User talk:BOZ/Archive 2010

Needing a GI Joe page move undone
BOZ, Marcus Brute moved List of G.I. Joe ARAH characters to List of G.I. Joe characters without discussion. I'm unable to revert it and posted it to WP:Requested Moves saying it was an undiscussed move, but instead of reverting the move like he should have, Anthony Appleyard listed the reversion as a controversial request. Could you help me out on this, please?--Ridge Runner (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Infobox artist
Sorry to revert your edit, but there has been a request that all changes be discussed first on the talk page. Best Regards. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Juggernaut again
Hi, BOZ. Happy New Year! Wish I could begin it on a more positive note: Would you entertain page-protecting Juggernaut (comics) once again? Asgardian and David A are edit warring, with the latter attempting to remove or edit Asgardian's continuous insertion of his disputed and non-consensus edit. Oy, oy, oy.

By the way, had you noticed that the main Steve Ditko fan site, Blake Bell's Ditko Looked Up, appears to be gone? I left a not on the Ditko talk page asking if anyone knew whether it had been archived.-- Tenebrae (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. Note this: . Note that I've asked Tenebrae three times about removing valid information and to actually assist, instead of making blind reversions. Frankly, this is more than a little belligerent, given I broke down the edits in the ES for everyone's benefit. It also unfortunate given that the original, problematic editor appears to have departed and DrBat took your advice. By your own logic and actions, however, Tenebrae should also have been warned.

Unfortunately, I will also have to mention this - and the abrupt and unilateral action re: a month long ban - in my submission to the ANI. I have to say that this action was ill advised. The main focus, however, will be - and should have been prior to this - dealing with the conduct of David A.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, I hadn't noticed about the Ditko site, mostly because I don't know if I've ever been there before? Was already working on a similar situation with Dormammu, so thanks for letting me know about this one, and let me know about any other hot spots you notice. BOZ (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a side note... but a facepalm may be in order. Xavexgoem just gave Asgardian a 3 week based on the AN/ANI thread and a pair of posts to David A's talk page. - J Greb (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I asked BOZ for the DOrmammu protection myself, but don't get the Juggernaut one. I had almost completely lost interest, as I didn't have a big problem sicne there were no major actual errors, and mostly let Asgardian do whatever he wanted on that one.
 * Also, I don't get the facepalm? What's wrong with Xavexgoem banning Asgardian for 3 weeks? It's very low given the extent of the offenses I'll admit (I obviously strongly believe that anyone who uses sockpuppets should be permanently banned from any encyclopedia editing as the main requirement should be not to be a deliberate liar), but he said that it would turn longer if A continued, so maybe it will finally be enough to make him clean up his act? Dave (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BOZ -- thanks for your efforts on this. I'm sorry Asgardian's actions are taking up so much of your time when I know you, like me, would just like to get down to the business of writing and editing articles. I appreciate &mdash; I'm sure J and the rest of longtimers do as well. For my part, I'll take this month and try to work with Asgardian on his blanket reverts paragraph and paragraph and see I can make any progress with him that way. Wish me luck. With kind regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm so tired right now, from other things, that it's just driving me out of my mind.  :) J Greb has been trying to work on that as well, and I think there was some sort of progress... but I digress. BOZ (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * With the risk of sounding smarmy, I second the thanks. It actually is nice of you to spend time on this. Most people wouldn't. Dave (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Juggernaut
Greetings. As I've been unblocked, I would now like to move on to resolving the other issues, which still require discussion. I note your comments here. Yes, while on a technical level you can do this as an administrator, I believe that it was handled incorrectly. What you really needed to do here is have a good look at the Edit Summmary, which would indicate:

1 - David A was not in conflict with me or for that matter anyone on that article. It had been some days since he last edited the article.

2 - In an attempt to keep the peace, I laid down all the changes edit by edit in an effort to spell out what I was doing. This is all in the Edit History of the article. You can also see my constant efforts to speak with Ghidorah linked on the Talk Page, and there were many attempts. In return all we got were blind reverts and almost no commmunication.

3 - Why was it permissible for Tenebrae to make a blind reversion to an inferior version of the article when DrBat was warned not to? What should have happened is someone should have encouraged him to make changes by increments as I had done, and have the Edit Summary reflect this. As I've noted repeatedly, I asked him three times not to delete valid information and to by all means make technical changes, but not to blindly revert. Thankfully, it looks like he's taken that on board.

4 - I would humbly request that you base minimum unblock Dave. I would also like to be unblocked if possible, as there was nothing but cooperation from myself on that article in recent times, and an attempt to resolve the issues.

I like you, and admire the fact that you make an active effort to keep the peace. We could all, however, be not so much better editors but smarter ones. There's a level on which we only sometimes play on, and really need to be there all the time. For example, I think you shouldn't have made that comment (something like "I don't want to hear it"); Tenebrae shouldn't have posted that Barnstar which could to some be construed as gloating (and was not a pleasant task at any rate); I shouldn't have made a follow-up comment to one of Dave's tirades that only served to fuel the fire ("Yup, there you go"); Dave shouldn't have called me XYZ and so on. I suppose the general rule is if we have to think about it twice, then we probably shouldn't type it. As I said, better, and I will certainly try.

Finally, I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be contacting Wikipedia and presenting a case (with a series of examples) that relates to administrators and their conduct. I really feel - and this is NOT personal - that there are too many instances of inexperienced users exercising their administrative power without correctly assessing the situation. I've seen it done several times now, and while most actions have been overturned there is a recurring pattern (also note that you are not the prime example - there is another administrator whose actions have been of real concern and have been questioned several times) and it needs discussion.

There will be no venom in this, and I would have no objection to you commenting. I think you are a fine editor (and quite likely a fine person if I ever met you), but feel that you and few others could benefit from having a mentor who acts as a senior administrator and is a sounding board on all major decisions.

It may come to nothing, but at least I will have been heard.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I really wish there was some sort of "senior admin" - not as a sort of outranking officer or anything, but more of an experienced person(s) that the rest of us can go to freely for advice and help. Maybe if there were more levels of adminship which denote experience. For example, when I post a question or whatnot to the admin noticeboard, I may get a response, maybe two, but it comes from a passerby who - while trying to honestly help - may themselves lack the practical experience to know how to help in my specific situation. So there is merit in that idea, someone who is willing to act as a sounding board from those of us who want/need one; I have needed such advice more than once. The whole admin concept could use a reform, so I say go for it.


 * When I said "I don't want to hear it; you both need to knock it off.", I know I came off a bit harshly, and I do apologize for that. I think I was gettting frustrated at that point with all the back-and-forth. But to be quite frank, I didn't want to hear it. I really don't want to hear it, from you or Dave or anyone. Edit warring, in my opinion, is an unacceptable non-solution to dealing with editing issues. It's not justifiable, because it's totally unnecessary. All I can really do is warn, protect, and block - and I haven't blocked anyone yet who wasn't a serial vandal. Is the other user purely vandalizing the article? Let me or another admin know, and we'll warn or block if there already was enough warning. Is it merely a content dispute? Take it to the talk page, or article RFC/3rd opinion - if that doesn't work, try mediation. Is it a conduct issue, like you say? Take that editor to RFC/U or even ArbCom or if the behavior is truly serious, try AN/I. You may feel I'm wrong, but to continue fighting over content with David, Tenebrae, DrBat, or whoever is your latest nemesis will simply continue onwards until you decide to let it go. Will article quality suffer if you don't fight to keep every little change you like or get rid of every one you don't? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not the end of the world if it does.


 * With regards to the Juggernaut article, perhaps it was a bit of a tack-on. But I was also considering the not-too-distant history of the article, so it's not like the addition was totally out of the blue. I'll mull that one over. And since there's no burning need for you to edit that one in a hurry, I'll take more than a few hours to make a decision this time. ;) I think Dormammu is going to have to stay put for now (unless some neutral party can give me a compelling reason) as that conflict was ongoing at the time and prolonged, and it really is my opinion that you and Dave could use a cooling off period and a chance to work together. Thinking about it, I have an idea that, if you guys can agree to try it out, I'll remove the ban on both articles and never attempt it again (with regards to you).


