User talk:Doczilla/Archive 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Doczilla, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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! Adambiswanger1 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Go to WP:RFC; you'll see what it's about. It's basically the equivalent of filing a lawsuit ... you can go from there to mediation or to the arbitration committee. Everyone's conduct, not just the RFCee, comes under scrutiny and can lead to disciplinary action. Daniel Case 03:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Clay

Do you have a damn good reason for changing Joshua Clay into a redirect? You'd better. --Basique 13:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I quit.

Don't quit

I suggest using Wikipedia: resolving disputes over Basique's little tattling watch list. RobJ1981 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Clay

Yeah, that's kinda why I did it. I had witnessed your little dispute with Basique, and couldn't help but be on 'your side' for this one. Kusonaga 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New info for reconsidering a vote

Hi Doczilla! I have provided additional information to support International Institute of Management article. I have listed the new information for verifying sources and notability at this article's entry . I kindly ask you to support this article by reconsidering your vote. I'm hoping you gave your recommendation in good faith and you will reconsider it in the light of new information. Miro.gal

Daredevil

I very much appreciate your efforts on the Daredevil article. I put a comment in the talk page about the plot summary detail so I could possibly cut it off before it got out of hand. If you want to add anything to a discussion on it, please do so. --Newt ΨΦ 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age comics

Do you have good knowledge with Golden Age comics? I posted an article on the comics project talk page about it. There is a recent wave of Golden Age stubs, and I don't think all are notable. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for each and every character in comics. RobJ1981 01:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, I'm semi-famous. Just kidding. Anyways, in regards to the Golden Age thing and "killing", well apart from it basically being dead, I think my work here is done! Okay, on a more serious note, I did add in the Golden Age retcons since Marvel classes them as Golden Age and if I recall properly I only add the category to anyone in Front Line, Black Fox, Roger Aubrey and... what's his face... Crimson Commando... or did I for the latter... memory's gone. I do plan on making the stubs a bit bigger (like my fight to keep Sun-Girl) but I didn't want to make another category for deletion by having "Marvel retconned Golden Age characters" or something of the like. Thank God I didn't add Nick Fury and the Howling Commandos to the category, ay.

Anywho, now that that's all dead and buried, I'll go "kill" the Morlocks. :-p Originalsinner 19:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville

Please actually look up the legal battle before you change anything. There is not an actual filing yet, but the lawyer has stated two things, that Smallville (the town) is part of the rights of Superboy held by the Siegels, and that Clark Kent of Smallville (the show) is in fact Superboy. That is his argument, and that is the dispute. There is no dispute about what the show is based on, only about who owns what and what money is rightfully whose. The way it was rewritten was accurate to the extent of the dispute, thank you. Bignole 16:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It read that there was a dispute over both the ownership of the town and over the similarities with Clark. You removed all and rewrote to read that the dispute was only about one thing. If you want to make it sound better you don't remove part of what it is about. Bignole 16:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sympathy

You and Hiding were 3rd party consults. He's like Peregrinefisher and the Individual Episode Pages dispute (see that section or the Season 1 article Talk Page section, or the List of Smallville episodes Talk Page discussion). Ken has quoted the Siegels, but I have yet to see a link going to that quote. Also, even if they just say "Oh, and we think Smallville is based on Superboy", unless that is part of their lawsuit then it really doesn't matter. That's an opinion and we can't go broadcasting everyone's opinion, even if it is the Siegels. Because, just because they say "this", doesn't mean they are actually trying to prove it in a court of law. He keeps accusing me of misinterpreting what is being said, when all I've done is directly quote was the lawyer said, nothing more and nothing less. If they don't literally say "Smallville is based on Superboy", or "Smallville is a derivative of Superboy" then you cannot assume otherwise. I think he's confusing the judge's remarks about "there is enough evidence to prove that Smallville is a derivative of Superboy, etc etc", when that doesn't matter. He's a judge from a previous lawsuit and his opinion is exactly that, an opinion. My problem is the way Ken is voicing his opinion to the mediators (like that AMA request), where he's labeling me as some psycho editor that won't give in because of stubbornness, and at the same time proclaiming his side as 100% fact. It think the current version of the overview (which includes Hiding's suggestion) is perfect, because it even satisfies Ken's initial complaint that "Smallville is based on DC Comics character Superman" was no NPOV. Bignole 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UMass basketball

