User talk:David A/Archive 2011

Good stuff!

David! Dude! Your succinct and apropos clarifications at Chaos War were right on! I can appreciate how difficult it must have been, but that is exactly the kind of careful, big-picture details these articles need. I can't tell you how impressed I am by what I know took real effort on your part. That was terrific. You really came through — third-party cite and everything. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As always it is much easier when I have a firm structure to follow already in place. :) Dave (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never a bother. I'm just not sure how much I can help. Is there one particular section or one particular impasse where a third eye or a little mediation might be helpful? I know you and MobbOne are trying hard and have good intentions. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would help. I know we have worked before on smaller parts of the article to come to some sort of consensus. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right now it seems to be the Chaos War description text, but I'm not sure what exactly is so horrible about it?

Personally I'm starting to get tired of MobbOne or "TheBalance" doing "David A is the antichrist and is infinitely more biased than myself" inaccurate publicity-stunt attack columns (that in the long run more or less read like somebody shouting "heresy!" to me, although that may just be my tiredness talking), but basically, I tried to keep the text neutral and to the point, and they obviously don't like it, so I wonder if you could take a neutral look at it, check what's wrong, and then correct the bad parts to keep them mitigated.

Also, Mobb changed back the neutral image-description that I thought we agreed on together with Tenebrae, to his own leading version, even though the image is directly linked and possible to read for themselves by any visitors. This sort of thing is getting tiresome. Dave (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I'm sure that no one's trying to think of you as some kind of "antichrist", but, please, we each have different viewpoints and perspectives, and as we are all part of the greater Wikipedia community, we should try to respect one another as best we can. It is true, you and they may not see eye to eye, yet surely some kind of compromise can be worked out? Don't worry, I'm not at all interested in your Galactus article, but you really should try to see things from their point of view as well... Aidoflight (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion discussion

Hi. Can you voice your opinion on the Beth Sotelo deletion discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fear Itself (comics)

Just letting you know, I reverted one of your edits at Fear Itself (comics). Your assumptions are probably correct but at this early stage of the series, we can't be sure. At least Skadi shares a name but the father hasn't even been named yet. I think we should wait until someone from Marvel confirms this through a RS or its revealed in the series itself. You're doing a good job BTW. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Okay. I just thought that readers might want to know the original versions. Dave (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galactus

Sure, I'll be glad to help. Might not get to it today since it looks like it involves some research and I'm at work right now, but I promise to. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sporadic internet access myself, and need the time and opportunity to find and browse through some scores of old comics to then link to the relevant scans from, so it might take a while for me as well, but I genuinely appreciate your ongoing sheer decency, objective levelheadedness, and willingness to help. Direct communication seems to simply lead to biased petty sniping so mediation is essential, and you have worked very neatly and efficiently in that regard. I will inform you when I have found the relevant scans so this can get over and done with once for all. Thanks again. Dave (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requests

Short and Simple: Do not remove {{citation needed}} unless you are providing a citation.

I believe this has been pointed out to you before.

Removing this type of maintenance tag can and, when buried in plot heave section, will be seen as vandalism as it hurts the article.

- J Greb (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the problem. I noticed a couple of small inaccuracies, as far as I remember about the character. Dave (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, politely, stop doing that.

If it's tagged and you have to "go from memory". Don't. Leave it as is until you can check where you think you remember it from.

If you are adding new material from memory, add {{issue}} after it. Either someone else can add the source or you can after you check where you think you remember it from.

Removing tags, re-dating tags, and adding shaky material all hurt the articles.

And if you see something you think is wrong - tag it and let a bot date it. That is unless you have a source infromt of you that you can cite.

- J Greb (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in regards to Batman Incorporated

Thought you meant the fictional organisation and not the book which influenced it!!!--S G Command 19:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts on Template:Marvel Cosmic

Hi Dave,

I would be glad to hear your thoughts on the "Cosmic Compass Points" subgroup. If you like, you can add your comment here: Template_talk:Marvel_Cosmic#Addition of subgroups / removing mystical characters. Can you tell me, why you removed it? Do you need citation (for what I thought is common knowledge)? If that's the case, can you tell me, how to do that in a template?

Greetings Weapon X (de) (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is obsessive fanon, even by my standards. Just keep it straight and to the point. Dave (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gold Digger Characters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gold Digger Characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Digger Characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need your opinion

Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Terror

Nothing in that post that Friginator removed remotely constituted any attempt to improve the article, so he was well within the right to remove it. As you should know by now, article talk pages are not for generally discussion of the article's topic, but solely to discuss ways to improve the article. Removing message-board type comments is perfectly valid, and one does not need to be an admin to do so. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]