 * May I make a suggestion? Have you ever looked at Requests for mediation? I did that with Gavin.collins regarding a D&D article, and while it did not resolve our overall conflict, it did improve the article and we both understood each other a lot better and our roles at Wikipedia as a result. Take a look at some of the open cases and see if there's anything they're doing there that you think might help. If you and Dave agree to get involved in that, I'll go to the ends of the earth to help facilitate it for you. The only thing you need to do first is make an honest attempt at some form of WP's dispute resolution process (RFC, 30, or informal mediation) first, as skipping that step results in the number one reason for a case to be rejected - if you have an article on which you've already attempted one of these processes with no success, and the dispute continued, we can go to Mediation now. I advise you to think about it; I've mentioned it before, and now I'm strongly suggesting it. BOZ (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BOZ, those are all good points and I'm glad we've had a meeting of the minds. As I said, you'd be welcome to offer input on the whole administrator issue. It will, however, take me a little time to source the right place to post and then compile the case. Beyond that, yes, if it comes to it I will try mediation with Dave, although there's still the nagging question of whether his medical condition is the cause his outbursts and reluctance to let go. I think that one is quite a chestnut and would need some very experienced and uninvolved administrators to rule on. We'll see. In the first instance, I'll have a crack at trying to speak with Dave again regarding the invalid Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. If there's anything else, let me know.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. - For a light-hearted change of pace, I might even tackle a D & D module. :) Asgardian (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We've had a lot of fun and success with those module articles! Look at all the GAs...
 * As for David's medical condition, I think it's best to let him be the judge of how much it gets in the way of what he wants to do - he seems to understand full well the difficulties it causes for him. If you decide to give dispute resolution a try, and he agrees to it, like I say, I'll work with you both as much as I can. Here's my recommendation. On Talk:Dormammu, start an RFC titled something like "Are company-provided in-universe comic book character guides valid sources for statistics?" or whatever, explain your case succinctly (like, 3-4 sentences, although links to other discussions are OK) and see what you get. David, if you or anyone else wants to set up the RFC instead, that's equally welcome. If that fails to get any kind of consensus, and if David agrees, I'll help you set up a Request for Mediation.
 * If David's condition really is to be seen as a disability, then it is not something he should be punished for, but rather help given to him if he seeks and so desires (although if it's any kind of professional help he needs, that is way beyond what WP can offer). Also, I really think you should cut down on referring to his condition in a seemingly derogatory sense - it makes you seem like you are mocking his condition, which he probably cannot help, and it makes you look pretty bad. It's like going on a hike and complaining that your friend who uses a cane is too slow; you knew his limitations going in, but instead of working around his handicap or helping him, you taunt him for it. If you really want to keep David enraged at you and ready to fight, I'm sure bringing up his condition at every turn will work. BOZ (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. We'll let people's behaviour speak for themselves. Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and my favourite module is Tomb of Horrors. I was always fascinated by that one and the ways in which careless adventurers could be killed. I even theorized at one point on "micro-solutions" to evading the deadly traps (from memory there were three: the sliding corridor into flame; the green slime and the Juggernaut (no pun intended)). There's even a surefire way to nail the Demi-Lich and lose no one. Perhaps I should publish an on-line guide called "Beating the Tomb of Horrors".

00:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! You can always give it a try - thinking outside the box can (in theory) allow you to beat just about anything in D&D. Now, if you really are serious about tackling some articles about modules, I could work up a short list of ones that have the most potential and need the most work... :) BOZ (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I played the A's; D's; G's; I's; S's (my favourites) and the sequels that came out years later. Also the W's (Lost Temple of Tharizdun?). Truth be known, with a little research you can get the lowdown on most any module. Hope that helps. Asgardian (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)::About the handicap::
 * About the handicaps, it's not fun to discuss all the time, but for Wikipedia purposes they make it hard to filter, lie, occasionally to hold my temper, and turn me more obsessive. I have to fight down these kinds of impulses much harder than an average person. Deliberate deceit is also something rather alien to me, and something I in addition find ethically distasteful, so that easily sets me ff. Saying one thing and doing another over and over is not a good way to reason with me. People who are upfront and listen to logic without bias will find me far more agreeable than those who aren't.
 * About Dormammu. The thing is that we already had a talk discussion and consensus that this version was fine. Then Asgardian went to the general comics talk instead to get another consensus. There they gave me specific instructions about what should be deleted, and that a disclaimer should be inserted before using handbook references, which I did. And Asgardian does not simply restrict himself to deleting these only. The vast majority of references he deletes have nothing to do with the handbook, and he inserts personal opinions such as "considerable power" or "deemed worthy to challenge" instead (if nothing else is available, and they have plenty of validation, fine, I'm not innocent of evaluations either, but to replace an actual quote with a contradiction doesn't make any sense) which makes it very hard for me to take his intents as sincere. It would also help if I could actually trust that once something is cleared up (such as removing certain parts according to J_Greb's and Emperor's instructions) he won't simply return in 1-3 months to delete everything anyway. Dave (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey David, I understand the tendency to get frustrated in difficult situations, so I can somewhat empathize. I know that, for the specific case of Dormammu and others, there has been discussion on the article's talk page as well as on the comics project talk page. Has there been an actual RFC before? I.e., one that invites comment from uninvolved individuals? That's probably quite a bit different than what you have tried before, and although I can't guarantee any specific resolution from it, you may get something that gives one or both of you more perspective on the issues you are dealing with (often enough being too close to a situation blinds you to the reality of it). If you'd like, I'd be glad to help you set one up. BOZ (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Asgardian created a query for uninvolved editors over at the comics talk, which I made adjustments according to, but then he went and deleted almost everything again anyway. Dave (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, the comics project talk page will have semi-involved editors because we are all dealing with the same issues. Would you be willing to give it one more go at the Dormammu talk page, an RFC there to invite people other than "the usual suspects" to comment on the issue? If you've never done that before, take a look around at Requests for comment and see what's up there. I'll gladly set one up for you if you like. In fact, I may just get the ball rolling on my own anyway. BOZ (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What you have to understand is that I'm tired, and frustrated. I don't have the energy to do the same issues forever year in and year out like Asgardian does, I simply can't let an inaccuracy go while still literally finding it painful to continue. I find it very unfair that I have had consensus with me in two different instances, and now we have to go at it again, and again, and again. I have other things to do than repeating myself over and over, and even if it leads anywhere he will probably just ignore it again, or use a sock, or whatever, and you will let him continue, because he's successfully trying to ingratiate himself. I don't have the energy... at all. He's wearing me and others down, and seems like a lawyer able to enjoy doing this forever, just like other users here have been wearing me down with unreasonable biased circular fanatic pointlessness hundreds or thousands of times over, and I really don't see the big problem with the page as it is if censoring most references is the alternative. Dave (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw: Could you get this ip-checked, to see if the user is a sockpuppet to anybody. It's "traitoR" spelled backwards, and he/she suddenly appeared to make an inaccurate edit on the Ultimate Nullifier and nothing more, which is more than a tad suspicious. Dave (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have checkuser privileges, so I'm afraid I can't do anything for you there; CheckUser is the place to go.
 * Well, when you're tired and frustrated, you can either give up and move on, or keep fighting the good fight. ;) Tell you what, I'll start an RFC on the Dormammu talk page, and you can respond there only if you want to; otherwise we'll just watch and see what happens. When I have a little bit of time I'll review what's been going down on the article and its talk page. BOZ (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Asgardian has now appeared at my talk page to "advise" against putting a complaint against said sockpuppet, which does seem odd, since I initially did not suspect him here. Although I don't know how to structure complaints in a way that gets through, so there isn't much I can do about it without help.
 * In any case he's started to delete any accurate "extent of power" (or other) references he doesn't like again, among other things over at Doctor Strange, or more specifically he seems to follow me around to delete any ones I create month in and month out, whereas I always keep his (or maybe it's just overlapping character foci, but it doesn't feel that way when he pops up or feels the need to interfere everywhere just to bombard me with disturbances). Meaning: He's apparently not ever going to mitigate or change his behaviour in the slightest. Dave (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, "slightest" I'll give as he moved the Celestials reference elsewhere, but even in cases we do get a solution, such as Mjolnir it takes such unnecessarily long time to start getting a compromise. Doctor Strange is still cleaned though. Dave (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
...There's nothing like print sources, I always say. They just seem to be better researched and more solid, since the writer knows that if he or she gets something wrong, you can't just go online and fix it. I also just added what seems like important background to Dick Ayers early career, including his confirmation of his first Kirby, inking ... but I'd forgotten to sign in! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

More eyes... again
Hate to download this on you BOZ, but I could use some input. And it covers the ongoing.