I noticed you'd put up a vote to delete the categories I put up for nomination. Those of us who have worked on college basketball categories have agreed to categorize all men's and women's college basketball players by school. These categories are part of that effort. Take a look at the men's and women's categories before you make a rash decision to delete. I listed those categories for name changes because UMass is one of a steadily decreasing number of colleges in the U.S. that has separate athletic nicknames for its men's and women's sports programs. — Dale Arnett 02:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"springs into action"

I actually felt very strange writing it. I think Wikipedia may be affecting me negatively in some ways. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Nightshade and "witch"

As much as I agree with you that her inclusion in the category, along with the bulk of the characters, is a stretch based on the popular use of the word, she can fit under the definition of the word.
See here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Witch
And: http://www.onelook.com/?w=witch&ls=a
Just a heads up — J Greb 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious

Are you deliberately trying to provoke me into a conflict by going behind me the moment I make edits to List of correctional facilities in comics, and in the last two cases while I'm editing the page? Because that's how it appears to me, and I'd like to know if I need to call in an impartial third party to have a talk with you. --Basique 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

go to hell

You wanna remove valid info from a page? then YOU find a way to keep it! You expect me to re-add it? Kiss my ass you lazy bum. (unsigned by user at 206.162.192.39)

As near as I can figure, this must be what he's referring to: [1]. I appreciate opinions and constructive criticism. I don't see how I can learn and improve from an anonymous attack that doesn't mention what edit it's about. Doczilla 03:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

250px

I managed to reduce the size of the infobox I proposed in the wikiproject comicst from 300px to 250px. I hope you (and the guy who created it, who seems to be out of touch) like it.--201 07:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and for the link

I've reviewed the link your provided regarding some copyedit parameters relating to the comicbook project, and it gives more clearer insight into the perspective here on this site as opposed to other database projects. I also appreciate your kind response, you assumed the best from my edits which is a good standard for all of us to follow. Regards. NetK 04:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No rerun channels

What does "no rerun channels" mean? Because you asked people to help clean up the Batman actors lists and because the Batman TV series article has been marked as being too long, I split Batman (TV): Guest appearances and episodes off into a separate article and added a lot of missing information over there. You just restored that stuff to the original article with the unclear edit summary "No rerun channels". What's that about? If you don't want people to weigh in on something, please either don't bring it up on the WikiProject Comics talk page or do say more about it. I put in a lot of work and, on the WP Comics talk page, asked for feedback but got none. Doczilla 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry - I reverted the wrong edits. I meant to only revert this one[2]. Again, I appologize. CovenantD 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and for the link

I've reviewed the link your provided regarding some copyedit parameters relating to the comicbook project, and it gives more clearer insight into the perspective here on this site as opposed to other database projects. I also appreciate your kind response, you assumed the best from my edits which is a good standard for all of us to follow. Regards. NetK 04:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - but there's that general reference to the OSPG again. There was a particular article by Arnold T. Blumberg which went into great detail on the different "ages", which may be what's being referenced. I was just removing the second link to comic book and inserting a comma, and it didn't throw up a conflict (because I was editing that one section, presumably).

Incidentally, that bit in the inroduction was originally at the bottom of the article and I moved it up. I'm not sure who added it but it seemd a fair summary, out of place at the end and useful for the intro.

Alleged Cult CfD

To help with reaching consensus on this CfD, I added categories to sort votes into reasons for Keep or Delete. You can confirm that I sorted you into the right group here Antonrojo 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Announcement: It's an administrator!

