that as you will. Your bias is apparent.

Hiroim's assessment is irrelevant, as was the Surfer's that he could disintegrate Hulk when he later did his best and failed. Excepting Korg (who is Thing-level), the Warbound were pushovers at this point in time. The Brood was a spawn not a queen, Elloe had no armour, Hiroim no oldstrong power, Miek no metamorphosis. As I've always said this was a battle of strength (and using the board as a shield) alone. Hulk was just as weakened, and taken completely by surprise. Your inability to listen to reason even after I've completely crushed your every argument basically makes you one of the top 3 most blindly and zealously biased wikipedians Iäve ever had the displeasure to encounter. I.e. you're wasting my time.

The Hulk managed to knock the Surfer out with 3 rapid punches in succession, only using his fists, when the latter was prepared for them but stopped defending himself.

The Surfer was totally unprepared and in the process of thanking the Hulk for destroying the obedience slug. Wrong again.

No he wasn't. He was in the middle of a battle. That does not equal attacking somebody using a bludgeon when they are completely unprepared. Not fair but not the same. I don't see why you're even arguing this point as I've agreed dthat this issue isn't a particularly good reference.

Not a completely unprepared sucker-attack, but also not fair. So unlike yourself I'm not immune to reason or changing my mind, again showing that you're far more biased. In any case the Hulk used to start at mere Thing level when calm and currently he's stated to start considerably into the 'class 100' range, and able to increase his strength many times over, hardly the level when the Surfer could match a slightly angered 'just above the 100 range'/'equal to Hercules' version.Dave 10:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk's current "power up" is hardly relevant to the issues that played out in the past which is what was under contention.

No, what has been in contention the entire time was your assessment that the Surfer is as physically strong as the Hulk, which has been explicitly shown as ridiculous, especially given the "warrior's madness" and Onslaught affairs, but also through Defender #8. The other two instances are more uncertain. SS #125 strictly showed both of them at some point trying their best to hurt each other and failing to do so. Hulk #95 strictly showed both of them weakened. Surfer hitting Hulk with two bludgeon-enhanced sucker-punches The power-up is a fact, frequently referenced, hardly worthy of quotation-marks. That you are even unable to admit this with all the very explicit references during the entire crossover is quite extraordinary.

I suppose the constant reiteration of the Hulk's "power up" is an attempt to console yourself since it is obvious you are a rabid Hulk fan-boy.

Flash fact: My self-esteem doesn't hang on this, or approval from your typical delusions of grandeur Internet lunatic. It's a hobby. On the other hand I'm very easily provoked by your kinds sheer stupidity and in-your-face arrogance. It's a severe character flaw.

Once again, your Hulk bias shines through.

Uh-huh, that must be why I think the Surfer is far more than a match for Hulk if he doesn't just stand there idiotically exchanging punches and regular force-blasts.

I have well-founded reasons for all of my views, and have never been "rabid" in terms of reason alone. I like the character, but plenty of others as well, and have never let that get in the way. You've shown far greater bias regarding the Surfer. It shines through that when the Hulk gets ridiculously powerful moments it somehow "doesn't count" for you, i.e. the warrior's madness and Defenders issues. You have still not managed to counter any of my more important points, simply ignoring them while I consider, evaluate, accept or pick apart all of yours. Your statements of my bias are irrelevant distraction from this fact. As virtually all people who have debated me can assess, I generally change my views if I consider that the other party has a point, even if it's an unreasonable blowhard. You have consistently been unable to admit anything, simply ignoring the points and restating your feelings on the issue. Again you are incredibly arrogant, blinkered and I am apparently wasting my time on you.

The Surfer has also since had a "power up" BTW.

He has only appeared in Annihilation and FF since Planet Hulk as far as I'm aware. Was he powered-up in the former? He didn't seem more powerful when fighting the FF, but if this has been explicitly stated it will be unconditionally accepted. Dave 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest you pick up Tales to Astonish #92 - #93 for the first example of the Hulk being outclassed by the Silver Surfer. TheBalance 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Read it, but it's just as irrelevant as Loki being an even match in those days. He was far less powerful in those days and has shown vastly greater abilities on multiple occasions. Dave 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor issues

I've noticed this several times with some of your edits. Usually you're good to catch it, but it seems a few of your late ones got through. I think I got them, but you may want to look them over again to ensure what I put in was what you intended.

If possible, I'd advise against using that editor, or at the least see if you can find some options on it to remove the word blocking. Derekloffin 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It happened again? I thought changing my browser would take care of it. Thank you very much for the help in any case. It seems to mostly strictly block out Taro's last name. Dave 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling the images on the Ranma character fighting techniques page

31 is better than the previous 53, so hopefully this will hold if scrutinized, so thanks for your understanding. If we can pull out more, even better, but additional pics shouldn't be added in. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. This works fine for me. In worst case we could modify it a bit more. Please change the parts where the layout is unsatisfactory, and if you could find somebody to help with copying and pasting references from the images that would be even better. Dave 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. As usual all mentions of Taro's last name were omitted from my last revisions. Possibly only Ryoga, but I think there was another one as well. :\ Dave 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

me]] 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor issues

I've noticed this several times with some of your edits. Usually you're good to catch it, but it seems a few of your late ones got through. I think I got them, but you may want to look them over again to ensure what I put in was what you intended.

If possible, I'd advise against using that editor, or at the least see if you can find some options on it to remove the word blocking. Derekloffin 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It happened again? I thought changing my browser would take care of it. Thank you very much for the help in any case. It seems to mostly strictly block out Taro's last name. Dave 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling the images on the Ranma character fighting techniques page

31 is better than the previous 53, so hopefully this will hold if scrutinized, so thanks for your understanding. If we can pull out more, even better, but additional pics shouldn't be added in. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. This works fine for me. In worst case we could modify it a bit more. Please change the parts where the layout is unsatisfactory, and if you could find somebody to help with copying and pasting references from the images that would be even better. Dave 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. As usual all mentions of Taro's last name were omitted from my last revisions. Possibly only Ryoga, but I think there was another one as well. :\ Dave 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ranma items page

I have it in my user space, but no, it's just sitting there still. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's too bad. Have you contacted some semi-benevolent editors? Dave 17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope; other than you, me and Derek, do you know of any other semi-regular editors who work on the Ranma pages? I wouldn't worry about the items so much as trying to improve the existing pages. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What was that girl called? Dave 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, Kudoshido. That's her handle. Sorry. Dave 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulk (comics)

The Hulk has demonstrably, confirmably, unquestionably destroyed enormous amounts property and created enormous amounts of destruction countless times through the decades of his comic-book stories. If you believe this is not so, please call for an WP:RfC. --Tenebrae 23:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Before going that far, I've created a discussion link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board#Ongoing discussions of interest. --Tenebrae 23:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk has gone on 4 actual rampages over the years. After being turned into a mindless state by Nightmare. After his body was left without his mind, by Doc Samson. After his mind was severely impaired by imbedded shrapnel from a grenade, and he saw it as a sacrifice to make him a target rather than allow the entire world to go to war. After he took a gamma-bomb to the face and went insane. The copy-Hulk controlled by Tyrannus also went on a rampage. Excepting this, and the villainous Gray Hulk, all the instances I recall are that somebody attacked him and he acted strictly in self-defence. The "Onslaught" event spliced his mind. In this deranged state he once "took over" an island for a few days, to signify a point to the army after they kept attacking him despite giving them a literal "line in the sand". So no, beyond the usual superhero battle property destruction while defending themselves and bystanders against attacking villains, the whole "Hulk regularly goes on unprovoked rampages" bit is basically an urban myth. If mind-control counted it would count for any hero forced to do something against his or her will. This was not the case for Superman when he took over the world, and this is not the case for anybody else.

Hulk has also repeatedly sacrificed himself to save many billions of humans or aliens over the years. Your zeal to classify him as an "anti-hero" or "villain" severely signifies that you're not matter-of-factly segmenting him between incarnations, which I modified. That you likewise simply categorised his seeking of justice for his people as revenge, likewise doesn't convey the more complex situation. So no "countless times" (math teachers these days...) only goes if you mean it in the same way as general slugfests. Dave 15:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to take a look at the talk page and article history, and to give us his take on the changes and on consensus. Thanks. --Tenebrae 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And what does this admin know about the character? Nothing? And this "consensus" has this been backed by a single actual reference rather than bland opinion that appeared after your very transparent attempt to bait for attention by misrepresenting my views above? Have I even had the chance to enter the discussion for more than an hour before you've taken the cowardly way out and not allowed me time to make my own case? Have you even been able to actually counter a single point rather than playing with words and trying to get somebody else to handle the argumentation for you? Have any of the ones you've managed to interest do so? You're certainly a very talented strategist and "I'm oh-so innocent no matter what I've actually done" actor, I've got to give you that, you'd make a "good" lawyer, but cutting to the meat of it the only thing that matters and, as always, will immediately convince me, is matter of fact references. Dave 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit of 17:57, 18 September 2007 appears to address both your and the other editors' concerns. Thank you. --Tenebrae 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It seemed succinct enough. It neither implies "rightness" or "wrongness", they consider him a potential threat (which he evidently is), not stating that he's regularly wantonly destructive and threatening human lives without external influence (which he evidently doesn't), and likevise not stating that he's wrong or right in what he does (personally I think they should just have presented the evidence for various courts or at least chosen a battleground outside of the city), just that he's convinced that he's in the right. In any case he apparently won't manage to go through with actually killing them, but it remains to be seen what happens. Dave 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Threading etiquette

In regard to the problem with how you responded to the multiple editors at Talk:Hulk (comics)#Destruction debate, you method screwed up three things:

1. Formatting and continuity of other editors' comments. When an editor hasn't opted for bullet points, either by writing complete paragraphs or using enumerated points, it's because they are putting forth a complete, coherent comment. Politeness would be to answer, or rebut under the complete comment. In cases where points are enumerated, it's better to reference the number or numbers in your response rather than interrupt the formatting and screw up other editors' option to respond in kind to the original comment.
2. What exactly the other editors said. By breaking up the comment, you leave latter editors the task of piecing together who said what with out being able to fully trust the signature lines.
3. What exactly is attributed to you since you didn't add a signature line to each one of your comments.

- J Greb 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to insert a signature at the end of responding to each editor, and always prefer to discuss each point one at a time. It's what me and others have done in the past as the most efficient way of "cutting to the grist", as they (to me) don't present coherency, but several separate points (or accusations) but I suppose I could try your way. It's just that it generally turns much harder to keep track of (and thus answering) all their arguments, and I prefer to address every single issue. Still if other people's minds work differently than my own in this regard, I suppose I'll have to adapt. Dave 20:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Anime character articles

I was checking my list of contributions (Yeah, I do that sometimes) and saw we once talked about what it would take to make "Ryoga Hibiki" a Good article. By Quasirandom's initiative, discussion began a while ago on creating a guideline for character articles.

If you're interested in participating, go here.--Nohansen 11:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, from what I've seen we'd basically need to butcher almost everything from the articles to make them 'good', i.e. completely non-in-universe/adapted for non-entertainment articles or ones with a great social reference impact and lots of guidebooks/almost no information at all. I'd rather keep all of them B-class. It serves the readers looking for information much better. I appreciate the thought though. Dave 17:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Revised FUR requiring article parameter

I've updated my uploads because I started getting the notices; I did pull many of the movie ones because they only appear that one time . Also, after I orphan my own images I tag them with {{db-author}} to indicate that it's OK for them to be speedy deleted; this way I don't get bombarded with orphaned image notices. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the FURs for only those images that had them in all the Ranma articles. The bot notices seem to affect only these for the moment. I didn't add FURs for those images without them. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify, did you handle _all_ of them (the entire battle records pages etc. All in all it would make up over a 100 images for the entire Ranma section) or just the ones with warnings (for the time). If you need it, please check Derek's page for a long list of warnings. He's uploaded almost as many as I have. Quite a lot of them may also have less 'fair use justifications', but just copying the modes for the ones I've uploaded should handle that as well. Best Wishes and thanks a lot for the help. Dave 08:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Need to do better

I think you need to do some reading regarding:

1. Wikipedia policies and how to talk to other editors. You just failed at Wikipedia:Civility. Also, try and avoid non-thinking edits. You kept a sentence with wonky grammar that I just fixed. Asgardian (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh- A statement of fact about blatant censorship and view-pushing is incivility, but doing so in the first place is ok, and I should be a smarmy deceitful , i.e. say "quite frankly", or "if I may" before, and limit my logical-analytical thinking in the process. Or for that matter make disparaging comments about my intelligence and matter-of-fact editing is also considered ok, if done with a certain panache, rather than honest discussion. Got it.

As for sentence structure that's never been my aim at Wikipedia, and remarking on it is a nonsensical diversion. It's to correct factual errors, and outright lies. You see the problem with several mainstay comic book editors (but not manga ones, they're generally a nice bunch) is that according to my experience several mainstays are seemingly virtually immune to logic. I can have superior arguments and foundations for my conclusions in every respect, and it will usually be met with underhanded means and ignored rather than re-evaluation. I.e. insults, demagogue lies to gain 'support' by people who have no idea what's going on beyond what the person in question has told them, twisting rule-quotes to suit personal ends (if it's an 'unfortunate' brief fact reference to a work it can easily be countered with 'copyright infringement', if not by 'original research', cummulatively countering any Wikipedia edits whatsoever, no matter how rational.

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. "Outright lies" is far too emotive, accusatory etc.

I go where my logic takes me. I have extremely bad experiences with the pack mentality in this particular community. Beyond the above there is a rampant use of sockpuppets rather than standing for your own edits. But all right. You in particular haven't been a problem, unless you've used a sockpuppet I'm not aware of, and you've actually been upfront, so I apologise. It's still cherry-picking though, and the hypocricy of making backhanded, inproperly veiled insults, rather than as a consequence of matter-of-fact observation, doesn't sit well with me. Speaking of which, another example would be would be easily to slam me with a "sarcasm" if I said "you're not exactly lacking in the hypocricy department" instead, even though the statements are identical. Again, conveniently twisted around out-of-context paragraph quoting is the biggest problem with Wikipedia, since anyone can push anything if they find an appropriate clausule.

Asgardian (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2. The Marvel Universe in general. Galactus IS the balance between Death and Eternity. Just read his entry, then that of the Living Tribunal. Then go and read Fantastic Four vol. 1, #257.

Asgardian (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I read that story, and thousands of others. I've got his history pretty much memorised. As I said Galactus is the balance, not the equal. His power had to combine with Uatu's to even summon Eternity. No feat or battle he has engaged in has ever remotely indicated this. It's wishful thinking hyperbole at best. Dave (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Silver Surfer vol. 3, #10. Equals.

Asgardian (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Will re-check, but he has never ever been shown anywhere close to that scale, whether ranked far below in Infinity Gauntlet, battles with Mephisto, (from Stan Lee himself none the less) In-Betweener,(Englehart, much like issue 10 if I remember right, which contradicts your single dubious reference, rather than outright demonstrations) a Watcher in the "Last Galactus Story", teamed with the Stranger in "Infinity Gauntlet", consistently described on a scale of power with the Watchers, Odin and the Stranger, and the Celestials being higher in Gruenwald's official OHOTMU, beaten by Tenebrous and Aegis in the same "Annihilation" arc you brought the quote from (which I didn't censor), stood up to by regular Thanos, fought on an even level by original Tyrant, easily taken out and then fully repowered by Gravity, or referring to Eternity as father (which is the way I understood Thor#168-169 as well) and not even being able to summon him by himself, he's never ever shown remotely that level, while Eternity, Infinity, Oblivion, and Death are consistently stated as having practically unlimited power, with certain M-bodies more easily handled... then again that is an aber. Dormammu killing him would actually place him at Galactus level if not using the "M-bodies only have as much power as they manage to synch up" failsafe...