See Nova (Frankie Raye), Talk:Nova (Frankie Raye), and Celestial (comics).

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In a related note, do you think this should be added as one of the examples to Requests for comment/Asgardian? It feels like a thinly-veiled threat to me. DrBat (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno. He tends to do that all the time, but I don't know if it's due to threats or simply practice regulations about "warning before making a complaint". Dave (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say it's more of Asgardian not wanting another Abomination/Rhino topic ban, as is currently ongoing at Dormammu/Juggernaut. BOZ (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If it gets any worse at Celestial (comics), it may be a good idea to drop the ban on Juggernaut as requested, and move it to that article. We'll see. As for Nova, that seems a bit like me to be fighting over whether apples are better than oranges. BOZ (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be posting too many notes here as you receive far too many now as it is, but just quickly: the Celstials issue was settle by myself two days ago. All anyone had to do was check my Contributions, as I did move the relevant section as promised. Nova is fine. I've already agreed that neither image is ideal, and am sourcing another.

Finally, I'm letting you know as a courtesy, based on the comment made here (it is linked) ; what I saw going at Galactus yesterday and a general inability to grasp some basic points outlined at Talk pages ; I'm reintroducing an action re:  David A. Unfortunately, this is where the issues originate, and this is what needs to be resolved. I've tried and tried to reason with this editor, but he can't/won't acknowledge even basci issues. The MC may just be the telling factor, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. You don't have to reply, as I'm just advising you as a courtesy.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, David A has been very willing to compromise by adjusting the wording to find a solution that everyone can accept, and does not make major intrusions, simply minor adjustments, flow, or accuracy-corrections, but is regardless blindly censored. Whereas you completely ignore my Talk points beyond in all seriousness proclaiming that you and not Marvel's editorial department have the right to decide what's in continuity or not, and to repeatedly censor the references you personally dislike once again.

