User talk:ChrisGriswold/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Kyle Rayner

Have you seen the horrendnously long Return of Ion section of Kyle Rayner's page? i think it's longer than the rest of his history COMBINED and it's just from the last year. Condensing is right up your alley and I was wondering if you can take a look and see if you can do something about it. Exvicious 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

First pass complete. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 10:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Spidey!

I just put a bunch of citations in Spider-Man to help detail the character's real-world history. Cna you lend a hand on the character's fictional biography? All those subsections are messy, and some of the stuff like the renumbering in 1998 can probably be worked into the publishing section. I'm also wondering if any sections should be split off onto new pages.

Oh, and do you read Chris' Invincible Super-Blog? If not, you should set aside a good few days to trawl through the archives and develop a newfound respect for guys like Robert Kanigher, Bill Mantlo, and the goddamned Haunted Tank. WesleyDodds 09:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Girl 13/Traci and Terri Thirteen

I noticed you removed the header that was in the article. There may be a problem with this.

I'm the one who had added the "— Speculation" part to it. I had done this, and noted on the talk page, because there is as good, if not better, chance that the character that appeared in 52 is a new character linked to Doctor 13. The characters name and appearance differ from those used with Girl 13's previous appearances.

While I understand it is possible that there was an error on the part of the writers and artists, without a hard reference, either in story or through DC, the section that Konczewski added re 52 is reader/fan speculation.

I believe, given the overall intent here, that it either needs to be clearly labeled as such or removed.

Thanks for listening — J Greb 13:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Kyle's article

May I ask why Kyle Rayner's SHB titles him "Kyle Rayner as Ion"? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the picture is of the identity, but the article is about the character. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Buutt, that's the kind of thing you say as a...caption. You wrote it as his superhero moniker. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 22:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Negative whatnot

Inevitably, Wikipedia affects us all negatively at times, in little ways or small. An example of little: I keep finding myself inclined to put periods outside quotation marks in other kinds of writing even though I shouldn't. On the large: Twice I've gotten so disgusted that I decided to quit and really did take a break from Wikipedia, and yet here I am again. Why on earth do we put in this much time on something we don't get paid for? 'Tis strangely addictive, eh? (When I first saw that I had a new message, my initial thought was that I had a message from B______ (name omitted), freaking out because some of us dared to edit a page he created. I was glad to see your name instead of his.) Doczilla 18:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Did you forget about comics cleanup? It's been pretty inactive for over a week. I posted in the above comics cleanup section, but you never replied. RobJ1981 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability template

Good idea regarding the notability template. I've prototyped your solution on my userpage and would appreciate feedback. More details on Template talk:Notability#Can we pipe it?. -Stellmach 22:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reality check

Hey, can you come over to Talk:Deus Ex#GA review and give me a reality check on this? It seems to me that I'm making a convincing argument that's falling on deaf ears, but I've felt like that before and realized afterward that I was batshit insane. Could I ask you to either pitch in and back me up or call my bullshit? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comic / comic book

Following on from our previous discussion I have found a third British comic that was incorrectly moved and then put back wrong: A1 (comic). (Emperor 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for sorting the Eagle entry out. Currently the ones I'm aware of that still need fixing are: A1 (comic), Action (comic) and Crisis (comic). (Emperor 16:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC))

If things go the way they look like they are, I'll be able to put these back the way they should be in about four days. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox Matthew?

What's User:ChrisGriswold/sandbox matthew? Doczilla 07:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot all about that. I was going to work on a more complete article about Matthew Cable that includes his time alive, rather than just his time as Matthew the Raven. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"This Was Horrible"

Chris,

If you're going to take Wikitruth's word on what the situation really was, then I'm not surprised your understanding of the facts is so negative.