In any case, he's a quasi-physical tip-of-the-scales, while they are wholly conceptual and by nature higher-dimensional/levels of infinity above anything, and you can't limit the evaluation to two cherry-picked instances, when the actual power-demonstrations, and larger amount point in the direction that he's one among several, rather than a single character comment that he's "the most powerful in the universe". That's just an in-universe opinion, much like "Sentry has the power of a million suns", not demonstrated fact. Dave (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought I'd bring this to your attention

There's an editor named TTN who has been going around merging standalone fictional character articles into the list of x characters for the series that these characters belong to on the grounds that they don't meet the notability guidelines or cite enough real world information as per WP:FICT to stand on their own. He's also redirecting individual episode articles to the list of x series episodes, although this doesn't really affect the Ranma articles. This was first brought to my attention here. He hasn't touched any of the Ranma ones yet, but he did merge a whole lot of the Urusei Yatsura characters back into the larger list. This pattern of editing has been brought to the Arbitration Committee which accepted the case but hasn't made a ruling yet. Nonetheless I think it would be worthwhile to start digging up secondary sources for the Ranma characters online, in print, or on DVD commentaries say, to get enough real world info into the articles so that they can pass scrutiny, as TTN is still proceeding with his merges or otherwise questioning the notability of these types of articles. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be really awful, but I'm not sure how to do this in regards to specific characters. I did in fact go through, and add the available cited information from, all the available Takahashi interviews, as well as the Memorial book, which is as much as I know of. I don't see his rationale, as there is usually a definite limit to how much one can dig up from these in regards to fiction. As long as the article accurately and neutrally cites from the appearances of the characters there should be no reason to merge them together for no good reason. 'Space-consuming' would be a pretty irrelevant issue after all. The more accurately informative for those interested in the work the better. A better option would be to categorically create initial real-world referenced head pages for those simply interested in this aspect. The interest itself shows the great appreciation dozens of millions of visitors have for the more extensive variants. Why such a need to completely exterminate this feature, beloved by so many, even if it may not be a personal cup of tea, rather than restructure, or prohibit an GA or A rating? By extension, should all B-level articles be destroyed? At the very least individual pages for the most noteable beloved characters, frequently in works viewed in many millions of copies, should be allowed to remain. Dave (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be hard for me to condense the whys and hows of what TTN's been doing, as the record is already long, so it's better to read for yourself to get an idea of what's fully involved. I've proposed the creation of a Ranma Wikia on the Ranma ½ talk page as a counterpart repository of info that is currently here. Derek has already put in his thoughts. I may shop the idea around to the other big Takahashi projects, InuYasha, Urusei Yatsura, and Maison Ikkoku for a combined Takahashi Wikia as there should be enough contributors from all 4 of these series to warrant a Wikia creation and continued maintenance. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, based on the Talk page, there exists very widespread, well-worded objection on the subject, definitely not consensus. We should look into the option of compressing all the used real-world references into a co-existing page, to provide both options. Dave (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

One-Above-All

Hi David! I've been following your contributions on One-Above-All, and I'd like to talk to you about the recent section you created, called "greater powers". You state there the possibility of powers even greater than One-Above-All's. However, look what Marvel:The End says about this:

“ However, contact with the Heart of the Universe allows Thanos to learn that, due to a fundamental flaw, the universe is doomed to end very soon, and that this flaw could not be corrected even by the power of the Heart of the Universe. (...) Ultimately, Thanos learns that the only way for him to repair the flaw in the universe would be to destroy the universe and re-construct it. He is finally driven to mindless rage by the attempt of the cosmic powers to usurp his reign, and decides in one fateful, final moment to absorb the entirety of the universe back into himself, so that none might ever again threaten his reign. Thanos is thus able to use the Heart's power to absorb the cosmic beings into himself - and, in doing so, he absorbs the entire universe. The cosmic hero Adam Warlock, who was outside space-time continuum when Thanos absorbed the universe, appeared to Thanos and explained to him what had transpired. Adam convinced Thanos to sacrifice himself to restore the universe. Thanos speculated that the whole scenario had been a set-up from the beginning by a far greater power (implied to be the "God" of the Marvel universe) to fix the universal flaw. Thus, Thanos had himself been manipulated and possibly even guided. ”

This evidently shows that the heart of the universe is not a greater power than One-Above-All's, to the contrary. I dont know what Avengers Infinity says about this, but I think you should at least rewrite the reference to Marvel:The End, to correctly address the (supposed) power relationship between One-Above-All and the Heart of the Universe. Best regards, Waldir ^talk 16:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the entire "One-Above-All" scenario is that there are different versions out there. The Infinity Gauntlet 'original' one being that the One-Above-All committed suicide, and Living Tribunal apparently took over his position. By this reasoning something far greater than the Gauntlet and the Tribunal should rate higher than this entity. With this other unknown entity manipulating Thanos likevise rating above, making the entire concept moot in the essence of being an 'ultimate ultimate power' rather than simply the creator/God of the Marvel multiverse. My problem with the article is that it doesn't address this dichotomy, rather than stating an absolute structure (based on selective information) where none is to be found.

I've read Avengers Infinity and nothing indicates they would be more powerful than One-Above-All. As far as I know, several entities can exist outside the universes, create and destroy them, and manipulate objects at a galactic/cosmic scale, without being considered more powerful than One-Above-All. Besides, this page classifies them 4 levels of power under One-Above-All. For all this, I think that section can be renamed, rewritten or even deleted. Waldir ^talk 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is comcvine official word from Tom Brevoort/Marvel itself or just fan interpretations? I may have worded this inappropriately, but the 'problem' here is that there have been shifting mentions to the One-Above-All. If I remember correctly the Infinites state that they are greater than any to them 'finite' entities like Eternity, i.e. they're higher-dimensional than 'he' is. This would rate them above the Gauntlet (and Tribunal) which at one point was referred to as the One-Above-All. This is the essence here. Not whether they are greater than the entity hinted at in MU: The End, which is up to speculation. Just that the page tries to present a 'necessary' case of a single referred entity (which is entirely possible), rather than the few discrepancies surrounding the issue as is. This should be mentioned in some manner. I sometimes word things in a slightly incomprehensible manner, so I hope you've understood my point. Othervise I'm happy to explain further. I have no problem whatsoever with you rewording/reformatting it.

Well while not saying so explicitly, in the manner of direct comparison, they are supposedly higher-dimensional entities scales of Infinity (i.e. it's Mr. Mxyzptlk vs. Superman, to make a semi-humorous comparison) beyond Eternity, and given that the latter was at the very least able to 'slow the Gauntlet down' in the challenge department, and the Living Tribunal was at best slightly more powerful than the Gauntlet, neither rates scales of Infinity above. Just because there was no direct comparison doesn't invalidate that these entities are, by exclusion of possibilities, at least an order of omnipotence above the Gauntlet/Tribunal in terms of raw power. (Being higher dimensional doesn't necessarily mean that you can necessarily use it for anything fancy, just that you are infinite to lower entities). That said the entity Thanos referred to may likewise be higher, but this was apparently not the One-Above-All/'Infinity Gem Being' referred to as the former master of Eternity at some point if I don't misremember. At the very least these discrepancies should remain as mentions in some form. Dave (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Do as you think is best. I confess I know very little about the Marvel universe, most of what I know came from wikipedia itself, since I've read very few of the comics. I made that remark because to the extent of what I know, that reasoning didn't make perfect sense to me. Now with your explanation, it is clearer, though I must agree that the issue is still somewhat blurred because of the lack of details. I just want to note some passages from Infinity Gems:

“ Discovering the true potential of the gems, Thanos explains to the Runner that the gems are actually the remains of a once omnipotent but lonely being. Attempts to create other life forms failed as the creations had no concept of good or evil and devolved into beasts. Realizing its error, the being destroyed the flawed creations and committed suicide, being unable to endure eternity alone. A fraction of this being remained, however, and became the Infinity Gems. ”

“ The god Loki enter the Ultraverse and recollects the gems. He discovers the existence of a seventh gem - Ego -, and that all seven were originally extracted from the consciousness of a cosmic being known as Nemesis. The Ego gem, possessing the Eternal Sersi, merges with the other gems to reform Nemesis ”

Doesn't this exclude One Above All as the origin of the gems? I know that the seventh gem plotline was developed after the "original" version of the Infinity Gauntlet, but then again, Thanos never mentioned One Above All directly, did he? Besides, what would his name mean anyway, if he wasn't the one above ALL? :) Waldir ^talk 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know anything about Ultraverse and Nemesis, so possible retcons in that regard are unknown to me. Thanos and Mephisto did refer to it as the previous 'Supreme Being' when conversing in Silver Surfer (#45 I believe), and I think Adam Warlock (Warlock and the Infinity Watch #1) conversed with Eternity and the Tribunal referring to this previous master of reality. However, that bit is a bit muddy in memory. Do whatever you find best. It’s not like this is actual error-correction, or undeniable explicit fact addition on my part, just insertion of notable oddities, since I don't see a solid coherence, rather than various writers doing whatever they feel like. Saying that they seem above the Gauntlet and the Tribunal is probably sufficient as food for individual thought.

Also, what about this? http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/slsur1.htm :s I'm getting confused... Waldir ^talk 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't the time right now. Must go to bed. Will check later.

btw, there's no article on them, apparently. Perhaps an entry in Soul Survivor (disambiguation) would be good for a start... Waldir ^talk 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm up for starting pages right now. Will check later. Dave (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw: I just ended up with troubles with a particularly unpleasant editor going by the moniker Manssierre regarding various semi-connected Marvel entries, where he either cherry-picks irrational references, wildly speculates, or censors matter-of-fact references, while stating that my long list of points "isn't worthy of replying to" in the Talk, with the obligatory additional pompous sidestep insults, to give a hollow appearance of knowing what he's talking about, and summarily edit-wars away, to push extremely debatable personal views, regardless if I've made a non-countered case ending up with a compromise previously, and he doesn't bother at all. Thorough solid reasoning usually doesn't work on these guys. I've really tried, and thought compromises had been reached, but end up with unfounded categorical censorship anyway, which admittedly regrettably made me annoyed enough to reflect in my replies. My tolerance quotient has lowered after encountering his very taxing kind a couple of times in these circles, and I don't have much remaining energy/interest/attention-span reserved for them, so they'll outlast me, censor away, and push a rabid exaggeration eventually. Logic and discussion doesn't work. In any case, given your interest, some help would be very appreciated. Thanks.

There is even some possibility that he's a sock-puppet for one of them, given his very similar tone of speech, and here mismatched choice of insult words. (Basically 'The most POV, fannish, misrepresented, unreadable speculation text I have ever seen, anywhere on Wikipedia! In truth! You are a retarded illiterate degenerate, who cannot possibly write encyclopaedic entries! Go away and die!' This for changing a sentence from unfounded extreme hyperbole, respectively striking out some wild speculation, alternately adding two matter-of-fact references to very much fannish and unencyclopaedic entries?) As well as his non-existent user space, very limited Talk, and sudden rabid assault on several pages at once, after being 'inactive' for some time, and that the person in question has posted on his discussion page to gain (/'legitimising'?) assistance in the past, with a somewhat suspect track record towards myself. Hmm... Then again, it's more likely that they just have similar personalities, and have kept track of each other's activities. Dave (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest creating a WP:SSP report (like I did for Peter Vogel here), or you could request a checkuser if you decide not to take it to WP:AN/I. I'll back you up, sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, although while the Jjonz/Darrel37 case seems very suspicious, and he has similarly used multiple IPs to make the edits, the user referenced above simply has similar speech-, backhanded "If I may say so... you're a despicable piece of excrement" insults, and pompous personality-patterns. I'm not sure if it's just paranoia on my part, and he seems to have backed off. Being disproven is fully all right, but I always get into a mixture of intense confusion and gradual annoyance, whenever Wikipedia seems enforced on principles of gang-up censoring and out-there point-pushing, rather than matter-of-fact reasoning with the most solid case prevalent. So I'm generally at a bit of a loss to handle these things, vainly trying to use increasing amounts of references, but being ignored, censored, and insulted. I'm a bit short on time, given being mixed up in this kind of situation, and have made another attempt to solve it through matter of fact discussion, but I'll consider it. Your help is very appreciated in any case. I didn't know that it was possible to use an IP-comparison service, so that's very useful information, but shouldn't it be weak against people who use different IPs each time, like Darrel? Dave (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm back Baby Boy!!!!

Hey Baby Boy, did you miss me???--JJonzclone2.0 (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

David, would you happen to personally know this user, JJonzclone2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The person seems to have a grudge against you. Regardless, I've reverted all of the user's disruptive edits and gave a warning. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no personal relation. He's just an obsessive lunatic stalker who needs attention any way he can get it, and seems to latch on to certain users. He's used over 30-40 sockpuppets in some personal vendetta for over half a year, since he doesn't like that he can't deliberately lie and vandalise on Wikipedia, and blames some of it on me. To paraphrase another editor just before perm-banning one of them. "Trolling, lying, and vandalising are the only things he does on Wikipedia." Alternately, he's a vast series of socks used for a more 'respectable' identity, to push POV lies and behave like an idiot in ways the person in question cannot 'officially'. Either way, he's mostly harmless, and kind of funny. It's very hard to take him seriously. Maybe he got mad because less boisterous vandal-socks like Darrel37 didn't work out? Oh well. If the IP-detect service used above can actually perm-ban his computer from accessing Wikipedia that might be an idea. As he frothingly 'screamed' on various occasions, he's actually unbalanced and fanatic enough to keep this up forever just to 'avenge' himself. I even heard that he made threats towards another editor. Dave (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be back!! Again and again!!

Oh Baby boy, you wound me. You're calling me "obssessive" about you?? Well, of course I am, your my buddy, my pal, my bestest friend in the whole world. Where would you be without me?? Well, catch you later, bud!!--JJonzclone33-3 (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you're a stalker, with all the requisited mental illnesses, on top of the delusion that you're Lobo's younger brother, and using multiple scream points in every post. You're not even annoying, just repetitive and pathetic. At least you haven't stolen my underwear yet. Who are you fronting for anyway? In any case, start doing balanced, sourced, non-vandalising or POV speculation edits, like most other users, and you'll stop getting them reverted, or wasting both of our times. You're nothing to me or User:Gscshoyru‎, or anyone else you've latched on to, and desperately trying to be a nuisance, or behaving like an idiot won't change that. Whee! You got my attention by reverting 20 edits! How cool. That must make you important... Seriously now, even you must realise that this is ridiculous. Dave (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Excess fair use image in Ranma character articles

This was raised on the WP:Anime and on the main Ranma talk page. I agree that we have to cut down on the images, but have been waiting for you to chip in to the discussion before removing any of your uploads, since a lot of the uploads are yours. Derek has signed on to the idea. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been away for a while but will chip in. While cutting down on the images seems ok, one displaying the character in the manga and one in the anime should be a minimum, and the ones showcasing a described event or similar should be kept as well. Dave (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The adding/readding images back and forth in character articles may be seen as edit warring on both sides, so be careful. I would hold off given that there's a dispute between what to include and what to exclude. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But what am I supposed to do? I _have_ been extremely compromising and taken the time to check through which images to keep and which to remove. I have cut them down to half. Why is this seen as unreasonable? I went the middle path, yet he won't relent 1 inch. What am I supposed to do? Just let him destroy this entire section because he feels like it? It's so very easy for someone to go in from outside and make sweeping destruction, but it took 100x more time to make an effort in improving it as much as possible in the first place, and yet I am still the one willing to compromise, while he isn't. Why is that? Dave (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All I can really say is bring your concerns and arguments in support of image retention to the main talk page. The point was originally raised here on the project talk page. There has been a trend towards reducing fair use images in character articles and especially in lists. I've also had many images removed and deleted because of this trend. I've had to accept that as that as a reflection of how consensus has been moving in regards to fair use images. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've now written a small entry. I would greatly appreciate if you could pitch in to help me out. Dave (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much help I'd be, as you may have noticed that my position has shifted re. image use. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if you could just back me up regarding that we don't have to delete everything except the top header, and can keep the strength/speed/durability illustration (but take away redundant ones. The one with Shampoo and Kiima may be unnecessary for example). It would be very depressing and stale if eveything was categorically deleted. Dave (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ranma pages

I'm currently going through the character articles, doing updates, and pondered: are all classified as martial artists in the series? Think the category should only be placed here if this is so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosunkugi, Kasumi, Nabiki, the Jusenkyo Guide, Tsubasa, Rouge, Akari, and technically Hinako, aren't martial artists, and plenty of the minor characters aren't as well, but you could always create a [:Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters|sub-category]] if you'd like.

Btw: Given that you're likely more well-versed in the extremely self-conflicting Wikipedia regulations than myself, do you know of a 'shortcut' to be able to showcase images of some of the minor characters? They're currently in list form, and thus a few recurring, or othervise semi-important, characters don't get any image at all. Despite being a visual medium it sort of got swept under a collective indiscriminate banner-regulation in that regard, but my experience here is that there are rules to justify or ban nearly anything somebody feels like if you really try to dig it up, or form a 5-man committée to drive an agenda, so there should logically be a loophole available somewhere. Dave (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You lost me after replying to my concern. Yes, it makes sense to have a Category:Ranma ½ superhuman characters, however, what categories would go in there that would apply for all superhumans? As for your other thoughts, think you want something like Category:Dragon Ball images? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not expressing myself clearer. I meant that the semi-minor characters are currently kept in lists, and as such go under the "no images used in lists" banner, but this greatly diminishes the pages. It's a visual medium after all. However, my experience is that there are usually conflicting rules, so if you know of, or hear of a loophole, that would be great.