Meanwhile your complaints page continues to fill out, and I particularly agree about the new comment that the sheer neverending scale of the problem you are is extremely hard to convey to an outsider who hasn't had to deal with you several hundred times in a row. Oh, and you also contradicted your own insincere "tsk-tsk disapproving" statement about not contacting BOZ. "Regards" and "Please think this through" Asgardian. At this point I'm halfway willing to simply write you off as an Encyclopedia Dramatica troll having a go with Wikipedia, as you show much of the behaviour and attitude patterns. Dave (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Galactus and the Cosmic Entities sections
Given that these seems to be turning into the usual problem of censoring any accuracy adjustment I make no matter how trivial, or censoring any contradicting information, and (to repeat from the column above) I have been very willing to compromise by adjusting the wording to find a solution that everyone can accept, in each case. I would like some unbiased outside input to clear it up, and give me some input I can actually trust, so I'm asking you, and Tenebrae as you are editors whose judgement I trust. To me subjectively the two involved editors there seem too severely biased to be willing to compromise in the slightest, and I'm tired of going around in circles about it. (Meaning: I need someone with a clear head, and who isn't cultishly devoted to the character, to evaluate and tell me what is the appropriate thing to do for me here) Dave (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd love to help, but I'm not sure what you're asking me to look at, specifically. Is there a discussion ongoing that you can point to? BOZ (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify the situation, there have been various repeated discussions going on about Galactus for quite a long while (including some recent ones at the Cosmic Entities and ModbbOne's talk pages), that usually end with that I've provided lots of contradiction references, and on some occasions even taken the time to dig up the quotes, but the inaccurate facts are nonetheless maintained, or the contradictions censored to only allow a viewpoint of absolute "yay pump-up endorsement", whereas I always keep the references they like, and adjust my sentences to incorporate complaints about lack of neutrality.
 * TheBalance and MobbOne have a history of repeatedly inserting that the "power cosmic that Galactus is a living embodiment of is the greatest force in the universe" based on an Annihilation crossover book that didn't say anything about being an incarnation (the "force" has also been mentioned as simply absorbing cosmic energy from stars in conjunction with the Silver Surfer), and stated that there were more potent forces around;
 * Or that "Galactus is the living embodiment of the entire previous universe, and nothing else whatsoever came out of the union, i.e. the Big Bang never happened" based on an origin story that very explicitly shows Galactus and the Sentience of the previous universe to be separate entities when Galactus incubation cocoon is sent out in the universe (this is even the image displayed at the page, that clearly shows this text);
 * Or censor any references to the Thanos story wherein Galactus' string of serial-genocide is very clearly stated as the actions of an absolutely conceited egomaniac, who is capable of feeding on other energy sources than living beings (also stated that he can feed on stars in the first Secret Wars), and is an individual who is perfectly capable of holding conversation with his "food", but blatantly disregards his social contract as Thanos worded it;
 * Or that "Galactus embodies one third of everything that exists," despite that he has simply been stated as the balancing factor between the entities Eternity and Death, and as a strictly physical entity by Mark Gruenwald's Quasar series (who wrote Galactus' origin story), i.e. not as an embodiment of anything, but rather as a function, also ignoring all the other high abstract entities that have appeared, that the most recent Guardians of the Galaxy reference is that all abstracts are simply "simplifications" of one single Universal consciousness (i.e. Eternity and Death are simply two expressions of the same entity, and Galactus isn't a balance of anything), or for that matter thew times he has been explicitly described as an "insect" compared to Eternity (Mark Millar's Fantastic Four for example) or lesser entities than Eternity such as the Beyonder (the first Secret Wars series), not remotely as an equal. And that the handbooks also have never referred to Galactus as anything beyond a physical entity fulfilling an extremely important function, or even referred to Eternity as Galactus parent, who was reborn during the Big Bang, not merged with him;
 * Or insert that Galactus teleported an entire (somehow by machinery already moved) galaxy even though the reference "Rom: Spaceknight" issue itself was kept vague whether he teleported it or a planet within it, and later issues directly cotnradicted it, by saying that (only) the planet (Galador) was moved away from its usual galaxy, and that the handbooks have also repeated this when describing the event, and not mentioned any galaxy moving;
 * Or insert that "Galactus' solar-system sized former home is the universe's greatest energy source", taken from a story wherein Reed Richard's said "might", the spaceship itself was destroyed, the energy absorbed by Doctor Doom, and then shown as having far less power than a "Cosmic Cube"/Beyonder, i.e. not remotely the greatest energy source, and the ship in question is not even around anymore;
 * Or for that matter deleting the slightest adjustment I make to the page, not matter how tiny, such as clarifying that Galactus explicitly had lots of help from Doctor Strange when restoring himself from an explosion that destroyed his body (later occasions have shown Galactus getting killed from damage).
 * Meaning, at this point it to me it very genuinely feels like I'm talking to two fanatic scientologists who will censor anything they don't like, no matter how factual, and insert phrases of greater overblown endorsement than anything that Marvel's editorial department or the books themselves has ever remotely acknowledged or even the references they use can support. I freely admit that I have a bias of disliking the thematics when a writer uses a character to justify genocide, yes, but for one I don't dislike the character as such any more than say Dormammu, whose motivation in-story is to slaughter all conceptual entities, take control of reality, and turn all life and afterlife into an eternal torture camp (nice guy...), and I have nonetheless tried to make accurately presented in terms of extablished power scale. It is just a fictional character after all.
 * However, I do have a major problem with when certain fans get so overenthusiastic, one-sided, and overly protective in their endorsements that it turns completely unfounded, misleading, and censoring of anything that contradicts their preferences/claims as less than absolute story notions. They tend to completely miss the point about the way I think no matter if I try to show the courtesy of explaining it (as I again tried to do in MobbOne's Talk and the Cosmic Entities sections), and start to talk about how great their character is, rather than acknowledge the contradictions, or try to tone them down to nothingness "he encountered this character" mentions, so there is no middle-way it seems.
 * Where you come in is that this also means that I'm so jaded at this point that I can't take almost anything they said as non-insanely biased (or at least not as long as they continue to censor the tinies detail), so I need some sensible outside input about what I should do? Should I take the (considerable) time to dig up quotes and issue numbers again, only to have these ignored and censored once more, or what should I do? Or could you even find the time to help Tenebrae check it over and find a neutral solution? To me this is the bad side of the character articles in a nutshell situation. If complete devotees gather they will easily censor the page from any references they dislike, ignore arguments and contradictory quotes, and simply state that adjusting for accuracy and allowing both sides of the issue constitutes an "edit-war" that they of course have no part of... right. This "I own the pages" thing was going on over a year ago, after I finally lost all energy of repeating myself over and over in the Talk, only to have it ignored, and I have no enthusiasm about entering it again, but also severely dislike when Wikipedia is used for some sort of one-sided propaganda purposes, especially if it connects to just rationalising genocide. Dave (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm really not sure what to do about that situation. I mean, if you've got editor(s) who are going to do their darndest to keep an article the way they like it, there's only so much an admin can do directly. That's a situation that's not unique to Galactus. I could protect the page if there is edit warring, but if as you say talk page discussion resolves nothing then we would be back to where we started when the protection runs out. If you've said it all before and it all got ignored, I wouldn't want you to waste your time on the article's talk page. I know you've said you don't see a point in using mediation with Asgardian, but have you considered using the dispute resolution process with these other users? I don't really have any comments specific to what sort of content the page should contain, as I have no real preference in that matter. BOZ (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But this is about blatant severely biased censorship and misinformation, not about preference. To me the entire point of Wikipedia is to maintain as many (referenced) sides of an issue as possible. I don't censor the ones they prefer, and have even inserted several of them myself. I feel a strong fundamental wrongness to this type of thing going on. Couldn't you and Tenebrae (or someone else you suggest) go in and mention some sort of compromise to keep it somewhat balanced, or maybe adjust my edits in a way that you consider acceptable? Dave (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't usually like to jump into content disputes unless I have some kind of idea what to expect, but I could take a look when I have the time - which may or may not be soon. I don't have access to most of the comics in question (and for those which I do own, I'd have to dig them out and take a look), so I can only go by what you say you see there and what they say they see there, and if I don't remember what happened in that particular comic I'll have to go and look it up to be on a more even ground. Also, in some cases it's a question of interpretation; are you "right", are they "right", or is there no "right answer"? It's a situational thing, I guess. Your "censorship" might be their "keeping out irrelevant details", your "misinformation" might be their "misinterpretation" - I can't know that until I've seen the source material myself. That's why I don't ususally get involved unless I know what to expect. I can tell you that I have most of Byrne's run on FF, and a large chunk of the 1990s Silver Surfer series if that helps; can't think of what else off the top of my head you might need me to look at. BOZ (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see it more as allowing both sides of an issue and keeping things as reliable as possible, but there have been an awful lot of very incoherent discussions in the old Galactus Talk archives, and you can see the beginnings of more recent ones at User_talk:Mobb_One and Talk:Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics), which I haven't had the energy to fully commit to yet until I think that it actually may be worth it, but the quickest way to see what the matters/issue references of content are in this case, you can see here (if you have read the Byrne FF run you will probably remember that the Skrull prosecutor really was spitting) and here.
 * For starters these images clearly show Doctor Strange helping Galactus in reconstituting himself: http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/2990/death48gz.jpg http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4605/death57vs.jpg http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/811/death61jw.jpg http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/6421/death73ur.jpg and this clearly shows the sentience of the previous Universe to be separate from Galactus when it propels him away from itself during the Big Bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Galan-galactus.jpg I could start finding or uploading more specific scans as you ask for them. Dave (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Trial of Reed Richards was definitely a classic. :)  I vaguely remember the frothing Skrull prosecutor - mad with rage at the being who had killed so many Skrulls.
 * I see "I try to reconstitude Galactus and the otehrs before it's too late" as Strange fights Death in the first image, and then in the fourth image Galactus is back and the Surfer and Nova wonder if it was Galactus's power that saved them and reassembled them, while Strange smiles knowingly. I'm with you there; Strange clearly helped Galactus restore himself (or at least tried to help).
 * On the "birth of the universe" picture, it is clear that the rocketing starship is flying away from something - some big orangey-yellow mass of energy (the Big Bang, presumably), but wheter the sentience of the universe is located in the energy, or is with the ship, or is omnipresent is unclear to me. The voice appears to be with the ship, but it could in reality be projected from anywhere and everywhere. BOZ (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I read the "Go now" comment as someone sending him away (i.e. the universe sending the incubated Galactus away from itself as it starts to explode), and in addition to this the editorial handbooks have mentioned Eternity as being reborn in the Big Bang, Galactus referred to the entity as "father" during the Trial of Galactus, and there certainly was more than one "product" coming out of the Big Bang explosion. He was never stated to encapsule it within him, simply to have been incubated within it and transformed into a "galactic ravager." (Which was a weird statement. Was this some sort of revenge action from that universe for going through temporary destruction, or simply wishing to be remembered for something even if it was someone going around killing a few billion people a month?) Yet they continue to insert "Galactus is the product of the union between the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe" and Galan" over and over instead of the neutral "a product" that I have changed it to, or my most recent attempt "Galactus was created from the union between the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe" and Galan" (although I would prefer it as "Galactus was created from Galan's incubation within the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe"" to keep it completely matter-of-fact). They revert either to the biased and imho severely misleading one. Dave (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might be right; I suppose it's a matter of individual interpretation at that point. It doesn't seem important to say that Galactus was separated from sentience at that point (whether he was separated or not), and I would figure it's enough to say that the sentience sent him out into the universe. As far as him being a ravager, I'd simply say that's a matter of universal balance - we have cosmic entities that preserve and create life, and we have those that destroy instead. BOZ (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not the type to really accept that rationale, as scientifically speaking there is no "cosmic balance", even natural laws are fluid with time and cicumstance, and certainly not in a "evil must be preserved" new age sense, nor in a social-Darwinian one, as all living beings die anyway without some giant guy in a purple suit eating them instead of non-sentient stars, and I really didn't like Odin's Mussolini rationale of him being a "storm" to "test" civilisations, so everyone who couldn't stand up to him "deserved to die"... that's way too Hitler for me. On the other hand cosmic entities that simply embody natural force without specifically targetting only living beings as anything other than a side-reaction, such as Entropy, are much easier to accept, as they do not carry inherent ideology within them, simply scientific relevance. (And Galactus would be as well if he simply went around destroying planets randomly, whether populated or not) Then again, Hitler was very into Viking mythology (and Spartan society), so it may be the first time we actually see the Viking gods in full psychopathic bloodthirsty ideology character. Later Jeph Loeb made a more sympathetic attempt to explain Galactus as holding an even worse threat in check through the power he absorbs, but that still doesn't check with why he doesn't feed on stars instead. Hmm, straying again...
 * Anyway, so do you agree that it should be mentioned that Strange helped Galactus; and that the neutral "a product" or "was created from" are preferable to stating that Galactus was the only thing that came out of the union as a definitive fact?
 * Or that "The consequences of the storyline in Fantastic Four #242-244 (May-July 1982) were examined in Fantastic Four #262 (Jan. 1984), wherein the living sentience of the Marvel Universe was presented to make a validation of the existence of Galactus in the Marvel Universe, whereas the victims were represented by a frothing Skrull prosecutor. This attracted controversy from Howard University Professor of Literature Marc Singer, who criticized writer-artist John Byrne for using the character as a means to "justify planetary-scale genocide." is NPOV, given that the presented Skrull really was frothing, and then Byrne really did let Eternity show up as a "higher purpose ask no more" approval stamp counterpart? Dave (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good observation on the Odin-Hitler thing – I wouldn't have thought about it that way until you made the comparison.