In reality, it's been demonstrated that the pictures in question were stolen from a Swedish porn site. You have been trolled. Have a nice day. Nandesuka 16:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of time and energy was wasted going on about it on Wikipedia. I'm not part of Wikitruth but my impression is they were more concerned about the lack of due process than anything else. Please note that I posted nothing about that topic and that the Wikipedia accusation of "troll" is similar to the political accusation of "terrorist" or "pedophile." All three do exist in the world but the terms have become almost meaningless through abuse and misuse. Wyss 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's what bothered me. I went looking for the reasons for her swift dismissal - I notice that has been asked for on Jimmy Wales' userpage, but could find no clear explanation. If the pictures are fradulent, then it's good that she is gone, but I had so much difficulty finding anything that clearly explained the series of events in a positive light that it was extremely easy to believe Wikitruth. I don't know the background of the site; it comes across as well-organized in its documentation of its POV, and I found it so difficult to find another clearly-stated POV on the matter. I could very easily see the site losing a number of productive editors over a misunderstanding like this. I just felt like the productive, responsible editors on this site try to abide by and enforce the rules and processes of the site, but this supposedly productive editor was failed by the processes. There just really needs to be a prominent link to the eventual discovery of the pictures' source so that other editors do not get the wrong impression from a well-executed propaganda site. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's a hard situation for Wikipedia to deal with. The fact is that we're a somewhat chaotic organization that operates by consensus. Since the goal of a trolling campaign is to create drama and garner attention, it's not in Wikipedia's best interests to carefully document (and "enshrine") such behavior. But, as you've discovered, that leaves others free to define — and in Wikitruth's case, deceive people about — the debate. I don't see an easy solution to the problem. Nandesuka 18:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It should have been speedied and the contributing editor should have been blocked for a couple of days. In my humble opinion anyone with a mote of editorial experience here should have spotted a) the pictures were obviously of commercial quality and b) the likelihood of any girl posting a pic of her own readily identifiable face in that uhm, condition is way low (and even lower if she hasn't been paid cash in advance by the bye). Wikipedia totally failed on this one, replete with editors egging her on to post more pics in the guise of verifying her identity. Ick. As I've said before, lots of Wikipedia admins behave like trolls themselves. As for Wikitruth, I think they're more or less spot on in their commentary about Wikipedia but they do try to make their site entertaining and funny too and I glark the latter may have caused them to "run" with this one a bit too fast and loose. Wyss 14:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PublicGirlUK

You should be aware that Wikitruth is in general highly inaccurate and filled with users who have been banned or hit by ArbCom restrictions for their repeated POV pushing and other forms of disruption. In fact, it was confirmed by User:Tyrenius that PGUK was a troll and not the person in the pictures. You should either ask him for more details or check the ANI archive from a few days ago. JoshuaZ 16:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

See [1] Tyrenius 17:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you. I was heading for bed and I stayed up and read that site and I felt miserable for this person, and I just could not find what I needed to explain why this happened. Now I understand, and I feel much better. I'm still a little unclear about the sequence of events, but with important information about the situation buried amidst arguments or archived, it was very difficult for me to discern the truth. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Brainiac (comics) - Revision as of 11:55, 1 October 2006

Yesterday, you deleted from the above cited article/revision an image originally uploaded by me. Your reason stated was "Pictures from Who's Who are not fair-use". What I want to know is WHY I wasn't notified in any way, means, shape, or form -- or time for that matter -- about the matter?! There is nothing on my talk page! NOTHING! The change in policy (a little outlandish IMHO, but sei-la-vee!) is something you never notified me of. No word -- no notice -- nothing. Just summary deletion. Yes, the decision was made -- but why wasn't I told? -- Jason Palpatine 03:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (speak your mind | contributions)

I apologize. That's the first time I've speedy deleted something, and I didn't think to tell you. I've had images I've uploaded speedy deleted without my knowledge several times once they were orphaned and I had no idea, so I understand how you must feel. Again, I apologize. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris, can you please upload Emma's image on her diamond form?

Chris, I know you know a lot about comics and you have a lot of comics which you can scan, so can you please upload an image of Emma Frost on her diamond form? I think that image would look cool in her article, and also it would help people who haven't seen her on that form (including me). Thank you. ---Lord Hammu (Talk)

Sure, I'lll see what I can find. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Maestro merge revisited

Oops - thanks for the correction to the Maestro merge info on the WikiProject Comics noticeboard. My misunderstanding - I'm not sure how I misinterpreted that. Apologies. Won't happen again. --Mrph 07:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. You're doing good work. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Successor characters

As you probably know, the categorization of different version of the same comic book identity gives me headaches. Not just the naming, but the devotion of articles to them. Sometimes it makes sense (Dick Grayson became Nightwing and has had a thorough publishing and media presence as that character) and sometimes it doesn't (should the new Blue Beetle have his own article?). This is a phenmenon largely unique to comics; the closest things I could think of off the top of my head was The Doctor from Dr. Who and various Transformers characters, and even then the former the same character just played by different actors and the latter often entails using names just to preserve the trademark. There should probably be some guidelines proposed for this, but I wanted to hear your ideas first.