Regarding the Ranma sub-category, it would probably better to call it "Superhuman martial artists" or something like that. It's a 'semi-cartoony' series after all, so even supposedly non-superhumans tend to be able to withstand more damage than they should. Dave (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you're interested, there is a discussion going on here regarding the gallery of pics for minour Sailor Moon characters. Think Category:Ranma ½ superhuman characters will do for now (if someone comes up with a better name, there's always {{cfr}}). Since you know more about the franchise than I, would you do the honours in creating the cat.? I'll give you a hand with other details if necessary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now created the requested category. Please feel free to start inserting tags at the end of appropriate character pages. I have to stop in a few minutes. Dave (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations for Powers and abilities of the Hulk

It's really only this section which need them. I have no idea how to get these verified so, hopefully, you have reliable sources? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that part of the text, and have no idea where that particular information is taken from. I just didn't want to be rude and cut it out, as it sort of fits with some vague memories. Basically, it's probably 'true', but I'm still waiting for someone to fill in the sources. Dave (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably refers to the Hulk movie, though I don't recall any particular events because it was one of the most boring movies I've seen. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Was I correct in doing this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. The misunderstanding stems from an extremely old handbook entry, but 1000 miles was stated outright in the referred book. Dave (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had a thought, we could reference that too. Say something like an extremely old handbook entry gives 3 to 4 miles.^<ref></ref> What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah. The handbooks almost always downplayed the established power-level of this particular character. The Hulk character nearly jumped into orbit before these were released, he has always withstood the 1000000 Fahrenheit nova-blasts of the Human Torch, and even at weakest saying that he could 'only' lift 100 tonnes is pretty ridiculous, given regular displays. The ratings were always a joke in that respect, but useful for official definitions and relative comparisons between the characters. Dave (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello DavidA, are you O.K. today???

I just wanted to check in with Baby boy today and see how you are doing. It's been a while since I last spoke with you, I stay very busy with my other personas that I have created here in Wikipedia. By the way, one of them you know very well, but I'm sure you don't even suspect who I really am. Here's a hint, I've been an administrator for over three years now. Well, got to go now, see you later sweet pea!!!--JasonJonjonzz (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking the original JJonz has a too low IQ, and too manic-compulsive, plain obsessed, metally ill, and generally retarded behaviour to fit with most people I've had some form of disagreement with. While occasionally severely pompous, I sincerely doubt Thuran or Tenebrae would even consider debasing themselves to this level of ignorant fanatic vendetta, and generally half-baked edits for example, or at least the personas they choose to outwardly present, even if the intents initially overlapped, but yes, you have left a couple of tracks when making inconsidered edits in the past on pages of coinciding interest with a select choice of users, even a couple of IPs, and it is not impossible that a few other fanatic deliberate serial-liars have joined the train, since setting up an "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YoJonzieboyYoMama123456789!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" identity is an automatic acquittal, as everything is put under the banner/fault of the 'original'.

Administrators cannot acquire, much less maintain, their functions without an at least semi-serious disposition and grasp of grammar, logic, context, and/or non-chaotic mindset. None of which you have ever demonstrated in the slightest in any of your edits of interest, unless it's simply an "Hey, I'm an insane, evil, slimy little turd, and have discovered that the administrators won't ever bother to track, identify, and block my access. Muhahaha, the power, the power! Aren't I neat?" deal. You are simply far too crude, inane, childish, bratty, and attention-whore-y to fit. That level of, and commitment to a two-faced charade would take a severely disturbed individual to enjoy. Now admittedly, the glove fits yourself, but pompous most definitely does not equal insane for the rest. Keeping 1-2 'bitchy back-up' personas seems to be pretty common in the American comics 'community', and is pretty hard to overlook for a few users enforcing exactly the same type of edits/agenda, and thinking exactly the same way. Someone with even a minimum of observation prowess can notice that, but you? Nah, way too conspicious, tiresome, and over-the-top, beyond temporary 1-shot pettiness. That you would even try to imply anything in this line is the best indictation that this is not the case, and that you are simply another one of the standardised base pack-liars which I tend to grow bored with very quickly. Now go play with someone else. There's a whole wide world of damp-affected 5-year-old kindergarten brats around. Dave (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

David, I don't see why you bother responding to this troll. Ask for temporary page protection if it keeps going on or, ATPIT, revert, block, and ignore. Also, this user, along with the main account, have been blocked indefinitely. (Yay!) In any event, could we get this dealt with? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Naivete I suppose. I always have a hard time grasping that some people cannot be reasoned with no matter what. Additionally he currently believes himself on some 'brilliant' scheme to trick me into chasing ghosts, which had to be addressed. That said, half of the American comic book character pages truly do seem to be run by extremely deliberate liars, with multiple sockpuppets, rendering Wikipedia useless and completely unreliable except as their personal 'propaganda' tools. (No the above-mentioned two are not in this category, I simply found them offensive.) The problem with JJonz is that blocking single users is ridiculous. He's got over 60 separate identities. What's needed is someone who goes through them all, checks the IPs, and edits, identifies him as an individual, block Wikipedia from displaying at his home account, and send him a legal document expressedly forbidding him from continuing, or charges will be brought against him. It has been extensively proven that nothing less will do. He's one of the most fanatic sockpuppet-overkill vandals Wikipedia has ever had.

I'm extremely short on time these days, and have lost much of my interest for Wikipedia, partially due to loosing faith in it, since a sea of lies to ridiculous extremes can easily be enforced by 3-4 guys and their socks, but also since I don't really see it as worth the effort/not fun anymore. I've been busy uploading and editing images, and am going to bed soon, so I'm afraid that I don't believe I can set up a new section today. I'll check it up the next time I'm around (which could take a week) User:BrokenSphere is usually a very helpful fellow though, so maybe he can help out in the meantime? Dave (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you plan to retire? Also, concerning User:BrokenSphere, is he familiar with Ranma ½ enough to help me sort out the categories? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly plan as such, more like that I don't have so much energy and interest, and see my personal semi-compulsive prerogative to delete or mediate outright lies as mostly a vain struggle. I'm trying to tie up my 'commitments', and then we'll see what happens. Never mind about Sphere, he's very knowledgeable about Ranma, but has got enough on his plate without me giving him extra trouble. I'll create an initial frame for the category myself, but am somewhat hesitant to enter unfamiliar territory. Do you have any comments about what you'd prefer it to be like? Dave (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Use Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters as a basis and see how it goes from there. I'm unsure of what the description should be so improvise if you must. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Belated barnstar thanks

It's a few days back now, but thanks very much for the barnstar (I seem to have a nice set going ... have not won the same one twice). I suppose it's for standing firm against JJonz, enough to put me on his shitlist with you, but I'd like to imagine it was for that day a couple of weeks back where I blocked about 44 accounts within an hour (all but two for vandalism) because nobody else at the time was monitoring AIV. I wonder if that's a record? (Probably not, I'll bet). Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome for the barnstar. It's not much, but at least I'm trying to be polite, and as you noted you've been active in considerably more ways than this.

The problem with JJonz is that he continues to create new cover identities, which makes all bans pointless, so identifying him as a person, or blocking his ips from accessing the lexicon in the first place seems necessary. While a habitual liar in all things, he has also claimed that he is a 3-year administrator of Wikipedia, from Texas (I'm sure his fellow Texans are overjoyed that he's acting like bad stereotypes) and a 10-year graduate of communications from one of his home state universities, i.e. supposedly able to emulate various patterns of speech/writing/general trolling, although he failed quite horribly in this regard in previous instances. Other Wikipedians had identified some of his pseudonyms as aliases for 'Peeweehurman', so he at least isn't limited to being active in the 'JJonz' areas, and given the rather simple and petty nature in the early edits of his oldest known identities 'CrystarB4' and 'JJonz' this puts the 'administrator' claim in severe doubt, and I don't have much energy for bothering with him myself, but still, it may be of general interest to check it up. It's not good for the standards of the lexicon as a whole to allow the lunatics to run the asylum. Dave (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "magic" in the category

Should it have been [[Magic (paranormal)|magic]] and not [[Magic (fantasy)|magic]]? And I left an inquiry over here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The pure fantasy-connected probably. It's just silly fun&games adventure, not systematically structured 'real-world' connected occultism. Dave (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So it's fine? And of the Hulk response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably fine. I previously didn't notice the other comment. Sorry. Dave (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

I reverted a flurry of unconstructive edits on Powers and abilities of the Hulk soon as it popped up on my watchlist. You do have this page watchlisted, do you not? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, but I visit Wikipedia more sparsely nowadays. Dave (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm content that some of the more superfluous images were taken off, but can you replace that image in #Strength with a clearer one? I can't tell that he's lifting a mountain, as the caption suggests. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the "Hulk" query? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I didn't see it amongst the 'deleted image' warnings. In any case, that's the best one available. An immense mountain range is shown hovering in the air, it is estimated as larger than the Himalayas by a character, and then drops. Later the characters are shown in a cave at the bottom, with the mountain supported by the Hulk. The cover, with a text blurb included, is actually the best image available, as far as I'm aware. Dave (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanos and telepathy

Thanos doesn't have it, but I'm sure he can talk to people's minds. Kind of like the Surfer doesn't have TELEPATHY, but he can still communicate across vast distances with his...mind I guess. Loki has done it as well. I'd say Thanos has some kinda mental power and TP resistance, but he's not a fullblown telepath. DCincarnate (talk)

No, it was clearly shown that he needed Moondragon for telepathic skills, and that instance was written by Starlin, his creator (well, technically he started out as a hollow Darkseid rip-off, but I digress). On the other hand his mind is strong enough to reactively engage Moondragon on even footing, but that kind of thing doesn't make the Hulk a telepath either. You can't insert powers he hasn't demonstrated. Psychic powers implies a wide spectra. As for the Surfer he does have some telepathic ability, such as scanning memories for information and similar. Dave (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Powers and abilities of the Hulk

I don't think they're socks but look at what the page was reduced to. Kinda bad copy-editing all around, especially on the refs. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they may be socks of User:Asgardian, but most likely not. He tends to use deliberately misleading information, combined with extremely suspicious justifications that routinely contradict each other from page to page, depending on whichever view he prefers to push, combined with simultaneous faux-polite cover-up language, and using socks whenever he risks getting too much attention, or is temp-banned from edit-warring. User:TheJaff seems more reasonable, so he is either a new user, or a sock of a semi-reasonable editor who prefers to keep the context/pattern of previous association hushed down. Dave (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I checked User:Doppelganger3.1, and, beyond the deliberate handle, he edits exactly the same way as Asgardian would. I added a "suspected sockpuppet" tag, along with one for JJonz to be on the safe side. It wouldn't be the first time he tried to use misdirection. Dave (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you again. So have you alerted User:Daniel Case? He should get the socks banned ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no conclusive proof that it's a sock, beyond that it edits/revert-vandalises exactly the same way Asgardian consistently does in the Thanos page, and shares his views on Hulk/Hercules/Thor, or possibly JJonz sticking to being a low-key nuisance, since he thinks it's more funny to use subterfuge, but if Daniel is an IP-checker I suppose it could be an idea. Dave (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Doppelganger as a specific sock. Any others, let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. Do you have the means to IP-check 'him'? (To get some clarity in whoever is using the sock, as an unidentified puppet-master will effortlessly continue to gather new ones, while retaining a facade) Is there a reference-list with all IPs to check more easily, or must each one be painstakingly compared one-by-one? Dave (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Some wonderful assumptions here...

Asgardian (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been confirmed as using sockpuppets in the past, have employed contradictory arguments you can to rationalise pseudo-vandalism edits, and the Thanos edit was identical, so yes, it seemed like a very justified conclusion. Then again, it may just be JJonz again. Dave (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In order - no, a clever hacker; your opinion and remember what is said about people in glass houses and finally, less venom. A tad too obsessed about small edits that fixate on match-ups...

Asgardian (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've tried to be consistent and reasonable, and never ever used multiple identities on Wikipedia. Although I've accidentally edited when automatically logged off a couple of times, including just earlier, but always made a note of it. You've used match-ups when it suits you, and generally twisted into something highly unreliable. Dave (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Actually", some of your edits are obsessive, and smack of that "highly unreliable". I also suggest you keep your six-guns in your holsters and stop making accusations of sockpuppetry and call others edits "lies and vandalism". A lot of what you keep trying to insert into the Thanos article is sub-par.

No it isn't. It's completely accurate to avoid a wording that creates an inaccurate picture of what was very explicitly displayed. I went through all the arguments with MobbOne, and you keep ignoring them. Dave (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As you have been told, the Wiki-way is to avoid POV, hence no theatrical phrases or nebulous terms. Just relate the gist, without trying to showcase one character at the expense of another. It should also be obvious by now that a P & A is just that - a small piece of prose that relates what the character can do. No terms such as "vast" or odd statements about how X can survive Y's attacks because of Z. Just state what they can do. It makes for easier reading. Yes, Thanos' tech also allows for force field projection. It doesn't require unnecessary exposition.

So, when the text is altered again, please try and understand why. Asgardian (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Relate the gist" such as stating in such as way as it appears Thanos knocked out the Fallen One in personal combat, when this didn't happen, and he simply outsmarted it to knock out itself? When you deliberately edit out the explicitly stated facts that this was only a small part of Hunger and that Galactus was not evenly matched with it, in fact it was much more conclusively stated that Galactus was completely outmatched against it, than Thanos vs. Galactus, which you naturally choose to keep, and so on. Again, I'm completely reasonable to solid _logical_ _arguments_ (not rationalising weasel-rhetoric), as is MobbOne, usually. You have none whatsoever, and keep ignoring the other side with vague outright lies of POV, when what is stated are direct citations, and simply keep vandalising the same way to deliberately push a false version of events. Your complete inability to offer solid explanations, and absolute willingness to use lies to justify the same edits over and over again, has convinced me that I sincerely cannot assume good intentions from you. It's apparently all false play-acting to attempt to present a polite facade while doing something else entirely. You've claimed "photographic memory"? Well, I don't, I simply have a knack for remembering minutiae, but either you are mistaken, since books I look up to verify repeatedly directly contradict you, or that's another lie.

The "subpar" rationalisation is irrelevant, as rephrasing existing factually accurate sentences isn't your goal, just to revert to complete insidious misrepresentation. How is "vast" a bad wording, but you "superior" (to what?) acceptable? "Vast" is accurate, as is examples of the extent of an ability, which you and everybody else routinely use anywhere else whenever possible, and are right in doing so as it is more informative, but you cannot cherry-pick exclude or include whenever you feel like it. Dave (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So there's no POV in your edits? Ever? You certainly seem to have a view. The essay on the Galactus Talk Page confirms as much. As for being "irrelevant", if you can't see the flaws in your effort in Thanos' P & A, then you truly do have an agenda. In fact, you seem to take great offence whenever anyone disputes your edits on the cosmic characters. And no, "vast" was yanked some time ago. Too nebulous and cannot be quantified. "Superhuman", "superior" and so on are better.

I do in fact have an agenda yes. It's to remove any and all deliberate lies, or mistaken assumptions that I can find. I seriously can't stand them. I'm severely manic-compulsive on that point. If you mean POV in the sense, am I a robot with no personality, then yes I obviously have, as do everyone else, but unlike yourself I do continuously attempt to stick to explicit facts and not censor out any inconvenient details, and do reconsider if someone presents me with a solid, and factually accurate case. Given all of your combined devious behaviour it's hard to simply take your word for that some 'hacker' was responsible for your sockpuppet. Dave (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - "insidious misrepresentation"...heh. How old are you? Asgardian (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice try for an irrelevant diversion while offering no specific arguments whatsoever for the Thanos case, but yes, that is exactly your apparent modus operandi, as you do consistently edit or censor in such a way that the reader will draw inaccurate conclusions about what's been explicitly shown, while assuming some standardised vague 'POV' catch-all rationalisation without any specific arguments whatsoever pertaining to the case backing it up. I have successfully defended nearly all of my Thanos or Galactus edits with quoted text. You have not. In fact, much of the old Power Cosmic and Galactus stuff in particular was very obviously thin air, or outright lies, and that's my problem with your 'cosmic' section. It was more smattered with lies than any comics-related sub-group I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The pages I have followed have turned much more neutral and matter-of-fact than when I started however. Dave (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The RPG stats should be removed. According to the statistics section under the editorial guidelines, RPG stats are discouraged from usage along with stats taken from various encyclopedic comics like the OHOTMU.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have very limited personal investment in the inclusion, but removing it doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever, and while my experience with you does not imply that you personally are one of the people who methodically strives to find ways to censor out any 'inconvenient' facts, to strictly twist information into a very biased certain direction, I have a general annoyance with that sort of thing, as it essentially boils down to lies and misdirection. (Although the cosmic section has made me jaded in that regard.)

In any case, users regularly cherry-pick out-of-context statements such as editorial promotion blurbs, which are far, far, far less reliable regarding the official policy, while official handbook references are edited out if they happen to interfere with a personal bias. The same goes for character comparisons. This listing was officially approved and does not give any specific limits, just comparisons, so it seems like removing it would be a case of misinterpreting the intent of the rule, alternately a major contradiction/inconsistency in procedure.

Not to mention that User:Asgardian for example is simultaneously pushing the inclusion or exclusion of said character comparisons depending on the page, character, and personal bias. Personally I'd say one of the most reliable/accurate ways would be to go to the source and get the official editorial policy. Dave (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as character comparissons go, I've got no problem with them overall. At least, so long as they convey an actual comparisson of characters of similar strength, durability, healing, etc. rather than a fan's attempt to hype certain characters. For instance, if one were to compare the powers and skills and all that of Wolverine and Sabretooth and all the variable times they've fought to standstills and beaten one another and so on are mentioned, then that's fine. What I'd have a problem with is for an editor to insert something into the comparisson that tries to indicate that a character could only win a fight because of his opponent was sick or lost only because he had sand kicked in his eyes. I feel that discussions or debates or comments of that sort should be regulated to discussion forums.