Doczilla, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks again, Chris Griswold

Notable Batman creators

FYI you linked to a dab page ... in future, you probably want to use Frank Miller (comics). Cheers. -- Robocoder (t|c) 13:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder Woman

Let me know when you might need a hand re that 3RR thing. I agree with you: "Vast" is an unneeded adjective to the term "superhuman strength." -- Tenebrae 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman

Will you take a look and see if there's a 3RR from Nihilzero on this article? I need to sleep finally, and I may be away from a computer for the weekend, but something needs to be done about this. I've left a warning about incivility. I need to read up on blocking procedures. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict Batman

I doubt you meant to change as many things as you just did in the Batman template. You undid a number of things, including alphabetization within group. Doczilla 07:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the misc section... Yes I did. Personally, I think the storylines section should be restored, but I can understand trying to reduce line length. That said, The objects, and the storyline ssections should be kept together. (As I attempted to say in my edit summary.) Hope that clarifies. - jc37 07:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that "Alternative versions of Batman" equals a storyline. Boy, do I not agree. But if it does, then it's redundant to include "Alternative versions of Batman" in the template when "Storylines" is already there. Doczilla 07:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a "navbox" is to make navigation easier. "Storylines" is a category which lists story arcs and graphic novel names. Alternate versions of Batman lists the storylines and inherent characters of those "alternate versions". Then there is Media, and comics titles, which are obviously storylines. In any case, as I said above, I'm not opposing combining these with the objects on the misc. section, however, these should be grouped separately from the objects. Which is why I listed the objects first, and then the storylines, and various media in which those storylines appeared. I think alphabetising them all together would be a "bad idea". - jc37 07:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, neither one of us is quite making ourselves clear to the other. I'll throw this out there, then stop editing at the same time you're editing. Equipment first wasn't my concern. The colon between "Storylines" and "Alternative versions of Batman" was. That colon will just confuse people who won't realize the word before the colon leads to a lot more than just the alternative Batman (Batmen?). Doczilla 07:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The colon was a "stop gap" measure, in an attempt to compromise. How about this, let's restore the "stoylines" section, but call it "stories" instead. Also, I think we should brainstorm for allies/supporting characters, and enemies/villains/rogue's gallery. For one thing, Jason Todd, and Catwoman are problematic. - jc37 07:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in case you see you see the edits before you see who made them, I just want to point out that I didn't change "Rogues" back to "Villains" or change that colon before hearing back from you. Anyway, I'm going to bed now. Three people shouldn't be editing the template at the same time. I am glad to see that people care about it. Doczilla 07:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good night. - jc37 07:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Doc. Sound like Nihilozero is violating the policy of Wikipedia: Don't be a dick. Maybe approach User:ChrisGriswold or User:Hiding — who as Admins out of ComicsProject are familiar with reasonable v. ridiculous comics edits — with what you wrote to me, and perhaps ask one of them to contact Nihilozero. They can then decide whether to temporarily block the guy without having you go through a long-and-drawn out process, since you've volunteered so much time on this issue already. You might also want to list him at Wikipedia:Sock puppet. Hang in there, man. Some newbies are just immature. -- Tenebrae 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Browser

Glad you and your son liked CoverBrowser.com Doczilla! -Philwiki 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Tarantula

Thanks for your continued help in patrolling Tarantula (comics). I understand your attempts to compromise so we can stop having to patrol, but I personally don't think we should. The way I see it, continued reverts from these users (or this user) without regard to policy, when they've been made aware of the policy and goal of the project, amounts to vandalism. If you think I'm wrong, let me know and we can compromise with them and end it. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works, though I don't know that they're going to stop because of it. It's the problem with these unregistered users that we can't stop them from editing. We shouldn't have to make concessions because of unregistered vandals or users who won't pay attention to policy and consensus. They're wrong, but they exist solely to revert and make edit war. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 18:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the stuff from the Kaine article, it was all unfounded OR and speculation. --Newt _Ψ _Φ 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional histories

Could you please stop adding "Fictional" to the titles of character histories? Its not necessary and its stated elsewhere (and should be obvious) that they are indeed fictional.--CyberGhostface 19:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not needed. RobJ1981 20:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical note: This led to a discussion at the WikiProject Comics talk page. See archive. [3] (FYI: They found out I was merely enforcing prior consensus, and they were very nice about it.) Doczilla 09:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batman/Superman templates

Could you explain 'too tall' please? Thanks. --Jamdav86 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman in Popular Media template

You can at the very least, agree that Joel Schumacher's name and Rino Romano (the voice of Batman on The Batman TV series) should be listed. Also, I don't understand why you think that Birds of Prey should be removed! TMC1982 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Read

From Manual of Style:

If everyone follows this Manual of Style, Wikipedia will be easier to use for readers and editors alike. On the other hand, the following quotation from The Chicago Manual of Style is worth considering:

Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity.

Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do — the joy of wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.

Asgardian 02:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be taking this a tad too seriously...but as for attention to detail, you've just reverted a valid correct I made re: the insertion of Volumes. Change it back and keep the comma correction you made. Then the article should be fine.

Regards

Asgardian 03:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It"? I have no idea which article you're talking about. Doczilla 05:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Work on being less condescending amd judgemental and perhaps you might have an audience. Also, if I can take the time to keep others sensible changes and paste them into a better version, then so can you.

Asgardian 08:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have merged Atum/God Eater as per general consensus. Things can be done via the group - it is just in the way that people are asked. Talk to me - complaining to a user such as CovenantD who has been banned and is on "less than friendly terms" with multiple users doesn't help. (Update - GentlemanGhost too? Is this mature? Rallying a lynching mob over something that could be bought out and be gone tomorrow? Come on. If you really have a PhD you're above this sort of thing. Middle ground can be reached here - just a question of technical edits that do not come at the expense of improved text. That's enough for now. Hope we can speak tomorrow).

Asgardian 09:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub marking

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks!Eli Falk 10:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice - just tone down the comments in the edit column a tad. Stay objective and remember that these changes are small - there are dozens and dozens of comic book character entries that are far, far interior to the Hercules entry (in fact, many are flat out dreadful). As to actual changes, 4-5 small edits is quite reasonable. That's what my last effort on Hercules was. Nothing to get hot under the collar about. Onward!

Asgardian 10:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

"4-5 edits at a time would be fine if 2-3 of them didn't need to be fixed. Read Kusonaga's recommendation in the Hercules edit summaries. Doczilla 10:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)"

His comments are emotive and not necessarily true. Anyone who makes such condescending claims will be ignored every time. Very few people here appear to think before they reach for the keyboard. Comments should be objective and read as such - and not appear as though the poster is screeching (hint). It conjures visions of some self-appointed adjudicator with a stake in one hand and a keyboard in the other, screaming over the cyber waves that "X must be stopped!"

I've never spent hours making umpteen edits flavored with a variety of emotive comments in the Edit History. Have you?

Asgardian 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Can you please keep an eye on the edits of Asgardian? He is making POV editor and disregarding formatting standards on The Gladiator and Abomination pages. Thank you. T-1000 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding

My apologies if this is improper, I have tried to follow Wiki-courtesy as the Help files lead me to believe, but I am a first-time contributor.

I was the recent editor of 'the Joker (comic)' section whose changes were pretty much scrapped by your edit a few hours later. Now, although I put some effort into it, upon re-reading, I certainly am willing to admit that my changes needed polishing, although I still find the Infinite Crisis section to be inaccurate and in need of change.

But given the relevance of Jason Todd, the Joker's ultimate unforgivable sin, I would have thought that at least some of the recent examination of the Joker/Batman/Todd dynamic would enrich the entry and reflect recent character development, particularly Joker's reaction to the whole thing, and most of all, the supposed insight Jason Todd had into his character that made the clown stop laughing.

Is there truly no place for this, or did I just do it poorly and - understandably - you thought it better to scrap the whole thing than to tidy it up? I am more interested in the reasoning, regardless of whether or not we agree about the edit's quality, and regardless of how the final page looks.

Thank you.JDudeman 06:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry for any problems I caused. I don't agree with it, but I won't change them anymore.--CyberGhostface 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through my contributions today after school.--CyberGhostface 11:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred, et al.