Looking at articles such as Flash (comics), Green Lantern, and Robin (comics) it's clear that the circumstamces can be different for each article (and this is even before we get into the issues of article length or character disambiguation to account for the same names used by different companies or concepts, which would lead into article splitting anyway). I think such articles should be reevaluated from the ground-up. Our first question, above characters and article names, is "What are we writing about?". At this level we are simply looking at the concept. For comics, this can entail both the main character and the comic or strip they star in. For example: The Flash is a DC superhero who runs fast and stars in the comic of the same name; also has appearances in other media. Green Lantern is a DC superhero with a superpowered ring that first appeared as a strip in All-American Comics and has thus starred in his own series; also makes appearances in other media. Robin is a DC superhero, a sidekick to Batman who has also appeared in his own adventures, both in comics and in other media. Then we move to the next level, where we being to make divisions and acknowledge the differences between the concepts. Captain America has always has his own series; his series and the character can be dealt with in the same article because he is the series. Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, Flash (kind of; it was Flash Comics but not necessarily a starring vehicle) and Green Lantern had their own features where they were the stars and clear protangonists; one again they are their series or feature. Robin however was a supporting character who later developed into his own property; thus we're following a different train here so we'll set him aside for now. Now, for successors, and here's where the real-world perspective comes in nicely; for all intents and purposes the Silver Age Flash and Green Lantern are unrelated concepts to the originals. Yes, later on we get Earth-2 and Crisis and so forth, but that's after a couple of years. When they start out, they are revamps of characters who haven't appeared in years, and all they have in common are the name and powers; their fictional histories are in a sense completely unrelated. Think classic Godzilla and lame 1998 Godzilla; their stories are not inherently connected to one another. They too star in their own features and later their own titles. At this point, should they be split into their own articles? Not necessarily. They clearly constitute their own sections in an article, but they have the names and basic concept and are still owned/published by the same company; only the trappings are different. So they still can be in the same article, discounting page length limits.

Now here's where it gets tricky. Subsequent Flashes and subsequent Green Lanterns are based on the Silver age versions, not the originals. They emerge from the new strips. Fair enough. but then you get stuff like Flash's former sidekick becoming the new Flash (and then later his sidekick) and Green Lantern becoming the antagonist of the new Green Lantern. At this point we start looking at individual characters. Wally West and Bart Allen have existed as creative concepts prior to being the main Flash one, so they get their own articles. Hal Jordan exists as a concept after being removed as the essence of the Green Lantern concept; he gets his own article. Alan Scott and Guy Gardner stopped being Green Lantern and had their own features; get their own articles. And so on. And then there's their importance outside of being unique characters: Barry Allen has become an example for many who read comics of a character death that sticks, and he has become the "patron saint" of DC for readers. Jason Todd (before his resurrection) was notable for the divided opinion on the character regarding his viability as the new Robin, as well as the resulting phone poll. In these cases, Barry Allen and Jason Todd probably deserve their own articles, but I wouldn't say it's set in stone. it's dependent on how much the concepts of Barry Allen and Jason Todd mean in real life, which the phone vote where readers could call in to decide the fate of the character pushing Todd more to a "yes". However, thinking along these lines, Jay Garrick does not merit his own article: he has always been the Flash and from a conceptual level he is a still a part of the Flash concept. It's the original ititeration of the character they trott out from on a regular basis. Appearances in other comics aside, he can be stil be dealt with in the Flash article. After all, characters of all sorts make appearances in other comics anyway.

Let's get back to Robin. Supporting character concept that becomes starring character. Has a presence in poular culture, ranging from appearances in movies and TV to Wertham's analysis in Seduction of the Innocent. You can write an article about that seperate from the main Batman concept, no problem. Now individuals: Dick Grayson became Nightwing and became primarily a part of the Teen Titans concept--own article. Jason Todd came back as the Red Hood--own article. Tim Drake was created to be the new Robin and thus became the Robin that stars in the Robin comic title, which to me says he should not be a separate article. Additionally, since this is fiction, biographies aren't the primary concern. Thus I would suggest the seperate Grayson and Todd article not focus equally on their time as Robin and their subsequent adventures; after all, we are looking to justify why they should be their own seperate articles. Dick Grayson was Robin for over forty years, and is Robin in certain interpretations in popular culture; that can be dealt with in the Robin article.