I think such things are extremely relevant to mention or the instance becomes extremely misleading and does push a view rather than what's explicitly shown in the story. It's either defining the exact circumstances or not mentioning it at all. The exact circumstances should always be mentioned if unclarity exists. That goes for the Hulk/Sentry fight, Thanos blasting Galactus off his feat by the advantage of surprise, Juggernaut beating Thor when Thor was weakened or when Juggy was temporarily boosted by Cyttorrak for the 8th Day, without mentioning that Thor beat him barehanded on a more even occasion, or when he repeatedly ambushed Hulk by hiding in the vegetation, and disguised himself as an ordinary worker to make the latter underestimate him. That Hulk punched him gasping to the ground in one blow the next issue is ignored, and so on. I used the same rationale to edit away ridiculous inclusion of Hulk somehow achieving a feat by 'beating' the Destroyer, when he was in fact beaten up thoroughly, inclusion of the fact that he had help by catapults to split that planet, or editing away all the 'virtually unlimited' strength hyperbole. The point isn't about somehow 'glofifying' the Hulk. I'm extremely fed up with the character at this point. It's that much of the cosmic section have a very pronounced editing agenda, which goes completely against what's explicitly shown and stated, and having comparatively low ability to filter/bias analysis for myself, that kind of thing really gets under my skin.

(1)As for the various stats, removing them makes all the sense in the world to me. Aside from being taken from an old RPG, I don't know what any of the strength stats were supposed to have meant. Did 20 mean a character could lift a battleship? move a mountain? (2) In any event, I doubt they'd have been included to begin with if the creators of the game hadn't put the Hulk's strength stat above that of anyone else, with the exception of Galactus I think. (3) Lastly, the stats of a 10 year old RPG have nothing to do with the various goings on within the confines of the comics. That would be like listing that the Hulk defeated Galactus just because someone used the Hulk to beat Galactus in Marvel: Ultimate Alliance.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) The rpg was officially editorially approved, regardless if you or I like it or not, and as far as I know more thorough with the character roster than the later edition (or at least I could find more statistics for comparisons online, which was the reason I didn't use the 2003 version), which had angry Hulk at strength 18 and Thor at 10 btw (or 36/19 if converted if you will), as opposed to 30+/19, so it's not like that one changed the circumstances for the milder.

(2) Not exactly. The Celestials were at level 30. It think Galactus varied depending on how much he had fed. Hulk was the only character who could go past 30 though. Given that it's a 'powers and abilities' page Hulk's outrageous power-listings and displays are obviously of interest, especially the latest games, as the handbooks are much less specific past the 'class 100' range. The latest listing did put a note than Hulk exceeded it several times over though. In the Thor page Stan Lee's comment of creating Thor as the only guy who could best Hulk is included, but not his much later reflection that as a god Thor probably shouldn't be possible to overcome by a mortal, but Hulk just keeps getting stronger the longer a fight progresses so there's no way to beat him either, or that Stan penned a fight with Hulk wiping the floor with an unarmed Thor back in the 80s, and any attempts to include 'the Man' (the creator of both characters) writing Mephisto stalemating Galactus as an indication of the former's power are obviously consistently edited out by Asgardian, or TheBalance, as, regardless that the most prominent creators defining the character (Lee, Gruenwald, Byrne, Starlin, Engleheart, Giffen), only Asgardian's cherry-picked instances are enforced, such as Loki being shown as more powerful than Doctor Strange way back before the Doctor was occasionally boosted to virtually omnipotent cosmic entity levels.

(3) No it wouldn't. Results of Ultimate Alliance battles aren't an official listing/comparison of statistics. The characters even greatly shift power-levels depending on experience, and I think Galactus was a gang-up assault foe (which of course still has to be barely beatable or the game wouldn't work), but have only briefly tried to play it so I could be wrong. As for the age of the game, Hulk has been significantly powered-up since then, as has Thor, due to the Odin-force, but you still approve of battle comparisons between Hulk/Hercules or Hulk/Thor or Loki/Doctor Strange (and presumably Loki/Silver Surfer) based on their first encounters back in the 60s, around 40 years ago. And you'll note that unlike Asgardian I haven't resorted to editing those instances out, because they're nearly as relevant as the rest of them. ("Nearly" given the massive power-ups) Dave (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Approved by whom? I don't recall a discussion in the project's discussion page in which a consensus was reached to ignore policy. The editorial guideline says to leave out RPG stats, so I'll delete them if I run across them.

2. While I don't really care what the stats are supposed to mean, my statement was mostly to point out that those without access to said RPG wouldn't know what they are. The primary purpose of the articles is to provide accurate overall information about whatever the subjects of the articles are. I don't see what obscure statistics add to the overall info of the character in which only certain people will know about their meaning.

3. I brought up the age of the game as another indication of just how obscure it was. Even if somebody wanted to, I doubt they'd easily be able to find that game themselves so they'd know what's what. Also, don't tell me what I approve of. I approve of character comparissons if they serve as an actual comparisson rather than the result of a personal bias or agenda. If those comparissons are the latter, then they should be removed or rewritten. I haven't been to any of those articles in ages, nor am I really all that interested in them. If I do though, I'll edit as I always do. If I see something that shouldn't be there, either as vandalism or policy violation, I'll remove it.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) Approved by Marvel editorial. They're official. There is no rational reason to allow quoting unreliable event promotion-blurbs, but not official, much more carefully evaluated, handbook statements from the same editors. As far as I've heard other users refer to the policy the handbook stats are discouraged due to the inaccuracy of the 'class 100' scale and similar, not in a strict comparison respects, as they are just as reliable/official as anything else Marvel produces. THen again, I don't really have emotional investment in the issue. There are plenty of references around without it, but right should preferably still be right.

(2) Putting absolute, far too low, 'limits' on the characters is the referred reason I've heard to the statistics being discouraged, while strict comparisons are the same as any other reference, and are just as accurate as the regular appearances. As to the 'obscurity' jab, 40 year old outdated appearances are still considerably more so. If there are several other characters listed for scale references (Here, Juggernaut at 19, Thanos at 22, Destroyer at 24, Surtur at 28) it works for a general sense) there is no more confusion involved for the reader than anything else.

(3) That's just the thing. It's no more obscure than the other Marvel RPGs, and considerably more recent than the 80s incarnation. Even if people wanted to find most of the referenced comics they couldn't do it in the store. It's an irrelevant objection. If anyone wants to check something up the only reliable resource would probably be bittorrent, which probably has all of them available somewhere.

(4) As for character comparisons, if you do in fact allow some less reliable ones, but not others then you would either have an agenda yourself, as cherry-picked censorship as to when a guideline should apply or not doesn't hold, or simply not have noticed them, which is more likely given that you're not Asgardian. The only fair solution is to clarify when specific circumstances were involved or not, an exact matter-of-fact referencing of what character made a statement and what was actually said in the context. Othervise it does serve a deliberately truth-distorting agenda from some editor involved. Dave (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article qualifier?

I'd like to nominate Powers and abilities of the Hulk for a good article review but was wondering if you'd like to add in anything else before I do so. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That kind of thing will just make various editors put demands on me to devote several days of my time to put it up to their standards, and I've mostly lost interest with Wikipedia to start with. At worst it will give someone with a grudge against the page a chance to push that it should be deleted. It's the most frquent loopholes in Wikipedia society. Calculated gang-up lies, manipulation, and conveniently (mis)quoted tangled bureaucracy. Dave (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you thought about the benefits? There aren't many comic-related pages rated as good articles, and I think this one has potential. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone else wants to handle it maybe, although it's almost certain to attract people who take a chance to censor or even delete it, but I'm definitely completely sick of editing Wikipedia. For every good person like yourself, there are 2-3 complete slimeballs. Not very rewarding for those who try to stick to facts and straightforward logic, rather than convenient manipulation, and I'm not getting paid for this. Dave (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw: Is there any chance that you could check over [[2]] page. I seem to suffer from a gang-up, and I'm too bored from same-old, same-old, and not really caring, to invest myself too much. Dave (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your link is broken, but I'm sure you meant Talk:Galactus. What's the gang-up there exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I started going over the cosmic section, I found lots of thin air Galactus hyperbole references all over the place. Literally 'Galactus is the most important cosmic entity'. 'Galactus is more powerful than universe-creators/-destroyers like cosmic cubes', 'he is the living incarnation of the 'power cosmic' (which he uses) and it is the most powerful force in the universe', 'he is not just the balance of Eternity and Death, he is their equal', 'he is a third of the Living Tribunal' (the most powerful of all Marvel's cosmic entities) and so on, especially wording everything in such a manner that it would be misread from what actually happened in the cited (or uncited) issues. It turned downright embarrassing, and I got nervous ticks from it, as virtually none of it had a solid foundation. It's like those annoying "virtually unlimited strength" edits people keep inserting into the Hulk page, but taken to even greater extremes.

Currently I've cleaned up much of the pages I've discovered, so it's sort of 'ok', but there seemed to be another lashout while I was gone from Wikipedia last time. No as unmanageable yet as I thought though. The last time it turned nasty, everyone ganged up to undo my edits regardless if I had a winning point in the Talk or not, and either ignored or insulted me, so I got bored and went away. After fixing the Apocalypse page, and a few others, I started to get interested in the cosmic section again, completely rewrote the horrible cosmic entities page, and gradually strated to get drawn back to Galactus, after first doing some larger ones at Thanos, I did a few minor edits there, and eventually got a Talk reaction. We'll see if I need some overview or if they are sensible or unreasonable. Dave (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Galactus will probably work out, as it's basically a case of semantics. [Thanos] on the other hand keeps being hounded with the same censor-edits over and over, which give a highly misleading picture of what was explicitly stated to happen within the comics. Everything censored is completely matter-of-fact as far as I'm aware, as opposed to the serial-restored (no compromises whatsoever acceptable apparently) misleading version. Help would be very appreciated. Dave (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I could help you, but the only comics I read is manga. Have you ever tried requesting protection or leaving a note on WT:COMIC about the content dispute? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a thought, although I tend to be too lazy to read up on bureaucratic procedures. Dave (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I only have little time right now, but I'll check whether or not I've already done a Talk 'point-by-point' argument or not at the Thanos page first. I'll hopefully insert one in a few days othervise. If Asgardian and 'TheBalance' (someone who apparently is so biased that he named himself after a very biased perception of Galactus) continue with the monodirectional factually inaccurate Galactus-pumping censoring (in every 'appropriate' Wikipedia page they notice) afterwards I'll consider putting up a note, but it's not the way I prefer to do these things. Dave (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1. My user name has nothing to do with Galactus. It seems you are unable to avoid baseless accusations and misinterpretations in any endeavor.

2. You continued to insert factually inaccurate interpretations of what was conatained in SS vol. 3 #31 in a very obvious attempt to degrade Galactus' stated importance. For example, you stated that the Living Tribunal "likened Galactus to serving the function of Equity" when such was never communicated in the comic. The Tribunal named Galactus as Equity in the trinity of Eternity, Galactus and Death, nothing more, nothing less. You are clearly injecting POV here to further an agenda, one I see you adhering to across the cosmic pages.

3. You're not doing yourself any favors by making these wild, exaggerated, and unfounded accusations against other editors.

TheBalance (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted a note. Hopefully that should solve any provlems, as I'm far beyond tired of that mess. Dave (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm visiting for the first time in almost a month, as I have very limited interest in Wikipedia these days and basically see it as a waste of time, but here goes: 1: When you consistently try to pump Galactus to completely thin air speculation importance as 'possessor of the most powerful force in the universe', 'one third of the Living Tribunal', 'and quite possibly the most powerful cosmic entity of all', while first avoiding to answer my initially very polite and extensive Talk treatise about the subject, to then switch to making pompous opening statements that I'm 'not worth answering to' in lack of arguments, it's not exactly high physics to draw that conclusion. The alternative would be that you proclaim yourself as completely incapable of bias, which is blatantly proven false. Me, I get going by that sort of thing, as seen on plenty of other US comic character pages than your beloved Galactus icon, unless it's explicitly spelled out without any unclarities, which makes it fine, and if there are these should be mentioned. You might remember that I tried to _add_ that Galactus was shown capable of threatening entire galaxies (in his battle with Mephisto) to his powers section, since this one was without any doubts whatsoever. My 'agenda' is to stomp out any excessive POV speculation or made-up hyperbole, which have been extremely widespread regarding galactus, and have made efforts to improve the strictly factual referencing and quoting at various pages, while yours thus far seems to have been to 2: The LT stated that Galactus served the function of equity in the Eternity-Death duality, yes that's always been my point, and Galactus has stated that he "exists to rectify their balances", and the writer of Galactus modern origin story, creator of the official Marvel handbook, and departed head editor, Mark Gruenwald stated in Quasar and cited in handbook, that he's a physical entity of such importance that he's granted use of M-bodies. You've tried to either support the "One third of the Living Tribunal", 'most powerful being ever, and let's ceonsor all explicit examples that sayothervise, even if... say, the _creator_ of Galactus, Stan Lee shows that he's on equal footing with Mephisto, or Jim Starlin shows a nourished Galactus almost killed by a major nuclear explosion combined by a planetary impact. You've tried to tout him as more important and powerful than later mentioned/retcon-created abstracts such as Oblivion, Infinity, and Entropy, as "the third force in the universe", which was only true at the time Death and Eternity were the only major ones around, except for Chaos and Order, and they were (at least briefly) inserted as rulers of another universe.

Serving the function of 'Equity' to Eternity's 'Necessity' and Death's 'Vengeance' seemed like the best description I could come up with, to inform the reader of the full context of the Tribunal's allusions, without making comments if this is a good description or utterly inane regarding the latter two. As there have been some recurrent reverting to the whole 'Galactus is connected to the Tribunal, and the most important abstract ever... whooooooah groovy' deal, I've tried out some variations to that to hopefully satisfy everyone. My intent here is exactly the one I've stated, i.e. to avoid the above-mentioned hyperbole, and give an accurate summary of what was said without imposing it upon later 'invented' abstracts. Are these wordings assumed perfect? No, obviously not, and I've said that people should feel free to improve the language, but not modify the essence. The Tribunal stated various symbolic examples of 'necessity' 'equity' and 'vengeance' to the Surfer at various scales and relationships, since the latter had been thinking and experiencing beings and cultures extremely vaguely along these lines. It was pretty sucky and half-baked writing by today's standards, but kind of cornball charming I guess. Galactus can not be the end-all be-all _embodiment_ of _all_ equity as there are plenty of other relationships, some of them illustrated by the Tribunal. As the same writer penned Galactus stating earlier, he "exists to rectify [Eternity's and Death's] imbalances", no more, and no less, as you said. Again, context. I'm not sure if we agree or disagree on this point.

As a few side-notes tying in to some of the above, the story promotion-blurb comment of Galactus being the "quite possibly most powerful being in the universe" should be mentioned as just "editorial story promotion-blurb", rather than presented as fact, when he's been completely outmatched on multiple occasions, and "most awesome being in the cosmos" should be mentioned as a comment by Thor in the late 60s, and in a storyline where I think Odin was mentioned as of comparable power, but it's been some months since I checked it up.

Your cohort Asgardian has aklso gladly used illustrations of other character's displayed abilities, or comparisons of power in other pages whenever it's suited him, so the excuse he usually uses to censor any storylines not portraying Galactus as 'the greatest being ever', to create a far more balanced whole picture, doesn't hold water.

3: It's a good thing then that I don't do wild accusations that I know of here, and that you started being far more dripping with acid towards myself than I was to you. Asgardian does have a proven track record of suspensions and sockpuppets, not to mention an apparently false claim of photographic memory, while you are more uncertain, but have behaved extremely pompously, and repeatedly reverted the power cosmic entry to ione with some explicit lies. One thing to realise about me is that, agree or not, I always believe exactly what I say, and strive to the utmost for factual accuracy, but also quickly change my mind when proven wrong and rectify errors. My memory tends to be good at minutiae and coherent patterns, but also recurrently gets details wrong, and nobody is perfect. If other contributors cover my blind spots then that's excellent. Props to them. I'm not striving for sleazy faux instant-holiness, manipulation, and intrigue. I'm striving for direct matter-of-fact evaluation. If that makes me uncomfortable to you, then I can live with that. Dave (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Stick to the arguments at hand. Your essays like your edits are loaded with superfluous language. Please, try to be more concise.

You also continue to put false words in my mouth, not a single quote provided above by you was ever stated.

Examples: "possessor of the most powerful force in the universe" - never stated

"one third of the Living Tribunal" - never stated

"and quite possibly the most powerful cosmic entity of all" - never stated.
These are misrememberings of statements that are as inaccurate as your misremembeings of the comics you continually base your edits on. Here's a piece of advice, as it's obvious your memory is poor, avoid basing arguments or edits on your rememberings.