 * When editing articles, I try to be a literalist as much as possible, drawing as few of my own conclusion as I can in the interest of WP:OR and WP:V (it's a slippery slope).


 * I would agree that mentioning Strange helping Galactus in the context I mention above sounds good. Unless we know for a fact that Galactus was the only thing created by the union of Galan and the universal sentience, it is not appropriate to state that he was the only thing: therefore I'd say "was created from" would be appropriate, and "a product of" is OK but perhaps less so.


 * Your paragraph seems to meet NPOV, although I have not verified the information against any sources personally. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm glad to hear it. Would you be willing to do a verification and maybe reinsert these specific edits to the page to avoid any more "not so merry" go-around again? Dave (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look and see later this evening. BOZ (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. Dave (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, in case you forgot about this, but no need to hurry if you simply didn't have time for it yet. If you need any other scans, I'm willing to provide them. Dave (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, didn't forget, just been busy - will find the time to look into it over the weekend. BOZ (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. No problem. Is it possible that I could present some of the further censoring/fact-twisting issues to you down the line through further scans? Dave (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. BOZ (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will go through you in the future then. I also appreciate that you made the promised changes in the Galactus article. Given that this is the praxis both I, Asgardian, and most others use elsewhere I also inserted clarifications regarding who called the character what, and made some other minor error-corrections or clarifications.
 * However, I noticed that you did not reinsert specifics regarding the Trial, i.e. something in the vein of: "The consequences of the storyline in Fantastic Four #242-244 (May-July 1982) were examined in Fantastic Four #262 (Jan. 1984) which attracted controversy. At the conclusion of the story the sentience of the Marvel Universe was presented to make a validation of the existence of Galactus, whereas the victims had been represented by a frothing Skrull prosecutor, which Howard University Professor of Literature Marc Singer criticized, claiming writer-artist John Byrne used the character as a means to "justify planetary-scale genocide."" Or at least something that clears up how Byrne went about giving an approval stamp, and that Singer apparently referred to using the "spirit of the universe" to justify genocide. Did you prefer the loose wording instead?
 * Also, it was mentioned in the Dormammu Talk section that you were the one wrote up the (to me somewhat unclear) handbook regulations description. If this is the case, could you perhaps find the time to read through the discussion and give some input regarding the different interpretations and how this relates to this specific article? Dave (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dave, as far as I know I never promised to make any changes, just simply agreed to look over what you had available and then I would make changes as I saw fit. This I did. I removed the bit about "the product of" and Asgardian seemed to agree that was a good idea.  I added the bit about Doctor Strange helping out and Asgardian removed the whole part in response; I suppose if we can agree to disagree, it's better not to mention it at all (and if he really did need Strange's help to pull that off, then it really wasn't Galactus's accomplishment at all, was it?). The rest of your suggested changes I am not so sure of at this time - I don't feel comfortable speculating on Byrne's motives, for example. And I was definitely not the one who wrote up the OHOTMU restritctions! :) I generally disagree with that whole notion, but I defer to those with more experience on the matter. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? J_Greb gave the following reply: "Dave, the way BOZ phrased the RFC was general terms, not specifically for this article. And that's how I'm looking at it - the general use of the OHOTMU and by extension DC's Who's Who. As for your concerns about the P&A for this specific article, I'll take a run at what I consider important below." But I may have misread it. In any case, given your previous involvement in the issue, I would appreciate more input at the Talk.
 * As for the story mention, I think that it could at least be mentioned how Galactus' existence was verified, i.e. by having Eternity appear. There are also an awful lot of blind reverts going on in the Galactus article of any accuracy correction I do, no matter how tiny. Even replacing "a weakened starving galactus" (which perfectly illustrates the inherent severe bias of the article btw) used twice after each other, with "In this state" for the latter mention to improve the language, was cut out.
 * Btw: So you're that 24... IP fellow? I thought that was someone independent. I can't quite say that I approve, but since you're doing it openly, do harmless edits, and it's not a separate handle. it's not a sock. Dave (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how I look at it. I did begin the Dormammu RFC as J Greb mentions, but I don't see where he's saying that I had anything to do with writing any restrictions. I don't know who did come up with the restrictions against using OHOTMU material, as that came about at least a few years ago. I'm really not sure what to do with every little bit you want to try to get in there, because as you know you've got two or three other editors at any given time who will disagree. Another RFC there perhaps, if you think that will actually solve anything? BOZ (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I apparently misread it since the context was meshed together. In any case, your thoughts/input would be appreciated in the Talk, as Asgardian is doing his best to divert from the context of J_Greb doing an actual clarification.
 * As for Galactus, I don't think that it would help, as they revert anything whatsoever that I do, no matter how harmless, or whether Asgardian enforces the principle elsewhere. Despite just claiming to have cleaned up the Galactus P&A section in the Dormammu Talk, it is virtually unchanged contents-vise. My best option is to go through yourself.
 * For the latest batch:
 * Asgardian allows narrator comments about the entity, even though he argues in the Doctor Strange talk that such are unacceptable, and helps to censor "who said what" clarifications of statements, i.e. "Galactus has been described as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" rather than "the Human Torch has called Galactus "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos". and removing the first part of "story narration has described the character as "the most awesome living entity in the cosmos." "; Or states that hierarchy insertions and "power match-ups" are unacceptable for the convenience of enforcing censoring of Dormammu or multiple other pages, yet states that Eternity and Galactus are "fellows"/equals in Eternity's page, or "As a living force of nature set between the conceptual entities Eternity and Death" in the Galactus one.
 * He also allows factual errors and misleading statements to remain, such as "Galactus deemed the race corrupt" when nothing of the sort was said, or "Annihilus binds Galactus, intent on using the entity's energies to destroy the universe. " even though what was shown and said is that Annihilus used Galactus to destroy and sample the energies of worlds without being allowed access to it himself, and to then use him as just a bomb to annihilate all life (as outlined by John Byrne's "Last Galactus Story" restarting the Marvel Universe is Galactus' main funciton, although it obviously wasn't show whether the plane would have succeeded), or stating that Hunger was "defeated" by Galactus when it stated outright that Galactus was "less than nothing" in comparison, and Galactus himself said "Yes, I sense that this is true".
 * He and TheBalance even go so far in their tag-team blind reverts that they enforce "a starving, weakened Galactus" twice after another, instead of allowing the language-correction "When in this emancipated state," and remove the very NPOV "At the conclusion of the story, Eternity - the living sentience of the Marvel Universe - was presented to make a validation of the existence of Galactus" clarification. That's at the level of reverting just for the sake of being annoying. Dave (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this; try some baby steps. If you've got fairly uncontroversial edits (grammar and spelling corrections, mostly), try those first, and let it sit for a few hours or a day or so. Then try something only slightly disputed, and allow time for discussion on that. BOZ (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what I've been trying several times, and these were what I thought to be small and uncontroversial changes, but the slightest thing is nonetheless undone, so the only way I can make corrections seems to be through yourself. Dave (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't do that for you forever; ultimately you have to solve your own problems, although I can do my best to help. Let's try some more examples, like we did before. What other little changes were you trying to make, and how can we resolve that? Specifically, are there apparently uncontroversial changes such as grammar and spelling corrections, and the like, which failed to take? If not, we'll step up from there. BOZ (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I only have these problems with just TheBalance and Asgardian. Anyone else and I've been able to work out compromises. Anyway, I think I described them all in my second-to-last post above: Dave (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boz. Given that we discussed these very changes above, is there any chance that you could weigh in on the current Galactus Talk? Dave (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look when I get a chance - today is a busy day though. Ping me if need be. BOZ (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dave, frankly I am sick and tired of the lying and censorship accusations. You are the one who continually attempts to censor aspects of Galactus that you don't care for, and use POV reasoning to support it.  The perfect example is here:    You claim that that this cosmic trinity of Eternity/Death/Galactus has been "severely retconned and contradicted", but it hasn't, and you can't prove it.  It's been a driving point for subsequent story arcs and has been referenced in continuity as recently as the Infinity War and Thanos' recent mini!  You censor the "two corners of that great triangle which is the universe" line because you don't like it.  Your "reasoning" is that "more than three forces" exist today, but guess what Dave, they also existed when the story was written in 1983!  Master Order and Lord Chaos first appeared in 1977, the In-Betweener in 1975, the Living Tribunal in 1967, the Celestials in 1976, the Phoenix in 1976, the Stranger in 1965, Kronos in 1973, etc.