I really don't think the logic behind that order is going to be readily apparent to people. I understand what you're saying, but I firmly believe it will not stick any time at all. (You'll notice I am giving it a chance, though.) Doczilla 07:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. My heart isn't set on it. If you want to alphabetise by last name, I suppose that's fine (not including the Bat-Family, of course : )

Oh, and I thought Harvey was a great suggestion. He's actually a rather old character. - jc37 07:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Coulter AfD notice

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lynn Coulter, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynn Coulter. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --A. B. 17:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Your edit was minor (a link correction), so you may or may not be interested, but I am letting all the involved editors know.

Category:Christian prophets

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 28#Category:Christian prophets

There's been further discussion. Would you mind coming to clarify your thoughts? : ) - jc37 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedster (comics)

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but it looks we might have an edit war at speedster (comics) between myself and Ace Class Shadow. If you could chime in with your opinion on that article’s talk page, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream 10:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-heroes

Thanks. I'm glad you raised the issue. --TM 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basilisk

The first sentence can be tweeked to say: "Basil Elks was a petty thief who BREAKS into a museum to steal what he BELIEVES IS an ordinary emerald - but is in fact a Kree artifact called the Alpha Stone."

However, to say "Basil Elks IS..." is incorrect as he's dead. As for a double "was", what of it? Anyone can take that out.

Asgardian 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HalfShadow 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that I'm not making stuff up; anything I post is verifiable. HalfShadow 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

A request for a peer review of New Universe has been made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/New Universe. I'd appreciate your comments on the article, hopefully it will kickstart the comics project's peer review process. To comment, please add a new section (using ==== [[User:Your name|Your name]] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible. Hiding Talk 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrokinesis in fiction

Please go through this entry and do to it EXACTLY what you did to Electrokinesis. For example, please delete all references to characters who are not explicitly described as being Pyrokinetic in their own media, particularly those in Anime and Manga, where the word could only possibly have been included as an Americanization(if at all), because the word Pyrokinesis is not a Japanese word. Please also visit reality warping and the pages regarding shapshifters etc and delete all character who are not explicitly named as having these powers in their own media. Also, fictional immortals where immortal is not used, or is used as an adjective rather than a noun.

perfectblue 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Even the science channels set straight thinking to one side for the sake of ratings! "

At least we can agree on something. Maybe there's hope yet

perfectblue 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joker Categories

I reverted your edit to Joker. one was a redlink, the other is less appropriate per the requirements for each. please read the lists on each cat, and see. ThuranX 06:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off, I'm just trying to keep a good article good. I generally respect your editing, so I'm going to try to enumerate my thinking on this. (Though I suspect I'll probably have to repost it on the Articel talk, LOL) I'm not going to debate the two, as they'e very different illnesses. at a glance, though, at the criteria for inclusion in each category - for fic. psychopaths, he clearly fails on 1( his "death in the family" planning to use the diplomatic immunities), 2 - irrational thinking's a hallmark of his, 8 (he's claimed to learn from mistakes many times, batman credits his disease with being his downfall, not his lack of planning), 11 - He's quite perceptive at times, esp. about the motivations and feelings inside others, 12 - most of his 'relationships' aren't impersonal, but radically bombastic; 13-15 i can't reply to affirmatively OR negatively, because of the CCA and the editors... so out of 16, he loses on 5, and i dropped three, so... 8 of 13.

For Sociopath, though not numbered, he's all about #1. #2) He's used aliases a bit ,deciet and double-crosses more, even to the point where we saw in the build to the Infinite Crisis that Joker was repeatedly told or heard, or it was said about him, that no other villian trusts him or feels at all safe around him. #3) His impulsive trends to violence have ruined his plans by distracting him to cheap violence, #4 he flips out. that's WHY no villain trusts him. he might shoot any henchman or co-conspirator at any time. #5) see the whole no one feels safe thing.#6 is a write off, he's a villain, so I'll drop that one. #7 he's all over tht qualifier. He never seems to regret anything, and there have been stories in which Martian Manhunter or some magic user have temporarily 'fixed' Joker's mind, and we see im overwhelmed with guilt. so that gives us 6 out of 7, and 6 out of 6 when I disregard a qualifier which is sort of irrelevant in the comics. that's a 61% on psycho- to at least a 85% for socio-... Anyways, that's my thinking. If you can support a rewrite of the Psychopath article to support a change to the cat, so Joker fits, well, you're a better man than I... I think there's ametaphor for that sort of thing, but it's late, and robot chicken is a rerun. so i'm out isntead. peace.ThuranX 07:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Asgardian