2.1. I've tried to support what was actually stated in SS vol. 3 #31, you have tried insert your incorrect interpretion of what was contained in the comic. It's obvious your wording was constructed in an effort to minimize Galactus' importance. There are more misremberings in this section of your response as well; Jack Kirby was actually the major creative force behind Galactus, not Stan Lee. Galactus wasn't well "nourished" when he was caught between the two planets and Thanos' nuclear weapons in the Thanos mini. At the beginning of the mini Galactus hadn't fed in weeks (evidenced by his sustained position over Rigel-18), he was forced to deal with Thanos, then he faced Hunger before being caught in the planetary explosion. Galactus also clearly stated he was again hungry after dealing with Thanos which was before engaging Hunger.

2.2. Dave, you can try to present your own personal interpretation on the comics as an argumements, but the following are FACTS which are sourced and easily verified:

Galactus IS the "Third Force of the Universe" and the balance between Eternity and Death. It doesn't matter whether you like it or agree with that or not, it's a FACT that was referenced again in the late 90s and just recently by Marvel editors Tom Breevort and Andy Schmidt during the Annihilation event.

2.3. Dr. Strange brought this up again in the issue Galactus faced Agamotto in a Infinity War crossover issue. FYI, Infinity and Oblivion were already estalished at this point. There is nothing "biased" or "controversial" about this interpretation of Galactus, it's established continuity.

2.4. You say, " Galactus is connected to the Tribunal, and the most important abstract ever... whooooooah groovy". My response? Grow up

3. Sorry Dave, sorting through your essays is time consuming, difficult and fairly annoying. You wonder why I normally don't bother to engage in talk page discussions with you? See the Hulk discussion above. Your preferred method of inserting your responses into existing text makes prolonged conversations with you next to impossible. You also need to work on developing more concise responses which supports your argument and stays relevant to the conversation. Your "stream of consciousness" responses are extremely difficult to follow as they go off on divergent tangents.

4. I know you percieve a personal victory when other editors eventually refuse to respond to you, but that isn't the case. The real reasons are what I've just stated as numerous other editors have attested to. TheBalance (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(1) This tedious discussion has pretty much completely lost interest for me, and I don't have time to waste on re-reading it right now, but here goes. Most powerful force in the universe (not photographic memory, but exactly the same meaning) was the statement at the power cosmic page, which you reinserted when I edited it out, despite that the oppositeclaim was made by Thanos in the cited comic. One third of the Living Tribunal was the way the similarly enforced statement of Galactus being one of its 3 faces and being the embodiment of all equity read. Quite possibly the most important entity of all was in the cosmic entities page. My memory is fine and littered with trivia. I also have the very dubious 'advantage' of having the pretty typical add-asperger somewhat limited metaphorical filters. I see the information I take in more matter-of-fact and less allegorically. I also frequently re-checked several of the mentioned issues beside me when editing those pages.

(2.1) You have tried to insert the claim that the living Tribunal stated that Galactus is the embodiment all forms of equity, while neglecting to mention that the latter was likening several different trinities, including Skrulls, and Kree, or Cro-Magnon, and the neanderthal, or for that matter Order, Chaos, and the In-Betweener, to the concepts of 'vengeance' and 'necessity'. Now 'vengeance' in itself is ridiculous as a force in itself, and all cosmic forces should be of necessity per definition, but it is very important to note down that Galactus was mentioned as equity in relation to the other two. I'm not trying to degrade Galactus importance. I'm trying to pull back on the annoying hyperbole beyond his function as the quasi-physical balancing force between Eternity and Death, as the most powerful being in the universe and the most important force of all, and don't like the censoring of all instances that show anything else. Unlike the kind of 'snap your fingers to remake the universe' characters (Jim Jaspers, Protege, Scarlet Witch), or ones which at some point have been referred to as higher-dimensional (the Molecule Man, Eternity, Chaos & Order, the Tribunal, Cosmic Cubes, Celestials) which would make their power literally 3D infinite per definition, Galactus has regularly had very definite limits shown, so it completely transgresses against my available information and logic to repeatedly try to present him as such.

(2.2) Yes, I never disagreed that he is the third corner of their trinity. I personally inserted the quotes from the Byrne issues, and references to the issues they came from if I don't misremember, either at the Galactus page or the Cosmic Entities page. The problem is that you knowingly or indadvertantly, are presenting it as if he's more important than all other entities that werent' 'invented' into the Marvel Universe yet back then. He's the third force in relation to Eternity and Death, but he has never been shown anywhere close to their equal in power. As he stated himself, he exists to regulate out their imbalances.

(2.3) I'd like to see the exact explicit comparison about Galactus being more important than Infinity, Oblivion, Entropy, Destiny and the rest, as well as the exact issue reference, and a non-misrepresented quote explicitly in reference to all conceptual entities whatsoever, which per definition makes the interpretation that only three forces exist inaccurate. As for Infinity War, one of you Galactus fans tried to present it as Galactus overcoming the Infinity Gauntlet, even though Magus snapped his fingers with the incomplete, reality-gem lacking Gauntlet and very explicitly treated Galactus as less than an insect when keeping him suspended with the regular Marvel Heroes, no more to it than they were.

This is my problem with your extreme bias here. Stan Lee created Galactus, and has him just above the Watcher and equal to Mephisto, and with help from Jack Kirby handling pencils the second appearance with the original origin story in Thor, and has him having trouble with the thunder-god, mentioned as equal to Odin, simply shown as the product of Galan transformed by the consciousness of a dead star, and needing help to defeat Ego the Living Planet.

Mark Gruenwald later writes an updated origin, that I think John Byrne helped out with, and which presents Galactus as the 'baby' of Galan and the previous universal consciousness. Mark Gruenwald was also the editor defining the structure of the cosmic side of the MU forover a decade, and the creator of the original Marvel Handbooks. He listed Galactus as having power less than the Celestials, and barely greater than Odin or the Watchers, and in Quasar he once more defined both Galactus and the Stranger as physical entities but of such prominence that they were allowed to use M-bodies.

John Byrne, the guy who created the second 'classic' arc for the character ("Trial of Galactus") has him shown as needing the help of Uatu to even summon Eternity. In the notes for "Last Galactus Story" he once again shows Galactus as barely above Watcher level, as Ecce (?) stalemates him for a very long time.

Steve Engleheart has Galactus stalemating the In-Betweener, and finally at a disadvantage. After the Elders had been expelled from Galactus 'stomach' the indigestion problem stopped and he was back to standard power, with no indictations that he was anything but. They didn't drain his power in there. He simply couldn't digest them due to Death's immortality enforcement. Galactus was previously granted an audience with Eternity in the dimension of manifestations, and given respect for his polite assumption of the form of a star, but this is just a repetition of Byrne's 'one third of the trinity, but not remotely possessing power in relation to the importance' bit.

Jim Starlin's Infinity Gauntlet series paired up the various entities with ones of as similar nature and power-level as possible, and had Galactus together with the Stranger and Epoch. Yet they were at best able to keep Thanos off-balance, and stated as only able to do so because he wasn't given time to focus on his greater scale/consciousness of power. Even his attack combined with all the other assembled entities were completely ineffectual. Eternity on its lonesome was afterwards treated as a genuine threat (far above all the rest put together) and unleashing reality-distorting forces of a far higher scale of power. Hardly the 'equal in power' Asgardian here stated that he thinks (/wants) Galactus is (/to be). Starlin's use of Galactus as nothing to the Magus' with an incomplete Gauntlet is already mentioned. In the beginning of the Thanos series Starlin basically spends the first 6 issues showing up a nourished Galactus as a 1-track monstrously egotistic and amoral hypocrite, has Thanos blasting him off his feet, Galactus stating that he has to "exert himself" to break Thanos' force fields, stating that his might was "as nothing" in comparison to Hunger's, and stating (+ showing + Thanos calculating) that he was almost killed by being smashed between two planets combined with a nuclear arsenal explosion, and this was all just to sever and destroy the very tiny fragment of Hunger that had entered through the portal from it's far greater/bigger part. However it also featured Galactus in the most sympathetic light yet, as a force not callous to the plights of his victims, and willing to go to extremes to set an end to his consumtion of worlds when it is possible to find one.

Keith Giffen followed up on this with Galactus still explicitly shown and stated to have been greatly weakened by the battle some time afterwards, to the degree where Thanos thinks that even the Fallen One might finish him off, and later has Galactus beated by Tenebrous of the Darkness. However, he also showed Galactus destroying the Annihilation armada + 3 star systems + the corporeal form of a Watcher (Quasar showed them to be 'beyond death'/able to put themselves back to life and only contingent on their will to live) while simultaneously absorbing the energy of several hundred worlds.

From memory the latest handbook entry (probably the Annihilation profiles)/Marvel Editorial also explicitly states that Galactus is a physical entity who has come to function as the balance between the entities Death and Eternity and is apparently seen as such even by the entities themselves.

Meaning: Nothing I've seen of Galactus implies that he's remotely of the power scale suggested by various cosmic entries (edits that you have apparently actively supported), which state that Galactus is possibly the most important entity of all, possessor and incarnation of the most powerful force in the universe, fully comparable to Eternity, a third of the Tribunal, and so on. When he tried to kill the now unresisting/willing sacrifice 'Phoenix-avatar'/Rachel Summer by strapping her to a machine that was built to separate the force from her being the stars started going out, but as Death, Roma, and Uatu told him, that was an (by Galactus) unforeseen side-effect of trying to separate the force from its host when the two are one and the same (no that doesn't make sense, but it's Claremont, so what do you expect) and sicne the Phoenix is the lifeforce of the Universe. It doesn't indicate that he's personally far more powerful than the force itself.

(2.4) Grow up? We're sitting here babbling about very harebrained fictional metaphysics, and idolatry of same. There's nothing grown up whatsoever about that. Nor is the silly retort. Being completely unreasonable and extremely biased about it is even severely less so. Not to mention that you were the one casting the first stones way back.

(3) Given that I tend to take in and sort together pretty large patterns I tend to assemble my conclusions 'stream-of-consciousness'/in absolute honesty, which can lead me to trail off. This can be a rewarding experience or tiresome depending on the listener, but not something I can do much about without the time to rewrite everything into an essay or lab report. I also much prefer to individually address every single issue, as I can't decipher any worthwhile discussion of the actual issues without this practise, but have realised that it can be hard to keep track of who wrote what, as other people than yourself have mentioned this specific problem, and I find it harder to evaluate when other people don't do it, so I've started numbering the segments instead to find an acceptable middle-path.

(4) I don't claim 'personal victory', as I strictly see this kind of thing as a very tedious chore, and am not interested in competition, but in honest evaluation, and then ideally to leave the topic without pov-pushers getting right back with an agenda again. (Which extremely tiresomly doesn't seem to work here, as Asgardian will freely censor-edit anything he feels like, with completely contradicting approaches depending on the biased favour/disfavour of the instance, regardless if he has no arguments whatsoever to defend the edits beyond extremely insincere manipulative edit-excuses which recurrently directly contradict what he's actually doing.) I say that if you have no way of countering, and initially resorted to instant insults and forced ceonsorship instead of handling it in the Talk as I attempted to do, then yes, you specifically aren't reasonable at all in this matter, which annoys me. On the other hand, I can understand growing bored with something and add making you having a hard time picking it up again later. I have to fight against that all the time, including right now. Dave (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Abomination edits

I saw your edit today, and it got me thinking about the entire section, so I reorganized it, grouping the 'like the hulk's' into one, and 'different from the hulk's' in the other. Can you give it a review? Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. Dave (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems completely fine. Dave (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Apocalypse

Hello, I would like to hear your opinion on this. -- DCincarnate (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Apocalypse can evidently change into different basic inert substances and alloys, i.e. mix and match his atomic and molecular make-up to a certain extent, although apparently not to gas, or change his DNA at a whim (his Ultimate Universe counterpart can mimic superhuman abilities through mimicking the DNA of those he has scanned though). The handbook is also the final word from the editor in chief, and far more reliable than, say, editorial promotion blurbs, so I'd say molecular and atomic, but within certain limits. Not always correct though. Nobody's infallible, and the "class 100" range is ridiculous, but certainly a generally reliable reference. He's not as powerful as Franklin Richards and Celestials every day of the week after all. Dave (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanos

Unfortunately I'll have to agree with Asgardian on the Thanos page. His edits do improve the article. Yes, Asgardian is currently getting a -lot- of things wrong (and has in the past), like his refusal to talk things over, but the edits on the Thanos page are preferable, in my opinion. They make the article more encyclopediac. Lots42 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind tightening them up. I welcome that sort of help. I mind that he and 'TheBalance' are twisting the entire story around to ridiculously favour their pet character Galactus in every single instance they can come across. They are either outright lying about the referred stories in question, or haven't bothered to read them. Thanos did not state that Galactus' intent was noble, he lectured the latter about breaking a social contract, having a monstrous ego, and almost destroying the universe in his hubris. Galactus did not 'simply' teleport the 'Fallen One' herald away, he was genuinely threatened at this point (due to being weakened) with Thanos saving him. He did not fight Hunger evenly, he stalled an immensely small portal-entered part of it for a moment and stated outright that his might was "as nothing" in comparison, he did not easily withstand the explosion, it was shown and twice stated, (by both Galactus and Thanos respectively) that he almost died, and so on.

It's extremely transparent that he and 'TheBalance' are pushing the page in an inaccurate direction when the information is twisted to Galactus stalemating Hunger's full power, rather than literally being bacteria to it, while Thanos knocking Galactus off his feet and withstanding an assault where Galactus stated outright that he exerted himself counts as "easily outmatched" (which I agree with, as Thanos even stated himself that Galactus was several times as powerful as himself, just not as emphasized when the enormously greater mismatch of Hunger and Galactus was twisted in the other direction. The story premise as stated by Hunger(/the writer) narrating circled around that Galactus eats worlds, but there are fish above that in the food chain who feed off entire universes, and it's not so much fun when you end up on the menu. This was a story that basically completely annihilated everything Galactus stands for. It was the entire point of it, and should be referenced as such, while a story that favours him, such as displaying galactic-level power in his confrontation with Mephisto, should also be stated as is, just not try to bend either occasion in another direction.

Asgardian is also using incredible double-standards since he's used exactly the same type of entries in other characters' powers sections. I.e. an example that Silver Surfer can destroy planets, but somehow edits out Thanos, as well as any actual issue references of instances when Thanos used the referred abilities in question. Me, I've edited out any inaccuracies that have either favoured or disfavoured characters, recurrently the same ones, as long as it turns factual in the end. You're free to use my less biased version as a template to tighten up the flow. Asgardian lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, uses sockpuppets, gets temp-banned, and adapts to turn more scheming and manipulative. It's all that he ever does, although he's started to clean up the pages to cover up the simultaneously POV edits for casual editorial inspection. Take his "I hope that this was helpful comment" for example. He did exactly the same edits he always does, without budging an inch. He's a blatant manipulator.

In any case, feel extremely free to try to edit out all the mentioned inaccuracies in a more encyclopaedic fashion building on my last edit. I'd welcome the help. My strengths lie more in seeing what I take in literally, rather than being brief about it. Dave (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this: You, or/and some other editor/s download the issues in questions, and then take over the edits from there, to make certain that everything is factual and not twisted around, with none of us (David A, Asgardian, TheBalance) involved anymore. There should be a collection of all Thanos appearances available at isohunt, and I'd be extremely happy to get rid of the nuisance. If you don't have the time and/or energy, I can recommend User:Tenebrae, as he's generally a very professional and reasonable editor, if somewhat too trigger-happy, and has little reason to like either myself or Asgardian, which should ensure neutrality, but I cannot guarantee that he's interested. Dave (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to request for third-party help

Thank you for the kind words and your confidence. I've been away dealing with personal issues — my mother is in the last stage of cancer, and my wife recently lost her job — but sometimes working with Wiki colleagues is good therapy, or at least a mind-respite.

I can try and offer suggestions regarding some of the Thanos issues if everyone would like. I might not right away — judging from the discussions above, it looks like there's a lot to wade through to get up to speed — but I'll try to help sometime in the next few days or this week.

And honestly, it's not a matter of like or dislike. People disagree. As long as things don't get personal and nasty, we're all colleagues working for the greater good, as far I'm concerned. I'm a fair amount of years older than most of my fellow contributors, so (my occasional, admitted and all-too-human temper about certain things aside) I try to take the long view.

Sorry if I'm being long-winded — I have a lot on my mind. I'll offer some suggestions soon. With regards, — Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... I obviously came at an extremely inappropriate time. I'm getting a bad conscience now. Seriously, go spend any time you can with your mother. Never mind getting involved in our manic-compulsive nonsense.

If you could mention the matter to some comics editors with professional attitudes, no emotional stake, (and preferably a fanatic compulsion for factual accuracy) who can download and skim through any issues in question regarding Thanos and Galactus that would be more than enough. I'm extremely ready to let someone else keep the 'cosmic section' in check, and don't even really care about the two characters in question.