Now we get to naming. if there's a clear name that seperates them from the original concept, that helps. Dick Grayson became Nightwing, so we call the article Nightwing. Ah, but DC used Nightwing for a completely unrelated character previously. As I see currently Dick Grayson is its own page but Nightwing is about the various characters named that. But the Grayson Nightwing, descended from the Robin concept which in turn is descended from the Batman series, and the Nightwing from the Superman series are two different concepts. So we create articles, disambiguated accordingly, for the Dick Grayson Nightwing and the Superman Nightwing (which could probably be placed together in an article with Flamebird anyway). The concepts, not the names, determine the content of the articles.

So my point is that when dealing with successor characters, we go back to the very basicconcept itself and ask ourselves, "What are we writing about? Why does this article exist in the first place?" Then following hierarchies of division like I have laid out, we determine where to split and where to merge. Of course this is excluding article length. I feel a large part of the issue is dealing with character biographies. When it ocmes to merging succesor character articles, we shouldn't refrain from stripping down the bios to the barest of essential. Because ultimately it's not the character itself that's important, but what that character adds to the understanding of the greater concept. WesleyDodds 14:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Attn: ChrisGriswold

You recently deleted information I had concerning an unmade Batman Beyond movie in the articles for Catwoman and Epilogue JLU episode. I added the source for the Catwoman section, but for Epilogue I made a note for people to look in External Links for the source.

Now, I wanted to know, why you didn't just ask me on my talk page to list my source (as opposed to deleting). I hate to to break it to you, but being a long time Wikipedian doesn't mean you're right and others are wrong. So, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't abuse your authority and talk next time you need me to improve/fix something I do on a page. 71.115.210.70

An editor removed your additions once because they were uncited, and you reverted without comment. I reverted again, also citing like of sources for the removal. I have no more authority than you. I don't think my time as a Wikipedian or edit count make me any better than you in terms of authority or as a person. I do have more experience than you, so I feel a little more comfortable making some edits than you might. You are always free to question another editor's actions as you are doing now. If you want to re-add that information, you need to bring it up on the talk pages for those articles because two editors so far have called those additions into question. Assume good faith.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it's me, I'm using another computer though. Anyway, I did as I was asked, and provided a source. So, why was it removed this time. 71.115.210.70

Don't ask me; I didn't remove it again. You may want to register. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• My apology, for the mistake. True, you might have more experience. That still doesn't mean everything you do is right. You're just as prone to mistakes as the rest of us are. 71.115.210.70

More so. You've never had to clean up after my late-night half-asleep article overhauls. The majority of the work is good, but then there are all those little instance of misspelled or missing words. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings ChrisGriswold

It has been quite some time since we've interacted however I remember a brief period of joint collaboration on the DC Multiverse and related pages, and enjoyed your contributions there. As I'm becoming more active I just wanted to drop you a line to say how impressed I am with your consistent presence throughout these and related sets of pages. Regards. NetK 04:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks alot. I am glad to see you getting more involved. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics Cleanup. It's a cleanup collaboration among committed editors. We're working on Wolverine (comics) right now. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Biz"

I wouldn't say I really know anyone in the comic business. (Okay, one, but he hasn't worked for DC in years.) I'm just fortunate enough that a communications professor at my university is well connected with comics professionals. Thanks to him, we got to tour DC in New York last March. Paul Levitz talked with us for over an hour before someone else showed us around. (It was a strange feeling knowing that somewhere nearby sat the super secret, carefully guarded first copies of Infinite Crisis #7.) The next month, we had a conference call with Marv Wolfman. The communications professor teaches a course on Comics as Communication. This past week, they had a conference call with Mark Waid. I had to miss it because I was teaching a class of my own at that time, but next week the Comics Club will have a conference call with Levitz. Last March, Levitz was great. He really inspired my son and made him feel good about the prospect of going to work for people like him. Doczilla 04:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that should be two, not just one, although the second one is not at all on the same scale as Bissette. A comics shop dealer I know has self-published his own comic off and on for the last twenty years. He was the first to recommend Comic Buyers Guide to me. Later, Howard Chaykin spoke well of it too. Doczilla 04:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Help

How would one go about proposing and starting a new Wikimedia project?.