Hiya, Doc. Tenebae here. I've seen some of your comments at User talk:Asgardian, a page he keeps commenting out. If you choose to lend your support to a request for Admin help regarding that editor, please see this to Admin Noticeboard entry, which I wrote on behalf of several editors whose criticism of him he has deleted. I hope this does some good....--Tenebrae 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's taken if off his Talk page, but I gave him a warning in a post there (it'll be in History) that I would take it to an Admin if he continued, and when he ignored that and made the same wholesale reversion at Awesome Android, I wrote in the edit summary that I would now contact an Admin. He was warned on his Talk page — after several attempts at working with him on this — and everybody was notified at Awesome Android. I didn't mention User:Grey Shadow in my Admin request since I've never corresponded with him. Gee, I hope this does some good. Keep up the good editing that you do! --Tenebrae 01:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Crisis - External Links

Hi Doc

I placed a link to my website that annotates DC's Infinite Crisis series and its tie-ins some months ago on the Infinite Crisis page. That link was removed so I added a comment on the discussion page on 27th Nov asking for it to be re-instated. Despite having no replies, I noticed that it was replaced some time later, but has now been removed again by yourself.

Could you let me know the reasoning behind this decision?

Apologies in advance if this isn't the place to have this discussion - please direct me elsewhere if you need to!

Cheers --Ginger2323 09:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrocausality

As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blah matters

Greetings Doc. Well, this started because Tenebrae panicked rather than discussed, and then decided to issue an ultimatum. As I've said several times during our recent discussions, other posters also need to be reasonable. By that I mean less emotive. Despite creating discussions, shortcircuiting a few fiascos (a la Cosmic Marvel) and touching up a few old entries that needed it, I still get rudeness from CovenantD and Tenebrae still acts like the schoolyard snitch ("Look what he did! I'm telling!"). Personally, I think both could do better. People in glasshouses and all that.

As for Talk Page flotsam and jetsam, it's all there bar the bluntness from Tenebrae. I hardly think it makes me a criminal. The edits of later have been pretty solid, although I note that no one really gives any credit for the positive improvements made on the entries. I'll put my case once again in the Discussion page of the entry that sparked this furore, although it would never have happened had certain parties debated the listed reasons rather than panicking.

That aside, happy editing. Am going to try and tackle the Skrull race entry soon, which is a bit of a mess. Your input from time to time would be appreciated.

Asgardian 08:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. No problem Doc. I'll archive at some point, but I'm not sweating on it. All the best.

Asgardian 09:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, about to save a first draft of the updated Skrull page. More to come. Looks like the Badoon have to be done as well...

Asgardian 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate tarantula (2)

Why do you insist on removing the ultimate tarantula info? Everyone knows it's him. Just because the holy scripture of Marvel hasn't deigned to address him as such is no reason to remove it. Second, the Tarantula II info says that he was mutated into a spider, and developed spider-like abilities. Removing said powers from the SHB is completely retarded. The only reason you keep taking it off is you are a giant prick and do not want me to edit anything. Well listen up Doc, wikipedia allows users to edit. Just because I won't cow down and give my self a stupid username doesn't mean you can keep removing my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.173.17 (talk • contribs)

Non-helpful category talk edits

Please do not add project tags to category talk pages without also including |class=Cat|importance=NA, otherwise you are doing the project(s) a disservice by miscategorizing categories themselves into their project-internal by-class and by-importance article categories. Please also stop adding {{Talkheader}} to these and other talk pages; that template was designed only for talk pages of an extremely contentious nature, in which a highly visible notice about civility, what talk pages are for, no personal attacks, dispute resolution, etc., is desired. There is almost certainly not a single category talk page on the entire system that should have this template. It is designed for talk pages like Talk:Islam and Talk:George W. Bush and Talk:Kevin Trudeau. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]