 * In the cosmic entity entry you try to make it appear that Death refers to Galactus as her "husband and father, [her] brother in son" simply because they we born at the same moment, when the quote itself makes it clear this isn't the case.
 * From FF #257, Death addressing Galactus, "Your newfound conscience clouds your reason. You are no slave, Galactus, least of all to me.  You are my husband and father, my brother and son.  Were we not born at the same moment?  Are we not two corners of that great triangle which is the universe.?"


 * Death then goes on to make a statement that is very pertinent to the "product" disagreement regarding the Sentience of the [previous] universe in the Galactus entry, but I'll leave that for another discussion. TheBalance (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok,quickie response time. The point is that Entropy, Infinity, Oblivion, any other "Friendless" pure abstract concepts, etc, were introduced afterwards, whereas Chaos&Order were retconned into having a universe of their own (magic) to play in, which of course is complete nonsense, and has never been followed up on, but nevertheless.
 * As for the Stranger, he's the same type of entity as Galactus, a physical acting out a function. They were both definitely stated as pure physicals in Quasar (37?), I think during Infinity War. Going by the handbooks this is the track that has been officially endorsed, none of them say that he contains the sentience of the universe within him, and at least one says that Eternity and Death strictly view him as an honorary balance function because he was created at the same time as them. The Tribunal was never an absstract, 'simply' a higher-dimensiobnal overseer.
 * Hence my logic is the following:
 * 1) A strictly physical entity is not an abstract concept or embodiment per definition.
 * 2) If there is a number of parts greater than 3, one part cannot be part of a trinity, but it can be placed in-between 2 of the number. It can definitely not be the embodiment of a third of existence if it isn't metaphysical to start with whereas there is an increasing number of entities who actually are.
 * 3) Going by the handbooks Galactus most definitely is not the embodiment of anything, and strictly viewed as an honorary sibling due to time of creation.
 * 4) There are plenty of idiocies inherent in the updated origin story due to it being changed from a collapsing star to a collapsing universe, but in word only, not visuals or other structural details. For one, do you realise that even accepting the notion of entering and somehow surviving the singularity, and that this was visually still portrayed as a burning star, he would have to wait for trillions of years inside until the gravity somehow assembled the rest of the universe? Or that this story means that his vessel afterwards also hurled through space for untold billions of years until another entity (a fully developed Watcher) finally discovered him? Or that our universe won't even stop expanding to contract, so "The Last Galactus" story "restarting the universe" track is definitely out of continuity? Or that in claiming that Abraxas "is the antithesis of Eternity" you contradict yourself as you also make a stand for that this is Death? (*)
 * 5) Galactus has been referred to and shown as "less than a bug" in comparison to the Beyonder, who in turn was less powerful than Eternity, and as recently as Mark Millar's Fantastic Four was again referred to and shown as "less than an insect" in direct comparison to Eternity and other beings of that scale, and displayed as not far removed from Odin and Thanos, which makes sense, considering that Thanos was powerful enough to topple and cause a nourished Galactus damage in Thanos 1-6. Even a planetary impact was in fact shown as enough to almost kill Galactus in this series. Not exactly the traits of a being that embodies a third of the totality of existence. In fact if he did, he would be far removed from the scale of needing to eat something as "insignificant" as planets in the first place. He would lose his very point as a character.
 * Meaning: The "existing to even out their imbalances" track works as a neutral solution that includes the non-contradicted, without serious contradictions of 30 years old half-baked Byrne stuff, and even that is generous, but not blatantly contradicted.
 * (Or for that matter that the character you idolise literally reads like Benito Mussolini's wet dream after going to be on too much Lovecraft and hippy-weed, and is regularly mocked as completely ridiculous in the stories themselves or interviews, including the creator Stan Lee having G state that he is colour-blind, so maybe you'd feel much better about strictly letting the hangup go, and enjoy some other characters instead?) Dave (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) You miss the point as usual, and as someone who has read SS #31 (I assume you have) you should be aware there are a multitude of trinities and/or dualities in the MU. This primary trinity literally embodies life & death and space & time, making Death's comments in FF#257 all the more relevant.  I'll go ahead an quote Mobb here and save myself from repeating an argument made time and time again, "The "triangle" as mentioned refers to the trio of G, E, and D. Take away G and you have E and D. The four essential abstract entities in the MU are Eternity and Death, Infinity and Oblivion. However, as I'm sure you're aware, this "square" of individual points is in actuality 2 main points, comprised at one end by Eternity/Infinity, and the opposite by Death/Oblivion. A litany of sources have said that Infinity is Eternity's mate/flipside, Oblivion is the consort of Death, etc. and so on, so no one has to get hung up on that."  That's fact, Dave, supported by almost 2 decades of continuity.


 * 2) Once again favoring your personal POV over continuity, you disregard that Galactus' relationship with Eternity and Death extends FAR beyond the moment of their birth and has been THOROUGHLY established in continuity, via SEVERAL different writers, and referenced in continuity even within the last few years. Your personal misinterpretations and logical fallacies do not trump what sees print, and for your edits to hold any weight that is precisely what you ask from fellow editors, to see things your way as opposed to what actually shows up in the comics.


 * 3) Regarding Abraxas, he was actually referred to as the "antithesis of Eternity" in comic, by Roma I believe. Abraxas was actually hinted to be the embodiment of Eternity's own self-destructive tendency. While the basic concept may be similar to Death's, their goals are different.  One wants to destroy everything without regard, the other wants the universe to fulfill its ultimate purpose.  One is Eternity's own destructive tendency manifest, the other is Eternity's polar opposite.


 * 4) Regarding Galactus being a product of the "union" in the cosmic egg, and an avid supporter of the OHOTMU as Marvel's editorial position and reference for many of your edits, how do reconcile this?   So now we have the Sentience of the Universe's rather clear explanation to Galan, cosmically aware Johnny Storm's description of Galactus after seeing his true nature (and origin), and now even the OHOTMU disagrees with you.  Am I wrong in suspecting that you only give credence to the OHOTMU when is agrees with you?  (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) No, I seriously really don't think that I miss the point. I'm well aware that Galactus is working as the balancing function between Eternity and Death, and I always include that statement which you might have noticed by now, and if not take a look. That part I'm entirely fine with. It is well established on later occasions as you say. The only problem I have is with blowing up a 25 year old phrase to imply that G is the abstract embodiment of everything outside of Eternity and Death, when later issues have focused on the balancing function and stated him to be a physical entity (by his modern origin writer Mark Gruenwald no less, and the man who got the MU structured and organised, which carries quite a bit of weight with me), important yes but not an abstract embodiment, which does "show up in the comics", and as you say there are multiple trinities or dualities around, not just Eternity, Death, Infinity, or Oblivion (Galactus has definitely not been stated as a balancing function between the last two btw), and all of the abstracts are simplified flipside parts of the whole multiverse, which was stated outright in a recent Guardians of the Galaxy. (Time and Space aren't really closer ideas than Death and Entropy, although they do warp each other)


 * Meaning, including the phrase heavily implies to the reader that none of the other multiple full abstracts "count", and that Galactus is an abstract except that it is stated outright that he isn't, but rather is of the same category as the Stranger. You and I are aware that there are various trinities and that Galactus isn't an abstract concept, he is a potentially universe-devouring physical being who performs various important functions for Eternity and Death, a mirror of the In-Betweener, but the point is that to the reader that's not the way it reads at all, and that is my key content. I have absolutely no problem with stating that Galactus exists to fix the imbalances of Eternity and Death, that part is well established, not heavily contradicted, and was the way the phrase was clarified and officially endorsed, just "the abstract embodiment of a third of everything" wording. If you agree about the multiple trinities and abstracts part and simply misunderstood my intent here, we may actually reach a compromise.


