128.104.truth (talk | contribs) →Return to the fight??: new section |
|||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
:[[User:Asgardian|Asgardian]] is synonymous with edit wars because he disagrees with Wikipedia policy, so I'm sure you can understand my skepticism that he was actually correct about Wikipedia policy. Thank you for letting me know about this. --[[User:Spidey104|<font color="red">'''Spidey'''</font>]][[User talk:Spidey104#top|<font color="blue">''104''</font>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Spidey104|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup> 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC) |
:[[User:Asgardian|Asgardian]] is synonymous with edit wars because he disagrees with Wikipedia policy, so I'm sure you can understand my skepticism that he was actually correct about Wikipedia policy. Thank you for letting me know about this. --[[User:Spidey104|<font color="red">'''Spidey'''</font>]][[User talk:Spidey104#top|<font color="blue">''104''</font>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Spidey104|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup> 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Return to the fight?? == |
|||
Hey, it's been a while. Would you be interested in rejoining the fight on [[Brittny Gastineau]] to include the necessary information about her part in the Bruno movie? [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] and [[User:Onorem|Onorem Dil]] are still being very combative, but recently [[User:Reswobslc|Reswobslc]] joined the fight on our side. If you rejoined it would now be three people to our side. Maybe we could win it this time!!! [[User:128.104.truth|128.104.truth]] ([[User talk:128.104.truth|talk]]) 19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:12, 12 April 2010
I'm human, so I make mistakes. Please point out if I do something incorrect or inappropriate. Constructive criticism is always good. Thank you.
Hey!
No problem. Cheers, OtisJimmyOne 18:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Request for your opinion
Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome, it was no problem. Feel free to contact me again if you need my opinion for anything. Generally I don't look for that stuff unless someone contacts me or if it involves an article I'm actively editing. Spidey104 (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Exemplars
I appreciate you state you suffer from OCD, but I believe the consensus was to guide less strictly with regards section headers. It seems we're headed into an edit war, so is there any way to solve this? We could widen out discussion at WT:COMICS, for instance? Hiding T 12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I made changes to that page so that it was obvious that it was a guide and not a strict regulation, so there is no reason to do anything other than leave it as is. It should not be reduced to only a link. I have too many edit summaries that link to that page for it to be reduced to nothing. It should be fine as long as it stays obvious that it is only a guide. (And I don't actually have OCD, I just get annoyed when the articles are not standardized as it makes them look sloppy/bad.) Spidey104 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I can appreciate the addictive tendencies you speak of. Hiding, in fact, helped me enormously in most, perhaps, obsessive days by introducing me to WikiBreak Enforcer. I'm glad to be able to "pay it forward," as they say. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Spider-Man
Thank you for your edit on List of Spider-Man enemies in other media. Now I see your a big Spidey fan so I invite you to be an participant so you can help and even expand this new site Wikipedia:WikiProject Spider-Man. Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand. You can also invite others on the project that you think are good on it as well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
After discussion with Jhenderson the project has become a work group at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Spider-Man work group. Hiding T 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for joining and just for fun I used this old template as an Spider-man fan template so you can use that if you want. Template:User WikiProject Spider-Man —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhenderson777 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Infobox image
We aren't allowed to use copyrighted images anywhere on Wikipedia outside of articles. See number 9 of the relevant policy. Hiding T 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Headings Response