As for apologies about being long-winded, remember who you're speaking to. ;) Dave (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thor's super-speed

I know there's been some discussion on this somewhere, but don't you have a handbook or something that compares his super-speed with Spider-Man's and Hulk's? See, Thor's page lists the ability, yet he isn't in the category. What are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He´s got super-speed, but it´s not particularly high officially. 110 miles an hour or so. (It doesn´t really make sensse that he or the Hulk should be able to contend with characters like Superman, Gladiator, or Sentry who move many times swifter, but it´s part of the ´convenience´.) Dave (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

110 mph?! That certainly seems to be more than what Cheetah, Morbius and Spider-Man have shown. If that's what your sources tell you then he should be in the category, regardless of not being as fast as Sentry, or even Dracula. Am I right or wrong here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Right obviously, although Spider-Man is about the same, and I think Cheetah is supposed to be much swifter. Dave (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to adding it, but would you mind writing in the reference at Thor first? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, what about the handbook reference? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you wanted me to add the category. I don´t remember which handbook it was, and it´s probably unnecesary as the attribute is already listed. I´m also far too tired to potentially pick another fight with people who don´t want handbook references, but if there is trouble with the category I will check for it. Dave (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm about to take it off my watchlist. Can I trust that the page is on yours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It´s there, but I`m s growing bored with Wikipedia editing, so I can´t make any promises about longtime dedication. However I sincerely doubt this sort of minor detail will create any trouble. Dave (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Powers and abilities of the Hulk

I have nominated Powers and abilities of the Hulk, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powers and abilities of the Hulk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Cameron Scott (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is how this is going to go down

If you think I am a sockpuppet of this J'onns character, then you are going to collect your evidence and present your case. If you don't want to do that, you are going to stop trying to poison my interactions with other editors by making accusations about me. If you have a problem with my editing, you bring that problem to me. If you think that I am acting in some manner than requires admin action, you bring that problem to an administrator. Whatever you decide to do, have some backbone and come out and do it.

If you persist in the following, we can head off to AN/I where I will ask for you to be blocked. False accusation drive away editors and cause mistrust and problems and I will not allow to cast me as the bad guy because I've taken good faith actions you disagree with. Is that clear for you? Do I need to explain my position further? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have had 2 years of experience of JJonz stalking and threatening me, the Hulk page, and any editor that intervenes with over 50 sockpuppets that I know of. Thus far you fit the pattern, and if you had come to me with your problem about the page rather than attack and insult it in official matters I would not have brought it forth in the initiated setting. You choose to try to get it deleted rather than simply clean it up, not me. Regarding evidence, I'm not a hacker, and the heavy add gives me extremely limited patience with bureaucratic matters, so that's pretty hard beyond linking to the oddities, and hoping that someone does an ip-check. I have plenty of backbone in the respect of always telling outright about suspicious patterns, and try to handle things through evidence and reasoning in talk and edit mentions of inaccuracies rather than try to swing a case in a certain direction to the ultimate degree in an official instance with mostly very uninitiated outsiders. I'm nearly incapable of thinking in deceitful patterns. If I say something seems very off, I genuinely believe it. And yes, if you are going to convince me that you're not JJonz, you're going to have to further explain your very, very odd actions of suddenly turning up out of nowghere at administrative pages, apparently having previous experience with the jargon, targeting this one in particular rather than an enormous amount that are simply brief thin air nonsense, and being so dead-set about it. Not to mention that your just displayed 'hard-ass' attitude personal Talk Page 'threatening' was JJonz in a nutshell, although he tends to go much further ("You're going to be stomped into paste and have your edits reverted forever!" "Stay out of my way or be crushed like a bug!" and the like). Either you simply have a in the thus displayed respects very similar personality, or you're very much him again. And I hoped that he was tired by now. Dave (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You have this back to front, I'm not going to try and convince you of anything, I've done nothing wrong and it's a complete waste of my time. The bigger problem here is your ownership of the page which is nicely covered by if you had come to me with your problem - why would I come to you? I have no idea who you are and your "weight" at that page is the same as the rest of us, you have no special authority or rights to the page. The only reason I know who you are is because of a) comments about you at the project page and b) because of your attempts to discredit me rather than concentrate on the issues.

This is my last word on the matter - but as I mentioned before, if you want to persist in those false accusations than we can take it up with an administrator and see how that goes. Since I'm a) not a sockpuppet and b) I am editing in line with accepted practices and policies, I know that I have nothing to worry about. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not come to me. Come to the Talk page of the Powers and Abilities page, as is the custom of honourable conduct. There is also a great difference between not seeing anyone as _owning_ the page, which would be odd as it's a public page, and paying some minimal amount of respect to the amount of effort put into it. I'm also focusing a lot on the issues by reformatting the entire page and making a case for it, but I am also observant, and your behaviour regarding the situation is extremely odd, so no, I'm not trying to discredit you while thinking something other than I say, you genuinely behave extremely suspiciously to me. It doesn't make sense for someone that doesn't use sockpuppets to suddenly appear in administrative pages, be familiar with manipulating local jargon, doing the most extreme things possible as a first resort, and target this page in particular while neglecting all the rest, so if you wish to convince me othervise you very much do have to explain yourself. I'm a reasonable sort so it's not that hard. Dave (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As a note if anyone is reading this, Cameron has since told me that he'd like to delete the 98% of all American comicbook character articles that hold a similar, and most frequently lower, standard, which convinces me that he's not JJonz, and honest in his endeavour, since he's consistent about the approach, even if I personally don't think there's any harm, rather than simply marking articles as Start-class, C-class and similar. Dave (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Urgent!

Yes, I have already left a comment there some time ago. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about the oversight. Dave (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ewwww. Bureaucracy. ;) Well, I suppose, although I'm extremely tired of Wikipedia at the moment, and additionally don't tend to keep my references in my head several months after the fact. In fact I tend to remember things considerably less well once I have talked them out of my system, so I don't know if I have anything of particular use to put in there. I also traditionally prefer to tell Asgardian what he's doing indecently 'to his face' the specific times he's doing it, but it would be a major bother to research old edit history 'confrontations' to link to. Dave (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities of the Hulk

• User:David_A/Powers_and_Abilities_of_the_Hulk merger into the main page.

There is a discussion about the merging of "Powers and Abilities of the Hulk" into the main page. I'd appreciate if you'd like to chip in. I'm extremely short on time and energy nowadays. Thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice.

The question of content aside, Before I decide to wade into this discussion, I'd like to note that I personally wasn't thrilled with some of the comments by several people in the AfD, including yours. Too many unfounded accusations that were without the support of diffs/evidence.

I hope that, should I decide to contribute to this discussion I won't see more of the same.

Anyway, again, thanks for the notice, and I suppose I'll see what I see. - jc37 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. During the deletion affair there was a very extreme series of odd circumstances combined with a number of very blunt disparaging comments leading up to it that made me draw likely inaccurate conclusions, but I've made an effort to put forth the current case of how to manage the outcome as politely as I can, and give honest answers to various misunderstanding of my perspective in the current topic.

However, my energy for Wikipedia has waned to a flicker of what it was. I usually only have 30-60 minutes a day for the Internet, and can't justify spending time vainly attempting to find a way to communicate/find a way to synchronise mindsets that are so different that we basically can't seem to understand each other (but my handicaps may play in at that front). The problem is that it's been very hard to have a discussion about the points in question without straying. Chiefly, that the decision was merge, not delete, so we'll have to handle that, and I have tried to shorten it down to a non-intrusive minimum, but am flexible in narrowing it further. That I've simply made a template from the currently existing text, which we could commonly discuss how to modify (which parts to keep/that are relevant, and which not). That the entire point of a P&A section is to state the shown abilities, and the extents thereof. And mainly that I don't seem able to understand the perspective that it's far preferable to not use any sources whatsoever for various statements throughout the text, rather than use matter-of-fact 1st party references in _combination_ with the pre-existing 2nd and 3rd party ones. There are a number of points and misunderstandings we apparently need to clear up to find some common ground to discuss from. You, and JGreb (or Gschoyru, if he has the time and interest to chip in, and Tenebrae as well obviously, although he has far more important real-world matters to attend to, so I'd rather not disturb him) tend to be more sensible than the rest of us, so maybe you hbave a better shot at straightening out the mess? Dave (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Get your fights off my talk page. That thread, on my talk page, was stale because the conversation was centralized to the article talk. If you feel that that's no longer working, and are choosing to go out to all the user talk pages of users involved and have fights there, be aware I'll take it as harrassment. Don't do it again. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Cameron was the one starting to attack me there, and I responded far more civilly. I can't possibly see how that could be interpreted as harrassment, but ok, if you took offense I apologise. Dave (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hulk talk pages.

I'm keeping this simple: Stop refactoring the talk page.

You are free to add you comments, and to edit your comment to clarify your position(s). But you should not be refactoring the thread flow to suit your personal tastes.

- J Greb (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the discussion has deviated so much that it's impossible to keep track of any new actual content, considerably worsened by the apparent troll making his best to exacerbate this. Cameron also keeps making comments (and pictures) about beating a dead horse, including in the actual editing references, which likely make it even harder to bring forth any points whatsoever for any viewers who wish to find them quickly rather than browsing through a sea of mostly unrelated content. Put simply, it's been very, very hard to get a meaningful discussion here instead of lots of accusations. Dave (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dave, stop and think a moment — Cameron is referencing the saying "beating a dead horse" because you are fulfilling the cliché. (Please, read the linked article on the idiom if you aren't familiar with it.)

The standing consensus for the article is that the P&A section is not the place for listing of the Hulk's greatest feats. Not an exhaustive list nor a "short list" of 3, 4, 5, 6 or more examples of each general feat.

The standing guide line, Wiki wide, is to move articles away from reading like fansites. Proposing or editing in text that makes an article read like a fansite is not going to go over well. To be clear the "fansite flavor" tends to be prose that aggrandizes the subject and/or adds trivial minutia. As per the P&A consensus, that is exactly the type of minutia the feats list is viewed as.

As for trying to get a meaningful discussion... Yes, I can see how it can be seen as frustrating. But, it is as frustrating, if not more so, for editors to have to go through what amounts to the same discussion almost immediately after a consensus is reached. And please, don't dress it up as "presenting an alternate idea/method/version'. It is boiling down to "add the feats list back in", which that standing consensus is against, and the majority of voices that spoke up when you first proposed this supported that consensus.

- J Greb (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'm mostly motivated by attempting to make sense of a lot of very confusing happenings and reactions, but I'm not attempting to "dress up" anything. I've adjusted the new version to simply use references without comments, no mention of the specifics of the feats whatsoever (or at least I think that I deleted them all, but any deviations can be easily corrected), just actual sources to validate the mentions, as well as expanded slightly on what the repeatedly shown powers are, and slightly adjusted the "surviving in a vacuum" sentence, since it currently reads like he consistently needs air, rather than currently being shown as able to 'hold his breath' for several hours to days. The "virtually unlimited" mention was linked to the only actual in-comic 'reliable' measurement of Hulk's upper limits (by the Beyonder), which I suppose you have a point in sort of counts as a 'feat' mention, but regardless, I've consented to the angle of not mentioning these outright, what I still want to talk about is the inclusion of references versus empty claims, and inclusion of all the main abilities (for example, reflecting energy-blasts was a forgotten one-time occurrence, and thus not important, while growing more powerful from radiation or mystic forces has happened several times, as has resisting transformation, or psychic attacks). Dave (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, adding in multiple cites is going to read as adding a list. Fleshed out or not.

Right now the best course would be to leave the section alone, both in the article and on the talk pages, for a while. Read that as "at least for 3 or 4 months." If/when the section is revisited, then limit yourself to straight questions and suggestions. Leave the examples and "for instance" comments out. - J Greb (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're both on the same page/potentially don't remember the current version of my suggestion right, I'm reposting it below. In any case I'd appreciate if we could talk this out thoroughly, as there are several things that confound me about this entire matter, but I don't have much time right now.

Regarding the dead horse mention, it's not really about the sentence itself, although inserting a mocking image is definitely beyond what's acceptable to me, it's that those kind of comments along with all the pointless fillers, diversions, uninformative title, jumbled conception, unnecessary edit-note comments (it's a Talk page) that seem to play to an audience/shoo it away/give a very one-sided view of the contents of the thread/the impression that I'm much worse than I really am within it etc. The main problem is that the entire thread feels like it's crafted to encourage people to stay away from the discussion, and then give opportunity to claim that I'm deliberately dragging it out, when it would long have been done with if we had just avoided all the inaccurate accusations and misinterpretations, but then neither 'side' can really make sense of the other. On top of that I'm not sure how to respond to various unfair or inaccurate claims I just read in the Talk, when these are complemented with an 'If you attempt to defend/explain yourself, I'll try to get you banned', and this after I thought that we had made peace, could go on to handle it peacefully, and after Thuran specifically said that I wasn't some asshole that deserved to be baited. Dave (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hulk possesses the potential for near-limitless physical strength, depending directly on his emotional state, particularly his anger. This has been reflected in the repeated comment "The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets." His durability, healing, and endurance also increase in proportion to his temper. Greg Pak described the Hulk shown during World War Hulk as having a level of physical power where "Hulk was stronger than any mortal --and most immortals-- who ever walked the Earth." Pak went on to say that even then, the Hulk would lose to characters such as Galactus.

The Hulk is resistant to most forms of physical, and psychic injury or damage and is immune to disease and poisons. He has been shown to have both regenerative and adaptive healing abilities, including growing tissues to allow him to breathe underwater, surviving unprotected without air in space for hours to days (yet still needing to breathe), resisting transformation, and when injured, healing from almost any wound within seconds.

His powerful legs allow him to leap into lower Earth orbit or across continents. He also has less commonly described powers, including abilities allowing him to "home in" to his place of origin in New Mexico, to see and interact with astral forms, and growing more powerful from being subjected to intense radiation, or certain mystic forces.

As Bruce Banner, he is considered one of the greatest minds on Earth. He has developed expertise in the fields of biology, chemistry, engineering, and physiology, and holds a Ph.D. in nuclear physics. He possesses "a mind so brilliant it cannot be measured on any known intelligence test".

In The Science of Superheroes, Lois Grest and Robert Weinberg examined Hulk’s powers, explaining the scientific flaws in them. Most notably, they point out that the level of gamma radiation Banner is exposed to at the initial blast would induce radiation sickness and kill him, or if not, create significant cancer risks for Banner, because hard radiation strips cells of their ability to function. They go on to offer up an alternate origin, in which a Hulk might be created by biological experimentation with adrenal glands and GFP.

Charles Q. Choi from LiveScience.com further explains that unlike the Incredible Hulk, gamma rays are not green; existing as they do beyond the visible spectrum, gamma rays have no color at all that we can describe. He also explains that gamma rays are so powerful (the highest form of light and 10,000 times more powerful than visible light) that they can even create matter- a possible explanation for the increased mass that Bruce Banner takes on during transformations. "Just as the Incredible Hulk 'is the strongest one there is,' as he says himself, so too are gamma ray bursts the most powerful explosions known."

File:Thanos.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thanos.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanos

Try it. This is why your edits - which were strangely obsessive - on Galactus were shut down time and again. Then when you perceive someone as not adhering to what you perceive as the literal truth, you accuse them of lying. In the case of Thanos, some of what you propose actually adds nothing for the layman and has inherent POV (eg. no "vast", which has been mentioned before). You have also been shown to have a bias against the character Galactus. I note you were sensible enough to retain the FCB changes I made, which is a start. We will work through the rest, which is admittedly minor, but some will change. Asgardian (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

All of these changes were explicitly mentioned in the linked image, and you have previously continuously specifically inserted wordings that slant the text in a false direction, while editing out any that state what happened. This, along with claims of photographic memory, to have read the series in question, finding my own irritation at lying funny, and previously consistently ignoring any rational arguments, in combination, is the reason that I get the impression that you've been deliberately misleading. For all I know you'll simply do the usual thing and revert it completely in a few months whenever nobody else is involved. I.e. you have far more slanted interest than myself, and I tend to modify misleading descriptions (favouring or disfavouring), regardless if I like or dislike the character. Dave (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Because I am not that familiar with the details of Thanos, and because I don't know which edits you're referring to, I don't really see what specific aspects of Asgardian's edits you're referring to. Linking me to the Edit History of the article as you did doesn't really help. I looked at the most recent edit by him, and it seems that what he did was to remove vague time references (which I agree with), and make minor changes in terms of grammar and image placement (which at present I see as rather neutral). If there is a specific edit you're referring to, it is customary to use Diff links, and to explain precisely what aspect of them violates guidelines/policy. Right now, the only behavior on his part I see that violates WP policy is the language in his post above, including the section title he originally chose (which I changed to a more civil one). Since he's been blocked for issues pertaining to incivility and communicating with others, I'll warn him about that, and look into referring this to an uninvolved admin or noticeboard. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is also the temporary image collage, which contains all of the inaccuracies in question, and is 'easily' skimmed as a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thanos.jpg

The text I feel is misrepresentative is:

"Thanos discovers the truth and attempts to stop Galactus but is easily outmatched. As Hunger begins to enter their universe, Galactus stalls the entity until it adapts to his power, and Thanos fails to destroy the portal that separates it from the majority of its being. Thanos then distracts Hunger and forces Rigel-18 to collide with another planet while detonating a large nuclear arsenal at the point of impact. Galactus survives the explosion, and Hunger is believed destroyed, although a tiny remnant of the organism apparently survives by attaching itself to Galactus and then fleeing. Thanos states that although Galactus' intent was noble, his continued consumption of inhabited worlds will eventually unite the universal population against him, including Thanos himself."