 * 2) I'm not "favouring my personal POV over continuity", I'm seeing it all as a sum pattern of sources that recurrently contradicts itself. Your argument here could very easily be applied to yourself. There are plenty of different "facts Dave", and I tend to go with the ones that have the most amount of sources and least contradictions, trying to see which parts in different sources that don't contradict each other and go with that. I'm forming my image from all the sources I have seen, not just focusing on one phrase that doesn't chime with the rest. It is well established that G is the balancing function, not that he is an abstract embodiment, and later sources that I know of have not stated him to be so.


 * 3) Okay. I didn't know that Roma said that. It doesn't make any sense, as there is also Entropy to take into account as the "embodiment of destruction", but Jeph Loeb seldom lets any semblance of research, logic or sanity get in the way of a good story. (Oddly enough I had a Wikipedia stalker once who kept implying that they were the same person) How was it implied that Abraxas was the embodiment of Eternity's self-loathing? We could just go with that part if you wish to get around the two contradictions.


 * 4) Once again, remember that I have no problem with including the cosmic Human Torch/Invisible Man statement, and consistently include this into the article as well. My problem lies in stating that the 80s origin claims the same thing, even though it directly contradicts this when showing Galactus and the Sentience to be separate in the following panel, the dialogue simply reads like conceiving a child, and the (origin story updater, and "Galactus is strictly a physical" clarifier) Gruenwald-written Galactus handbook entries clarify that Galactus was simply perceived as being transformed by the universe at the time. Meaning: I use the sum patterns in trying to get a picture of the content, and see the handbooks as equally valid, no more no less, to instances in the comics. I have no interest in not including your preferred 2000s take, simply to provide the historical context and contradictions. There isn't much consistency/"this is uncontradicted fact" to be found.


 * I just checked up the link and yeah that recent (post-Waid origin) handbook entry apparently does actually state that the previous Eternity merged with Galan so that counts, (with the reservation that it can be interpreted as simply merging/uniting as lovers and then separating again, given the separately displayed sentience during the "Big Bang" panel), but so do the entries that stated that Galan was simply transformed within it, or the Nova Corps special which afaIr states that Galactus is simply honorary relative and balancing function. Then again, this scan also states Galactus and the "Friendless" as strictly honorary offspring of Eternity, although that would only really work if the current Eternity is the reincarnation of the previous Eternity. Hmm... Regardless, this means the same thing as earlier. The 2000s origin take is just as valid as the other ones, and should also be mentioned. Dave (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I meant to ask you something the other day and the huge page crashed my Firefox :) No joke. Hekerui (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL - sorry about that! The page definitely needed an archive.  Would you believe that my 2009 talk page was considerably longer than the previous three years put together? :) BOZ (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what a mop does to you. Hekerui (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
I suppose it is an idea. I'm open to suggestions. I'm just tired of comments such as the latest here:. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see what good it would do, as my entire problem with you is that your word cannot be trusted in any way or form. Meaning, we have come to agreements before only for you to blatantly break them as soon as convenient, and the rationalisations you use could regularly easily be used against you in situations you are involved with elsewhere. I get no sense of sincerity whatsoever, and can't take anything you say at face value anymore. Lying to me enough times in a row will do that. To consistently overlook this would be for me to embrace your way of insincere game-playing, and that's anathema to my personality. I can't do it. That said, I'm consistently very reasonable towards anyone I do get a sense of honesty from, and when censorship or manipulation is not what drives them. That said, you have spent almost all of my energy for Wikipedia. It was meant to be a relaxing distraction, not a chore, so I will probably gradually lessen my involvement, much like previously. Congratulations, you have succeeded in your task to illustrate the weaknesses of the system, spread misinformation, and wear people down. I hope that you are proud. Dave (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's quite an inappropriate response. Even if Asgardian were being insincere, it would be enough to say "I don't see what good it would do, as you know already why I feel can't trust you." And if he were being sincere after all, then it is you holding onto a grudge, which is definitely not helpful. If you are completely unwilling or unable to work out your frustrations with Asgardian, then it may indeed be best to step away. I don't think that is necessary though, as I don't think this situation is beyond repair if all parties are willing to sit down and just talk like reasonable people instead of attacking each other. BOZ (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just coming by to say hi to my my friend BOZ, since I've been away on deadline work and crazy busy since Jan. 10, but wow, this is scaring me off!  :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be scared! :) BOZ (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a question: Why are the comments of some editors, like Emperor and Peregrine Fisher, on the Draft Page, but not the Live Page? Also, was comics article editor/administrator User:Jc37 notified? Nightscream (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask them! :) I have notified all three of the RFC, but as of yet they have not chosen to comment on the live page. Emperor's comments were copied from the comics project talk page to the draft page (by either Hiding or Tenebrae, I think, I don't remember), and PF has only commented on the draft page before we went live - if any of them, or anyone else, wants to comment on the live page they are welcome to do so at any time. BOZ (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said to Tenebrae, it is actually David A who needs mentoring. If he doesn't curtail the comments pronto, he's going to get himself into real trouble (the last few have been screamers). There really aren't any lasting edit wars - except on those articles that Dave chooses to become involved in. A look at Galactus (and here ; ) will tell you that he is in fact the common denominator (not myself).

Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, actually - Dave does need to tone it down, and if he can't do it by himself then maybe he needs some guidance from a patient hand. If it came down to arbitration between the two of you, it would probably be best to seek mentors for both, because failing that I can imagine lengthy topic bans (i.e., stay away from each other if you can't get along) or something else unpleasant coming out of ArbCom. BOZ (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's hope he can. There's actually enough now to get him flat out banned until he can guarantee there will be no more outbursts, but hopefully it won't come to that. Asgardian (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration request for a permanent ban on Asgardian
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I hope you don't mind me naming you as a party; The arbitration fill-out form provided spaces for four involved parties, including the filing party (me). This left the focus of our efforts (Asgardian), and two left over, so I chose you and Tenebrae, because you spearheaded the RfC, and because Tenebrae has supported my observations on the RfC Talk Page of Asgardian's WP:GAME behavior when criticized. If you feel I should not have named you, I apologize; just let me know, and I'll try to amend this.

There are two spaces available for the other parties to comment. According to the Arbitration guide, ''State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail.'' Since one of the spaces provided must be for Asgardian to comment, the other will go to you or Tenebrae, though I suppose the second one of you to get there can simply create another.

Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. I was out all day, visiting with family - tomorrow should be a fairly busy day, and the next day as well, but I'll try to find some time at some point to look things over. BOZ (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * S'okay. But why are you now saying on the Arbitration page that you're against banning, when you expressed no such opposition to this when I brought it up to you on Feb 1 (below)? You were the one who spearheaded the RfC, so I'm a bit perplexed. Isn't it clear to you that Asgardian has no intention of conceding that he has a problem with his policy violations and his WP:GAME behavior? What good is "mentorship" if the person refuses to admit that there is a problem? What would a mentor do? Step in and tell him when he falsely accuses a critic or editor whose edits he disagrees with of being "emotive"? Tell him to respond to attempts to communication when he refuses to do so? Asgardian's problems can only be remedied by a decision on his part to cease this behavior, or taking away his editing privileges. After all that's happened (including the 18 AN/I threads that you yourself pointed out), I don't see why so many people are reluctant or afraid to admit that the only course of action he has left to us is to ban him. Nightscream (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I neither oppose nor support banning/blocking him. I agree that he doesn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part, but I am hopeful that some sort of mentorship (or whatever) would help with any further disputes. I'm doubtful as to whether that will work or not as it requires his participation, but I figured I'd propose it all the same. If that's not going to work, or if ArbCom decides that he should be blocked long-term, then I can only say that he missed all the warning signs along the way and it really shouldn't be a surprise to him. I'm still hoping for a change on his part, though. BOZ (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, given his long list of notices that you linked to yourself, and consistent complete embracement of insincere manipulation and subterfuge, I very much don't see what good it would do beyond giving him further skill in honing his system for advanced trolling. The need to assume good intentions hundreds or possibly thousands of times in a row, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, really does empower him and others like him immensely. I have absolutely no enthusiasm for having to deal with his relentless tactics indefinitely. Dave (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See, this is the sort of refusal to take decisive action that I've never understood from all the editors who come across Asgardian-related matters. It's bad enough when uninvolved outsiders are like this; When people like you, who know his history, and spearheaded an RfC say these things, it's just mind-boggling.