Just thought Alternate Versions and Other Media would be the right heading. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- 1) This was at least the third time I've put this on your talk page, so it shouldn't be news to you. (2) It has been a rule of Wikipedia since it first started that headings should only have the first word capitalized. --Spidey104contribs 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Spider-Man Work Group member. If it's ok I have an job that I think you can help me with. Just recently I created Template:Spider-Man Work Group and if you would have time you can place this template on any article or template while you (that's right you!) can rate the article/template on it's importance and quality scale. Also it would help if you could create an category on the importance scale if I haven't done it yet. Good luck and most importantly have fun. Thank you! Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, explain how I am misinformed about Richard and Mary Parker supposedly being SHIELD agents. The comics have repeatedly shown that SHIELD was only founded relatively recently, after the start of the "modern" era, by which time Peter Parker was already Spider-Man, long after Richard and Mary died. The only time they are referred to as SHIELD agents is the cover of Untold Tales Minus One; they aren't referred to as SHIELD agents in the story within. And here http://marvel.com/blogs//entry/631 is Tom Brevoort noting that cover is in error "And yes, that cover copy proclaiming Richard and Mary parker Agents of SHIELD was a mistake, and it was entirely made by me. I remembered that they had been secret agents, and I somehow misrecalled Stan saying that they had been working for SHIELD, even though he didn't. I really should have checked that." This is reaffirmed by the Parker's recent Handbook entries, which note them to be CIA and that SHIELD was founded a decade after they died, and by the SHIELD entry which does not list them as agents of the agency. 86.158.46.54 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- There are other issues of Amazing than the flashback issue that refer to them as S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. Offhand I can think of the cover image and an approximate range of issue numbers, but until I have time to go double-check for actual numbers I won't make a change. When I change it to the correct information I will be sure to include references. --Spidey104contribs 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You've got Tom Brevoort saying the cover image is a mistake, and that they weren't SHIELD agents. You've got Marvel's existing timeline making it impossible for them to have been SHIELD agents, since SHIELD wasn't founded until well after their deaths. You've got Marvel's official guides stating very recently that they were not SHIELD agents. In the unlikely event you can find issues that claim otherwise, then they are simply perpetuating the error that cover led you to make; Brevoort's statement (made in 2007) and the Handbook entries (made in 2009) confirm the official stance, and any references to the contrary are mistakes, not retcons. 86.151.45.54 (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- (1) Tom Brevoort could be making a mistake saying the cover was a mistake. (2) How do you know it is the "official" stance of Marvel? Tom Brevoort's comment (that is over 2 years old) is not official; Joe Quesada would make it an official stance. (3) The Marvel Official Guides are a joke and an affront to any serious comic book fan. They are put together by interns and people who have no real knowledge of the comics and there are many mistakes in them. (4) The Marvel Official Guides would be the ones performing a retcon (or a mistake) if there are multiple issues that reference them as SHIELD agents as they come later. (5) SHIELD was created after WWII, so they would not have been dead before it existed. --Spidey104contribs 16:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(1) Tom Brevoort was the editor in charge of the comic in question, and by his own admission the cover claim that the Parkers were SHIELD agents was made by him, and a mistake on his part. And now you presume you know better than Tom Brevoort as to whether he made a mistake or not? (2) It's the official stance for Marvel because the Handbooks have specifically noted that the Parkers are not SHIELD agents, and whether you like them or not, the entries within are all editorially approved. (3) You are very mistaken about how the Handbooks are put together. The Handbooks are not put together by interns. They are put together by writers picked for their knowledge of Marvel's characters. As part of the process of writing an entry they have to re-read every appearance of a given character, meaning they are not working from vague memory or partial info, and giving the lie to your claim that they have no real knowledge of the comics. Are the Handbooks mistake free? No. But I'd disagree with your widesweeping and unsupported analysis that there are "many" mistakes. Plus, show me a reference guide that doesn't have some errors. That doesn't invalidate the whole. (4) *IF* there are multiple issues that reference them as SHIELD agents. Big if. At the moment I've supplied specific references to back my side of the debate, while you've gone with vague and unsupported "other issues" and "approximate range of issues." (5) The history you linked to fails to take into account the sliding timescale Marvel subscribes to; SHIELD was created in the 1960s only in the comics that were written in the 1960s and early 1970s. SHIELD was created well after WWII, not immediately after it. Tony Stark had already become Iron Man by the time Nick Fury became its second director, at which time the agency was still very new; Fury's predecessor Rick Stoner only held the position for a short time and Fury had never heard of SHIELD prior to being recruited into it, despite being a high-level CIA agent and well-connected in the intelligence community. 86.164.85.111 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- At the moment I've supplied specific references to back my side of the debate, while you've gone with vague and unsupported "other issues" and "approximate range of issues."