The problems I had were the following:

It is mentioned that Thanos is easily outmatched by Galactus to (appropriately) keep the scales of the two separate and avoid misunderstandings, which is correct as Thanos states that his "personal power is lilliputan compared to [Galactus] might", and after blasting Galactus off his feet (with no actual damage), Thanos is almost unconscious from a single blast despite activating all of his shields. The problem is the suspicious combination with the soon following phrase: "Galactus stalls the entity until it adapts to his power", which gives the appearance that it is a roughly even confrontation. It is not. It is stated outright, first that Hunger is far higher up on the food chain than Galactus, as the latter eats planets, while Hunger eats entire 'dimensions'/universes. Later during the actual confrontation, that Galactus' power is "nothing compared to power backed by an entire reality" which Galactus affirms ("Yes. I sense this to be true"). Also he does not even manage to stall the small piece of Hunger between one frame and the next. :

Second, the sentence: "Galactus survives the explosion, and Hunger is believed destroyed". THis gives appearance that the entire Hunger entity is completely annihilated by the explosion while Galactus easily withstands it. Galactus is explicitly stated (by himself) to have "barely [survived]" and by Thanos to have had only "60% chance of survival", while Thanos' and Galactus' endeavour was always to "cut [Hunger] off from the bulk of [its] being"/stop it from entering, and later again "separated from the vast bulk of its being". The best way to word it would be to phrase it as: "Galactus "barely" survives the explosion, and the Hunger is believed cut off from the majority of its being", alternately "the entered segment of Hunger is believed destroyed".

Formerly I also had a problem with that it is stated that Galactus' intent was "noble". In fact Thanos repeatedly berates Galactus for "[breaking the] social contract with the rest of the universe" by "[consuming] without any regard to the effects of your ravaging". That the inhabitants of the Universe have "little sympathy for this gluttony" and will eventually "join forces to put an end to the peril that is you". Thanos mereley states that finally attempting to find alternate sources of nourishment to populated planets was "the proper thing to do". He dismisses Galactus statement of a "manifest destiny" for "others [to] die so that I may live", observes that Galactus' "monstrous ego almost destroyed [him] and the Universe", and that he has "been given a second chance" to behave differently. However this has apparently been kept rectified. (For how long=?)

Happy Hollidays to you as well btw. Dave (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide the Diffs in question?

As for the content of your dispute, it appears to be editorial. If he's ignoring attempts by you to communicate with him, do this: Start a discussion on the Thanos Talk Page. present your arguments there as you did to me. Then, solicit as many editors as you can to comment, in order to reach a consensus. Make sure you don't violate WP:Canvas in doing this. I would suggest contacting any editors who've made edits to the article, as seen in the Edit History. Solicit Asgardian to participate. If a consensus is reached, implement your changes. If he continues to revert without discussion, esp against the consensus, or he does so while a discussion is open and ongoing, before a consensus is reached, that is when you should contact an admin. Let me know if that works. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a simple answer - none of that material should be included to start with, it's the sort of fanboy level of detail that should be scrubbed from articles. The series should be described in the publication section but that's about it. I'm busy this week but remove the in-universe cruft when I get a chance next week. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, for all the reasons I stated to Cameron Scott. It is now a dead issue. In the next 24- 48 hours I intend to strip back the article and remove most of that "tell the story." Have a look and then comment. Asgardian (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Naturally the problem with that is that you are very enthusiastic in describing instances wherein Galactus continued genocides of sentient beings are described as "necessary" or "unavoidable", which is fine, and I've added a few of those myself. The problem is that you and User:TheBalance have continuously been attempting to censor the instance wherein the counter-argument is presented, that it is in fact not necessary, or excusable, and simply driven by a "monstrous short-sighted egotism and feeling of entitlement" on Galactus' part. Stripping down this instance to the bones while allowing the rest/excuses to stand shows an incredible manipulative double-standard on your part. You have not "come around", you've been trying to censor this instance all along (i.e. taking it out entirely rather than rewording it while keeping the context accurate obviously suits your purposes equally well), while I've written mentions such as keeping the universe safe from Abraxas in the cosmic entities section and not attempted to take out other justifications. Meaning: To be fair both sides of the coin need to be shown, and the only reason that you've "come around" is that I've finally bothered to completely and utterly prove you to be a manipulative liar when handling this case. I.e. you can't make false claims anymore since these will be blatantly transparent for everyone to see, so you try the other solution. Very typical behaviour on your part. Dave (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously - who cares? It's all a load of fanboy in-universe crap that doesn't belong here to start with - if Asgardian doesn't find the time to scrub it this week, rest assured I will. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Very typical behaviour on your part - try not to finish with claims like this. Rather, please listen to the core message. I rewrote Thanos from almost nothing. Me. 95% of what is there is my work. That said, I am going to wipe much of said work for all the reasons stated. It is pointless to be arguing over the actions of a fictional character as it is just that, fiction. Pick the most impressive number you can think of... and then multiply it by zero. Guess what? The answer is zero.

My point being that arguing over this is pointless. Both versions are going. So, feel free to critique the new version when it appears. Asgardian (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, you're the one who used to consistently revert any compromises etc to your preferred version, no matter what was agreed previously, and from my perspective usually waiting for an 'appropriate' moment to do so. Any mentions of Galactus anywhere on Wikipedia used to have some of the most slanted misleading hyperbole I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I don't remotely enjoy having to do this all over with you over and over for months, and wholly agree about the pointlessness issue. I don't have a problem with stripping it down just to get rid of the problem, what is noteworthy is that you "come around" first when I've completely annihilated your attempts to slant it. Then again, it's very hard for me to keep track of "who did exactly what" over the span of over a year. TheBalance may have been more actively involved in the active slanting bit, while you've simply gone with the shortest description for all I know. The 'opposing side' tends to blend into one entity with time. What is relevant to keep during the revision, and most notably within the main Galactus page itself, is that the core essense of this story was Starlin making the counter-argument to Byrne's old rationalisation of Galactus' actions as beyond reproach, just as the Loeb Abraxas arc introduced some Thugee "forestalling Kali Youga" elements. I tend to get annoyed when someone actively censors the bit he/she prefers to while keeping the rest. If you can come up with a way to appropriately compress this main issue it seems fair and balanced, and I (thankfully) won't bother further with the mess. Dave (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Dave. Hope the New Year finds you well. Looking back on this page, I realize that with the family events of last few months, I never got back to you and Asgardian regarding Thanos — or, now that I think of it, maybe it had already been resolved by the time I had a chance to look in.

This current issue regarding Galactus seems so lengthy and complicated, I'm afraid I wouldn't know where to start. You've cc'd the above paragraph, beginning "Naturally," on my talk page, and I'm not sure why; someone reading it might think you were referring to me as "a manipulative liar," etc., and I'm sure that wasn't your intent. Being as I'm not involved in this Galactus discussion, I'm wondering if you might add a clarifier of some sort on my talk page or perhaps remove the paragraph? (I did mention to Asgardian that I agree with Cameron Scott's assessment that Asgardian is generally with a good and capable editor — though as I said to Nightscream the same day, he sometimes suffers from some civility issues — but that seems rather tangential to this specific Galactus thing.)

As long as I'm here, though, I'll offer a suggestion that all parties in this Galactus discussion seem a bit heated, and some unfortunate words are being exchanged. Perhaps everyone might agree to a cooling-off period, or to seek a mediator? Just at a glance, everyone's making at least some good points, and I'd wager that if some of the heated rhetoric weren't here, some middle ground could be reached. Just saying. In any case, thanks for anything you can do to avoid misunderstanding on my talk page. With regards to fellow prolific and dedicated editor, -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the annoyance is that I have _very_ repeated and lengthy experiences with how the Asgardian/TheBalance duo (and possibly others that I don't remember) have tended to approach the matter as long as Galactus is involved in some manner of reference. I don't have a problem with Asgardian's past (language) 'incivility' (I do however have a major problem with when he uses false justifications to his edits, and tendency to claim "pov" as a catch-all regardless if there is any basis to it or not, or if he inserts worse examples of it himself in that very edit), but I don't like what to me has given the impression of a very consciously manipulative way of approaching things. I do agree that he's turned around considerably though. At least we've been able to find rational solutions lately, but this matter seemed like a reintroduction of same-old-same-old again. As long as the key important theme of the story is referred to somewhere either in the Thanos or Galactus page, alternately that all justifications are cut out as well (which would be silly as that would similarly butcher the key elements of the Byrne & Loeb stories), I'm fine with it.

Btw: Not that I'm one to talk, given my own literally manic-compulsive "right should be right" editing-addiction, but given your current situation, I hope that being here doesn't cause problems for you? Dave (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction

Hey David, I was wondering if you had sources available for the entries that lack them. You have access to a few handbooks or something right? See, there is but a plethora of Marvel entities needing issue citations or reliable references (I pretty much covered the DC guys with stuff from The DC Comics Encyclopedia). So then, what do you got there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've more or less got every single Marvel handbook around to be checked when needed (and have some recollections of most entries), but don't have much time nowadays. Dave (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Nullifier

Before you add that line back in, remember we do not go to the OHOTMU for powers, power levels, power description, etc.

I'm sorry if you don't like this, but I do believe that you are familiar with this standing consensus for comics related article.

And, yes, that means that TheBalance was not censoring but applying standing consensus. So you may want to reevaluate what you put in your edit summaries.

- J Greb (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We do in fact use the handbook when this is in conjunction with contradicting information, and this wasn't a power description. It was the official editorial final say on the very nature of the device, and I have a very long experience with exactly what 'TheBalance' almost always does to found my conclusion. Dave (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are using it as an in universe reference to explain how the object works in the comics. That is as bad as pulling a strength rating/comparison from the OHOTMU.

If you want to work up a PH which includes how Marvel has tried to limit the things use in stories and present what it can do to the readers, please do. Within that frame work using the OHOTMU point is reasonable.

But in an in-universe history of the thing? Uh-uh.

- J Greb (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Every single 1st level (direct issue) reference is in-universe. The handbook is the final editorial word on the issue, and as such more reliable. The entire reason for any problem with it is that it turned overdone/into copyright-infringement level plagiarism, and as such I definitely disagree with that there is anything "bad" with official policy statements, when completely unreliable introductory attention-flash exaggerated recap blurbs are apparently ok in other entries. Particularly in this case, when 'TheBalance' wants to maintain a claim that is not supported by editorial, and dubious if it was even intended the way he originally presented it, it's very relevant. He wants to state to all the world that it's a part of Galactus (which is just as irrelevant as when the same writer recently had Galactus state that the Grandmaster and other Elders of the Universe equal his power), while Marvel the company disagrees with him, and simply considers it a weapon in G's keeping, similar to the Stranger and the Infinity Union, which is my overall recurring problem with him.

I'm not sure if I understand what you propose as a solution to this particular problem? Could you clarify how it could be set up in a more properly accepted manner? Dave (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So it's simply easier to vilify me than to adhere to standing Wikipedia consensus? TheBalance (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As we both know I genuinely have this impression of you, so no "vilification" is definitely not the term I would use here, since that implies deliberate lying, and that's very much not fitting with my personality. Dave (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) David, see here. Hiding puts it pretty succinctly:

• What you want is, in part, WP:WEASELing
• It's broaching WP:SYNTH
• The article on the whole is close to an exercise in WP:OR
• It also becomes an exercise in WP:POV

And he makes a very, very good point: The article is entirely primary sourced and framed as an in-universe document.

Repeat after me:

1. This is not a fan site.
2. When writing about fiction, the article must be primarily in a real world context.
3. Articles should cite secondary sources for that real world context.
4. We as individual editors, do not draw conclusions or cherry or cherry pick information to suit our tastes.
5. Consensus can, and has in the case of the OHOTMU, be reached that a particular source is less than reliable for a real world context.

As for what can be done with the article... broad, blunt ideas?

1. Revisit the lead, paring it down to the following:
   • What it is - ie "A weapon featured in works of fiction published by Marvel Comics."
   • When it was first appeared and the writer and artist on that story.
   • A brief sketch of its function in the stories.
2. Scrap "Bio" as a section header. It's bad form for a header and it's an inappropriate term to use in regard to a thing.
3. Rework the "Bio" and "Powers" into 1 section that is essential "Function with in the stories". This section can include the following that is already there:
   • A short description of how it was presented in FF #50.
   • It's connection to Galactus - that it was used to back him down and that it is traditionally found in his ship.
   • A few examples its use in stories as a "last resort".
   • A short explanation of the in-universe power of the weapon clearly stating that these are the powers/explanation shown within the stories. (Basically "Powers" with the clarification.)
4. That section should also look for secondary sources for comments by Lee and/or Kirby about why it was put into the initial story. And possibly comments from later writers who have refined it (which it really doesn't look like has happened).
5. "Other version" can be compacted down to a bullet point list keeping in mind:
   • A source other than "It uses both names" or a fan list is needed to includ the Amalgam.
   • The Ultimate version look a hell of a lot like "This plot device filled a similar function of the Nullifier in the Ultimate re-work of the first Galactus story." The text is pretty explicit that the plot device in called the "Ultimate Nullifier" nor are there any references from reliable secondary sources that it was intended to be.
   • Both the use in JLA/Avengers and Earth X can be simplified down.
6. The "In other media" section can also go through this contraction.

Also, avoid phrases such as "this possible claim", "official editorial description", "The reason behind this inconsistency may have been...". The first is weaseling. The second is POV slanting, unless there is a reliable secondary source that the EiC at Marvel sent a memo out to the writers laying out how to use the thing in a story. The last is drawing a conclusion, something that is not to be done.

And, again echoing Hiding, if there aren't the secondary sources to really flesh the article, it may be time to see if there is a logical article to merge it into. One possibility would be a "List of Fantastic Four items" or some such. There are at least two other articles that could be folded into there that I know of.

- J Greb (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an awful lot of reformatting, but I suppose that I could do some of the suggested shortening down, cuts, and rewordings. Getting quotes from creators and the like on the other hand will be very hard, especially considering how little time and energy I have these days. More specifically, if I understood correctly, you mentioned earlier that within this context it would be acceptable to use the handbook reference, as long as any potential personal interpretation was cut away from the sentence, and preferably the preceding column? Dave (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I just skimmed the link. So does Hiding state that the possible Galactus claim should not be included? I'm generally of the 'if ambiguous, include both the for and against references, or cut out all of them' camp, so that could work as well. Dave (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the OHOTMU... that is actually useful from the point of including a statements along the lines of "In its 1985 Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Marvel Comics included a profile of the 'Ultimate Nullifier' which, using technobabble, described the device within the context of the Marvel Universe."

And on "ambiguous points"... That's fair with aspects of the real world. If it's unclear who wrote a story or created a character, it is a good idea to include sources presenting all versions of the event. Once it gets into the nuts and bolts of in-story things... No, it isn't a good idea. That's writing to fans. It's also going to be interpreting the story (OR and POV), drawing a conclusion from multiple stories (OR again), and filling in blanks (SYNTH).

- J Greb (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. I'm very short on time and interest/energy these days, but for starters I'm inserting the version you worded above into the Nullifier page. Dave (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your accusations concerning sock puppets

In the past few days, I have checked up on some articles that are of interest to me. Incredibly, there are a number of instances in either the article edit history or the discussion page of the article where you blatantly either accuse or insinuate that I am using "sock puppets" to edit the page. First of all, I wasn't even familiar with that term until I checked it using Google.

This is going to be brief. You will always, without fail, know when I disagree with you. Obviously, that has been often and detailed in my response each and every single time.

In some articles (Thanos, Galactus) I have been an editor since before you started conducting edits. What possible reason would I have to hide behind alternate accounts when I take up issue with one of your edits. I don't care if these sock puppets waste your time, as you apparently have previous extensive experience with them.

I care that my contributions are attributed to me. In the case of disagreement, I care that my stance is reiterated in every single edit I make. That is facilitated, in large part, by having my actual user name appear next to all my edits. Not by using alternate accounts, or sock puppets or whatever.

This reflects quite poorly on you as an editor because the your mere use of the term means that you've been exposd to it before, whether here on wikipedia or on another medium. You either had an editor employ the tactic against you, or you yourself used them to hide behind (wow, it's easy to accuse isn't it?). That then begs the question of how your editing relationship with other members of wikipedia even degenerated in the first place, to the point of sock puppets being used. Clearly, the actions of one or both parties brought the use of sock puppets into play.What is even more telling that it the different articles where you've insinuated that I used sock puppets, instead of reverting the edits and keeping accusatory comments to yourself or reiterating your position you throw out wild accusations simply because someone else is disagreeing with your edits, and since you're insinuating that I am those alternate accounts, I can only guess that they disagree with the same edits of yours that I myself disagree with. Now I find it astonishing that when someone comes around and disagrees with you on a topic that happens to be exactly the same as what I disagree with you on, you throw up your hands and while you acknowledge that you can't tell for sure, your accusatory tone and outright threat of permanent ban belie your true position. Incredible. Clearly, someone has either disagreed with you so strongly in the past that you've consolidated all people who disagree with you into one editor, or you convince yourself that you are the only "legitimate" editor who is above employing such tactics, and thereby anyone who repeatedly disagrees with you is immediately branded as a suspected "sock puppet."