I expect this page is relevant: Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects, also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide Equendil Talk 15:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean a WikiProject; I mean on the level of WikiQuote. How was that started?

• Crikey, now you're asking. What you got planned? Hang on I'll sort you out. Steve block Talk 18:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiTrivia. Organized like WikiQuote. Every bit of trivia has to be cited. Trivia section can be moved from Wikipedia and the articles can link to the sister project. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, okay. Hang on again then. Mind you, two eyes are better than one. Current proposals are at m:Proposals for new projects, it's all done on meta, see. The proposal policy is at m:New project policy. Hope that helps. See who spots a similar proposal first. Steve block Talk 18:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• m:WikiBrain is the closest I can find. Steve block Talk 18:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh man. I see it's also being suggested as WikiDump. Similar, but it's essentially everything that's not fit for Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• all that said, you have seen, um, avoid trivia sections? Steve block Talk 18:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have. In a separate project, trivia can be used appropriately, while still adhering to Wikipedia's rules: Trivia items must be NPOV and cited.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of using your infobox

Hello, I'm new to wikipedia and I saw you posted in a couple talk pages that I did. I'm currently trying to make my info page about me a little more interesting. I like your infobox and I'm thinking of borrowing heavily from it. Would you be terribly offended? --Mr Vain 19:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, after further research I found out that what I was looking at was userboxes. I read an article on how to make them. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Mr Vain 19:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional lesbians

Because fictional LGBT characters (and by media subcategories) already exists. With regards to some fictional characters, gender and sexuality can be blurry (e.g. some would argue that Willow is lesbian-identified bisexual, that some bisexual characters who are never seen in recent years to be attracted to men are in fact lesbian etc.) This is also the reason why the larger category already exists, so that you can read in the article the what the character's gender is and everything it says about their sexuality before making a definite conclusion as to whether they are gay, bi, transgender or whatever else someone can be. :) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 17:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool; I couldn't find the CFD.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nominated for Adminship

Good luck. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! When you're ready, be sure to list it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA

Have a think about your answer to question one. Do you need admin tools to do them? People are looking to see what you will do with the tools, otherwise they will decide you don't need them. Steve block Talk 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I appear to have only clicked the first two links it offered. Will revisit. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, consider the use of rollback when fighting anon additions of fanon. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

How specific should I be? This is very new to me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the current version is better because it demonstrates how you'll use the tools. And it's probably better than my suggestion because stating fanon would probably make you look like you have a POV to push. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As an editor just pointed out, I have not been as involved in AfD/TfD/CfD for the past few weeks; I hope that doesn't hurt me too badly. I don't know how to respond to something like this. I think it would just look like I am currying votes by suddenly becoming active in these areas again. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your lack of activity in XfD is going to kill the nom. You have a lot of other plusses. I think that once the RfA is up you just have to let it fly. Debating each vote is pointless and IMO only reflects badly on the candidate. You've gotten quite a few supports in the last couple of hours. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even think about responsing to the comments. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

When you requested an editor review, I hoped that meant you would soon be up for adminship. I'm glad to see that is the case, and I'm confident it will go in your favor. Best of luck. Doczilla 00:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your words. Thanks so much. I have thought about it for a while, but I wasn't sure I was ready yet. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Checkuser request

Sure I am, thanks for letting me know about it ;) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 20:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen the checkuser result? Well, well, what a surprise... ¬¬ —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It was just unmistakeably him. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Right, I think we got it all. Good job. Don't know how you work so quick. Steve block Talk 12:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's like at the end of the Matrix; it's all ones and zeros to me. But, really: I work fast? I just cut and paste quickly. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks fast to me. Must be getting old. Steve block Talk 13:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities

Could you explain your not-vote here, even if it's just a "per (whomever)"? Ideally, that will be closed with an evaluation of the arguments instead of a headcount, and it always helps in that case to explain your reasoning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I'm not sure why that's all I wrote. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)