- You only have two references for your side of the debate. One is a blog. The other is a single issue. I had hoped to temporarily end this debate with my comment about the "other issues" because I know I cannot fully support my argument without those references. Once I do have the necessary references I will put this up for discussion in front of several editors so that it is NOT just you and me arguing endlessly. After my case has been made and your case has been made I will abide by their decision, whether they support me or they support you. However, continuing this argument until I have had the time to find the references is pointless and a waste of time. I have left the articles in question alone with your edits in place until I am able to find the necessary references. Furthermore, I will NOT edit those articles once I have my references, I will ask for other opinions (as I have already stated I would).
- It may be a while before I have time to find those issues, so can we leave this argument alone for now? In the meantime I would suggest you continue to make constructive edits such as this [1] and this [2]. (I did not revert your edit to Devil Dinosaur just to spite you. I figured you either had a reference or it was purely conjecture, and either way it would get to a positive outcome -- as it now has.) Also, could you register an official username? Your IP address has changed multiple times already and it would make arguing this in the future easier so other people weighing in on this case are not confused. (Plus, other editors will be less suspicious of your edits if you're registered than if you're an anonymous IP because most vandalism is done by anonymous IPs. I know I am not alone in this opinion.) Thank you for your time to read my long response, and I look forward to peacefully settling this argument in the (relatively) near future. --Spidey104contribs 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to leave this debate alone for now, with one final comment re: my references since you've raised that issue - yes, one is a Blog, but it's a Blog on Marvel's official site by the senior editor who was in charge of the comic that is currently cited as the main evidence for the Parkers being SHIELD, and the other is at least two issues, as it is the Handbook entries for both the Parkers and SHIELD. My edits were always constructive - I provided reasons why I made the edits on the talk pages and asked other editors to refer there rather than simply reverting them. You chose to revert without discussion, simply dismissing my edits out of hand, without having any citeable evidence to back it up. You then chose to dismiss my citations with the flimmsiest of reasoning ("maybe Tom Brevoort is wrong about being wrong" and the demonstrably inaccurate claim about who puts the Handbooks together). As for registering, I have zero desire to do so. I can't help that my provider changes IP each time I log on. I always explain why I make the changes I do, and try as much as possible to cite references. I have also reported cases of registered users who have posted blantantly false information they made up wholesale. As such, I find it the assumption by some on Wikipedia that being registered somehow makes one more credible utterly falacious, and in fact have come to object to that assumption so much that now I will not register. And now I have that all off my chest, yes, let's rest this unless and until you can find citations to back your side of the discussion, and others can be brought in to arbitrate. 86.164.85.111 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Re:Apology
I understand. We all have those moments.;) Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
A few things:
- This removal of the content you want in could have used a better term. But it is the right action.
- With regards to WP:BRD, which most editors try to adhere to, once the bold edit is reverted, the next step is to discuss it on the talk page and gain consensus there for the change. Not bull ahead and edit war to get what you want.
- Just because "It's like this elsewhere" justifies it. Bluntly: Plot and plot like sections should not rely on information from solicits. Yes, that means that a lot of other comics related articles need clean up. That does not make it "OK" to add to the problem.
- Once the issue is on sale, it's likely that expanding the plot based FCB to include it will follow. As I pointed out on the talk page, we don't shill for Marvel, they've got others doing that for them. We are not a news site, we can wait since we are not under the deadline pressure a news site is under. We are not a fan site even though we are fans editing the articles.
I hope that helps.
- J Greb (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Asgardian is synonymous with edit wars because he disagrees with Wikipedia policy, so I'm sure you can understand my skepticism that he was actually correct about Wikipedia policy. Thank you for letting me know about this. --Spidey104contribs 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Return to the fight??
Hey, it's been a while. Would you be interested in rejoining the fight on Brittny Gastineau to include the necessary information about her part in the Bruno movie? Dayewalker and Onorem Dil are still being very combative, but recently Reswobslc joined the fight on our side. If you rejoined it would now be three people to our side. Maybe we could win it this time!!! 128.104.truth (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)