Going forward, I am going to contact the wiki staff and see what their policy is in regards to editors accusing others of being sock puppets. Nevermind the fact that you also made an implied threat of a permanent ban, simply because you "felt" confident enough that there was a strong possibility that it was I who was behind the edits, and you felt it strongly enough in such a way as to specify me and threaten me with a ban, since you deemed the possiblity that I was NOT the editor as being remotely small. Otherwise, you would have taken the true editor's route and simply reversed the edit.

This is quite a shock to me and I have now taken note that you resort to accusatory, implied statements when people disagree with you. That is a fact. Behavior such as yours is exactly the type of person that will always make Wikipedia second-rate, if at all. I'm done with you. So long as you continue in this "well you must be the sock puppet, because you're the only one who disagrees with me and I know I'm right so you better stop or you'll get permanently banned" approach, I'm done communicating my disagreements with you, I'm done explaining my reasoning each time, I'm done defending my points. And I am done taking your edits with any degree of respect.Mobb One (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mobb One, I reached the same conclusion several months ago. TheBalance (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the sockpuppets, I only mentioned an "if that is either of you" once that I remember. The reason for my suspiciouns being that someone at the official comicbook talk brought it to my attention that the there were a high number of continuous anonymous ip reversions to your versions whenever one or both of you were involved, and you and Asgardian are the only ones I know of with a vested interest in doing so. The other long-previous case being an ongoing paranoia about JJonz due to consistent cyber-stalking (I'm long over him by now). And no, I don't accuse "anyone who disagrees with me" 'just because'. I don't lie, ever, since I can't filter as a side-effects of my handicaps. That's kind of my thing, and the reason why I have such a mad-on for all sorts of deliberate manipulations and falsehoods. I can't realte to the mentality at all. If I say something I definitely believe it when I do so. Whether that view turns out to be inaccurate is another matter entirely. Regarding TheBalance my especial suspicions regarding him is due to an ongoing censorship and very slanted and inaccurate statements which he kept reverting to, most extremely so in the "Power Cosmic" articles. Regarding MobbOne, you have generally been more reasonable, but I occasionally get the feeling that you're more interested in wordplay than upfront honesty. Regarding Asgardian, I haven't had any problems with him lately, and he wasn't overtly involved in this. On the other hand he is the only identity of you three which has an actual proven history of using sockpuppets, but then that was long ago. Dave (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT for you to say people should be permanently banned. That is plain rude and you should apologize. Asgardian (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope that you're not playing games for a perceived audience? In any case, yes I do genuinely think that anyone who deliberately uses sockpuppets for double-play, and/or repeatedly insets deliberate lies on a page should get banned from editing. It's disgustingly manipulative and the ultimate crime on Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned. I'm currently ambivalent whether or not TheBalance fits or if he's simply extremely blindsided, and unwillingly backed up by someone else who has used various anonymous ips to revert to his edits. At this point he's built himself up as such a recurrent element of annoyance for me (Since he won't allow me to ever let the Galactus article go, so I can focus on something else. I really hate it at this point) that he and other users such as Mansierre are starting to blend together and it's hard to see him from an objective angle to me. As an odd tidbit he just made a strange vandalism of my talk page, by reinserting some irrelevant bot messages, but that may just have been a mistake during a revert spree. Dave (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor Dave, you see nothing but conspiracies all about you. In reality, the entire point of contention results from your insistence on "getting your way" and implementing your Galactus-deflating agenda above improving the article. Don't disregard the fact that your edits are generally either substandard, far more questionable than those they replace, or both. TheBalance (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a major difference between being paranoid and being observant. I'm far more of the latter than the former, and I'd be a drooling idiot if I hadn't noticed the regular 'coincidences' where Asgardian, a proven sockpuppet user who has stated himself that he finds the notion of finding manipulation and deceit distasteful 'childish' and 'laughable', is concerned. If the problem you claim was the true concern I'd have no problem with it and appreciate the help to clean up the text. I'm mostly concerned with accuracy rather than flow. However, given your own track record of inserting claims that are blatantly contradicted in the given sources and that you don't improve the accuracy modifications, you delete and replace them with false claims, it's hard for me to swallow. Dave (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Given what has happened with Galactus of late, I'd be really careful about entering into edit wars with others or making still more accusations. An example of an edit war is Numinus. We can't use the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, and a mention that a character has a resemblance to a real-life person is void and null unless the creator "goes on the record" and it can be sourced. This is Wiki-101. An example of an accuasation is your good self claiming I'm "pumping" up Galactus. I was simply putting the character where it belongs - on par with Death and Eternity. This is sourced, proven fact. So please, no more of this for your own sake. The ice you are standing on is very thin right now. Asgardian (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~

Ah, so that was your plan. I suspected it. Still, you're the one with multiple bans and a proven track record for using sockpuppets, so not really. Also, no, Galactus has been repeatedly outright described as a physical entity who filfills a function rather than an abstract like Eternity and Death (and infinitely below them in raw power), which is the reason for the segmentation, but at least you seem to admit that the entire reason for your modification was that you wanted Galactus 'higher' up. (Technically not accurate distinction, as for example there are multiple entities with far higher levels of power than ones above his category of "cosmic functions" in the section below) So, yes, I still maintain that a segmentation according to nature is far preferable rather than sepecifically trying to form a thin air non-fact similarly to the whole "contains a universe within him" thing that was never stated and outright contradicted in the referred origin story. Dave (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment - I'll take full responsibility for the "Numinus looks like Whoopi Goldberg" comment. :) I'll confess that I was still fairly new around here, and well, I looked at the only picture I'd seen and made some quick original research. :) Although entertaining, the article is better off without it. BOZ (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Numinus.jpg)

An addendum to this - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use". - J Greb (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that it was the only good one that I could find, but I'll check through her regular appearances for some alternative. Dave (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic articles

Dave, please do not revert portions of an article that are part of an ongoing dispute and Talk Page discussion. Doing this can get you blocked. Discuss it on the Talk Page with others. Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought that violating the 3-revert rule or interfering during protection time were the only problems. Also, TheBalance has consistently done the same thing, to a version littered with my personal red flag, what I, given dozens of similar incidences from Asgardian, and to a lesser extent TheBalance, read as either extremely biased/blindsided or even deliberate inaccuracies, and I have repeatedly listed the matter-of-fact reasons for removing the inaccuracies very extensively in the Talk. However, it has consistently resulted in being ignored or side-tracked diversion-insults in return, which is the reason that I tried to get some impartial editor help in wording it in a factually accurate, non-slanted manner, so that I can finally leave the matter behind. Asgardian, TheBalance, MobbOne, and Mansierre have explicitly stated extreme bias for the character, so with the possible exception of Mobb I don't particularly trust them, and I don't have much time or energy left for it. Dave (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe left an identical admonishment on Balance's Talk Page. No one should edit the disputed material during a discussion on it until some consensus has been reached. Also, regarding your dispute on Template:Marvel Cosmic, and One-Above-All, please be advised per this that in-universe reference sources like the Marvel Universe Handbook should not be used as sources. I myself had used it until this was pointed out to me. Also, be sure also to respect the consensus. If you feel the group forming the consensus is too small a group, invite others to join (as long as you do so in keeping with WP:Canvas). Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really keep track of that many people nowadays, but did invite some of them. You were the only one even semi-interested though, but feel extremely free to invite more reasonable editors. I've turned completely weary and unmotivated with Wikipedia and half the unreasonable and/or extremely manipulative people in it, given the whole "if there are enough of us, sockpuppets or not, we don't need reason, just to keep inserting "the Earth is flat". It takes its toll after a few years. As for any potential claims from Asgardian that I'm using the handbook in the One-Above-All entry, that's pretty much his standard tactic of getting away with something completely unrelated to his edit text pretext. He does that all the time. Dave (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Marvel

Thanks for the heads up on Marvel. I really hadn't noticed that the official bios are just a wiki. Kind of makes me wonder what the point of the other Marvel Wikia is for...? Oh well. Thanks for your work on Emma Frost!Luminum (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I also really appreciate when I meet someone as reasonable as yourself. Many people don't just go along with: "Ok, that's obviously inaccurate, so let's change that". There wasn't much that needed to be modified so it's nice to just fix it and then it's over and done with. Dave (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A few things you edited:

Intellect http://img293.imageshack.us/i/93836910.jpg/

4 is genius level by the Handbook key at the back of the book.

Enormous:

http://img15.imageshack.us/i/74987541.jpg/ 196.210.166.226 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No 4 is "gifted", 5 is "genius", 6 is "super-genius", 7 is virtually omniscient. "Enormous" based on a brief 1st page blurb is irrelevant, and more importantly not set in relation to the general requirements for that in other pages. She'd have to be planetary-control level at the very least, and has never actually demonstrated a remarkably high power-level. "Extreme" is fine though. Dave (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in recent depictions she has, able to generate a world-wide telepathic broadcast to all remaining mutants without Cerebra, and to detect the various X-teams or telepathically join them from across the globe also sans Cerebra. Is Marvel beefing her up? Most likely. Anyway, in regards to this editing fiasco, I invite you to check out the talk page section and review my suggestion to mediate the situation. Let's avoid edit warring as much as possible and let's give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not "blatantly lying." If an editor is adding what you may consider factually incorrect information, perhaps it's more to do with interpretation than an intent to lie. I'm sure returning users have better things to do with their time than intentionally lie on Wikipedia. Take care! :) Luminum (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd be surprised regarding the lying bit. There are quite a lot of fans who routinely use very twisted or misrepresented thin air 'information' in combination with censoring what's actually explicit, rather than using what's matter-of-fact and not contradicted to form a picture. They tend to get far more fanatic about seeding worldwide disinformation than the reasonable types are in correcting it. I'm a bit of an oddity in the respect of not being able to let go when they start up that sort of thing, as have a born mental disorder that makes me see pretty much everything in terms of matter-of-fact patterns, so any form of deliberate deceit drives me incredible annoyed, and essentially locks me up at that section until the issue is resolved, and if it isn't it'll drive me nuts, but I still can't let go no matter how much I want to, and given that they tend to form little disinformation cliques, or invent sockpuppet personalities to do it for them, I haven't been active at all lately. Wikipedia is pretty much a lost cause in the fiction sections, as I really really don't think it's any fun anymore, and have far more relevant real-life matters to focus on. Fanatic irrational blindsided fanboys and systematic every-dirty-trick-in-the-book liars like Asgardian tying me up to sections I have long since grown bored with is not my ideal waste of time. I'd much rather have been allowed to clean up page after page from inaccuracies, and it's a bit of a shame too, as I likely possess the greatest amount of schematically memorised non-speculative/taken at face value power ratings, statistics and feats of all comic book section contributors (which is a really really depressing quality, but I grew up with them, and automatically remember and categorise stuff like that), which could have made me much more useful than I've been allowed to be, but now this entire place is just a big pain in the neck filled with completely honourless manipulators and intellectually dishonest sect-like fantaics.

JJonz (Jeph Loeb, or someone he knows? He did mention me, and seemed to refer to it in an interview) seems to have returned again (alternately Asgardian is impersonating him), which is downright refreshing in comparison. He is/was honourable enough to stand for what he is. At least Cameron made me a huge favour by getting rid of that awful redundant Hulk page that I had to watch all the time. That's something.

Anyway, Emma broadcasting globally is almost sufficient to make her rate enormous, but then you have to fix the reference to suit that issue. "Extreme" is still more warranted. A brief starter blurb is not a reliable/official source in the way a handbook or a recent-years actual comparison is. The whole "equal to professor x" thing should also go, as it has been blatantly contradicted in every handbook and issue out there except this particular phrase. Charles even makes a more official statement about being stronger than her within the referred issue. "Among the five most powerful psychics on Earth" (and Professor X most definitely isn't the most powerful telepath. That's Moondragon, by far) works on the other hand. Highly arguable yes, but as far as I know it's not directly contradicted anywhere or taken out of context. Dave (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility

You need to be civil as you conduct your edits or face sanctions. Your recent comments in edit summaries are insulting and inflammatory. Take note. Asgardian (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Then how am I supposed to point out the contradictions between your editing and your justifications as you lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie hundreds of times in a row. It's virtually all you ever do as far as I've experienced, and you're so far gone that you even stated that you found it funny that I get annoyed with it. You deliberately provoke me all the time, likely to get some perceived leverage for this kind of completely out-of-context scenario, rather than simply listen to reason and logic or compromise in the slightest, with everything you do being a contradiction of policies and justifications, and selective disinformation, and this is somehow considered acceptable? That's insane. (Heck, I don't get why you weren't permanently banned after your first sockpuppet was discovered) Dave (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

David, I'm sorry to hear that you're still experiencing conflict with Asgardian, and I left a message on his Talk Page admonishing him about it, and also contacted another admin who previously was involved when I had a dispute with him, but I notice that you are also responding with personal comments to him, and as I told Asgardian, this violates policy. This must stop. Now. If you have a dispute, then try to have a consensus discussion on the matter, or ask someone else for help. I don't know what Edit Summaries he was referencing, but this message can be problematic for third party observers, who can interpret it as incivility on your part. He is not justified in making his comments about "obssession" and what not, but just because someone is uncivil to you does not justify being uncivil to him. Perhaps you didn't see your comment as such, but merely as a criticism of specific behavior on his part, but without diff links citing it, an observer may not come away with that impression. Please, both of you, try to cool down, and abstain from personal comments. Nightscream (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't lie, I don't have the focus or ability to scheme, intrigue, and manipulate policy as he does. I have tried to handle him for years. I don't have any energy any more. All I can do is speak the truth and tell what he is doing as he is doing it. He lies in every sentence he speaks, every edit he makes in false facade as he's doing something else entirely, and makes inaccurate justifications and accusations. I can't handle him in any other way. I am the absolute opposite of a lawyer of bureaucrat, and he never ever stops or compromises or does anything whatsoever honestly. A sockpuppet here, a lie there, a systematic censorship there, a manipulation there, and eventually you've got thousands of them. He couldn't play straight if he tried, and I can't handle that sort of thing. My talent is in ~unfiltered matter of fact analysis, observation, and patterning, that's it. I don't know what to do, and can't let go if something is factually wrong. Dave (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of peace and education, have a look at these, as they may help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Strengths.2C_weaknesses.2C_and_article_quality_in_Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Another note: I actually wasn't aware that you had a medical condition. You may have told another editor. While I believe that your editing style needs work, it was not my intention to belittle you. I apologize for the "shrieking" comment. Asgardian (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Asgardian. David, you cannot just accuse someone of lying or sockpuppetry with evidence, or even so much as a Diff. If you feel an anonymous IP or editor is a sock puppet for another, you should contact someone who can check IP's to verify this. You don't just accuse someone of it outright. And as far as the Handbooks are concerned, use of them is discouraged, as indicated here. Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've answered that I am a few times to another Galactus fan. It would have been hard to miss that since he read the discussion, but I'll allow that it's been awhile so he may have forgotten.

In any case, he is a (by others) proven sockpuppet editor. I've linked to it several times, including for yourself if I don't misremember. and that's the sort of underhanded tactic that sets all my blinkers warning for systematic behaviour that isn't explicitly proven the vast amount of times. And previously there have been an assortment of temporary ips that have enforced his edits at times when he's been banned. , and given that Asgardian stated that he found my irritation with his general tactics amusing that put it all further in context for me In addition he consistently systematically edits out my explicitly quoted facts all over the place to replace with his own opinions (or subtly misrepresented facts) of how he thinks things should be, regardless if he knows full well that several instances severely contradict him, and has been completely unreasonable for compromise in this regard, and the fact is that I make a great effort to make everything I write objective/matter-of-fact as a of all explicit statements of upper boundaries, handbook summaries of all said instances, and anything else I have memorised. In more recent months he has used the new tactic of continuously giving false editing accounts about what he's doing in his edits, to get away with more, to the point that even others have noticed and complained about it, but fitting perfectly into my sum impression pattern (and take note that this is from a few hundred repeated instances here) he said that he would only stop if he would be shown the exact rule forbidding it, and then shouts "politeness please" every time I point it out. Dave (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hinako Ninomiya - 25-181.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Hinako Ninomiya - 25-181.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 07:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hinako - Child form - 27-02.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Hinako - Child form - 27-02.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 07:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Konatsu Fighting-Ability.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Konatsu Fighting-Ability.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 07:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Character fighting techniques (Ranma ½) has been redirected to the parent article

I've created a subpage in your userspace to archive the information. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rouge - Art of Ranma½.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Rouge - Art of Ranma½.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 05:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MarikoKonjoFromSeysunHigh218.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:MarikoKonjoFromSeysunHigh218.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Marikomanga.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Marikomanga.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 'file' 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 "File" 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) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)