Why would you propose a solution that you know wouldn't work??? This makes no sense. "Mentoring" implies teaching him to do something that he doesn't know how to do; This isn't the problem here, because Asgardian's shortcoming is one of character, and not ability. In order for "mentoring" to work, he has to be willing to admit that he has a problem, and acknowledge the authority of the mentor. But if he's never admitted that his behavior is a problem, and employs the manipulative, intellectually dishonest statements to avoid doing so, and habitually ignores or attacks people with snide innuendo and personal ad hominem remarks when they challenge or criticize him (watch--I'll bet he'll quote this very post in the coming days of the Abitration case), then what suggests to you that he'll acknowledge a mentor? Why acknowledge a mentor when he won't acknowledge us? Wasn't the RfC the last opportunity for him to exhibit a genuine "change", BOZ? I think so. How many more chances, blocks, RfCs, etc. is he or anyone else to be allowed before it is considered reasonable to conclude that he is incorrigible?

I mean, on the one hand, the things you say about him appear to be in agreement with me, yet you insist on this non-committal neutrality with respect banning? Don't you understand that it is the responsibility of those of us in the community who are most familiar with him to put an end to all the strife he causes? If we don't, then who will? Whose responsibility do you think it is? Don't you understand that you're precisely one of the people that ArbCom is looking to for indication of what to do, and that by not being firm on this, you're the one empowering further? Please reconsider. With due respect my friend, if you don't do something when you know that you're one of the people who needs to, then you're only part of the problem. Nightscream (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will remove that part of my statement if you believe it is harming rather than helping. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's my feeling on the matter, so that you don't need to ask to get where I'm coming from. The reason I spearheaded the RfC? Precisely the "refusal to take decisive action" that you reference. There was quite a bit of complaining going on amongst various people, but nothing was being done except business as usual. In fact, there was even an agreement among several admins to do an RFC/U a few months before I even started working on it - but no one did anything about it. So, I figured, might as well be me. I would give everyone a platform to finally air these grievances in a proper format. That's all I wanted. I was not looking for any specific sanction to be placed, although I understood that the RFC could (and in all likelihood would) be used in that manner at some future point. Like I said above, if Asgardian persisted in his behavior after that point, then "he missed all the warning signs along the way and it really shouldn't be a surprise to him" that someone would seek sanctions against him. And, indications do seem to be that we haven't quite gotten through to him yet.
 * But, I felt that an ArbCom case now was too soon, personally. I started the RFC a mere six weeks ago. I suppose "too soon" is arbitrary, but how I feel is how I feel - not that I was going to suggest for you to back down if you felt the time was right, so I suggested you go ahead with your plan and I would help. Looks like sharing my position was not so helpful! I'll tell you what I was going to do though. I would give it some more time, and if the disputes and edit warring continued (and they have, so far, albiet less intensely) then I was going to bring it to the comics talk page to seek a long-term topic ban on certain articles. If you feel that would help your cause, I can switch out my less popular idea for that one. However, I do not support an indef block, and I cannot support something I do not believe in. I don't think I ever gave any indication anywhere that I did want such a thing, and if you came to that conclusion I'm not sure how that happened. BOZ (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to be the same way, and explicitly avoided taking any actions against him for a long time despite all the problems and actually being asked to do so, since I thought that he could be reasoned with, given that he seemed to make an effort with the edits and all. But a couple of hundred instances later giving me exhaustive familiarity with his methods, including that he largely seemingly deliberately distorts information in his edits, and being proven that he had no such compunctions against myself, and is so underhanded that he's willing to use my handicaps as a weapon, I'm convinced that he's a somewhat unusual type of particularly manipulative troll. He's a consummate liar. It's what he does, and even defines him so far as being what he is at a core level. And especially given that this is an environment dependent on honest facts, this makes him especially dangerous/his contributions particularly suspect. Then again, being an anal-retentive/OCD truthsayer who tend to collide with him, I'm one of the people who has to take the hardest continuous blow from him being allowed to continue, and automatically sees it as a moral affront on a fundamental level. That's one of my defining traits, and may be the reason for him getting an ongoing sadistic kick of latching on to me over time. Dave (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw: Has anyone considered the possibility that he may get paid by Marvel for unofficially editing articles (even though this isn't allowed by Wikipedia)? It would explain the inherent contradiction in his manipulative uncompromising attitudes, and relentless extremely time-wasting drive for continuing. I've even caught the (conceited) new editor Stephen Wacker do some (rather tasteless and obnoxious) letter column comments that seem to mirror Asgardian's own perceptions, or reflect frustration and contempt for exactly the type of people who tend to contribute here. Even making direct comments about hating the handbook (which is one of A's biggest pet peeves), and that now that he's decided on (satirical) "official statements" people should immediately quote it here. Then again, after Jeph Loeb sarcastically mentioned me in an interview (likely due to that old silly "Powers of the Hulk" page I created long ago), and my old stalker JJonz kept deliberately hinting that they were the same person, that was also enough to set my paranoia alarms running. I tend to automatically see patterns, even when they don't really mean anything. Dave (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose that any number of people on here are getting paid to edit Wikipeida - you never know. Still, that's kind of a hard thing to prove, so unless you have something more solid to go on... it's probably not the case here. BOZ (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As a somewhat interesting footnote. After I posted that observation Wacker posted a sarcastic "This message may be sponsored by Wikipedia" into the weekly letter column. Dave (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement is harmful, but at the same time, I don't want to squelch dissenting opinions. I just wish that such dissent were backed up by reason and evidence, instead of the same skittishness toward drawing a line in the sand. I would far prefer if you were convinced that Asgardian needs to be banned, especially given that I had thought we were in agreement over his incorrigibility (a point that you seem to agree with). You say that if that Asgardian's behavior persisted after the RfC, that you'd expect a sanction, and that we haven't gotten through to him "yet", but then you say ArbCom is too soon. How is it too soon? This has been going on for a few years now. What more do you need? Banning, and other sanctions, are for when an editor has exhausted the community's patience. What standard do you keep with which you find it reasonable to say that this is the case? You feel the time should be right? Which time is this? During a full eclipse?

You say wanted to see if the edit warring and disputes continued. Did you not see his behavior toward Off2riorob on the Beyonce talk page? Although Asgardian was right in terms of content, in terms of behavior, he was up to his usual tricks, including his stock use of "emotive" to dismiss his opponent's position, without specifying the passage or edit summary that was "emotive". Did you not notice that on the RfC page and the Arbitration page, he has continued his assertion that the editors he has disputed with, as well as those on the RfC page, were mostly "inexperienced"? This is the baldfaced lie, BOZ. You've got 40,000 edits since February 06, whereas Asgardian has 9,000 since September of that year. Your tenure and edits dwarf his, as do 13 of the other people who participated in the RfC. He responded to this by continuing his lie and adding to it, saying, "Many of these editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked". Again, most of the 18 are more expierenced than Asgardian, and have far fewer blocks than he does. Some have one or two. One has 7, another 12, and another 17. Asgardian is tied with one of them for the second highest number of blocks, with twelve. This sort of lie is indeed a continuation of his behavior, one that is not addressed by a "mentorship" or "topic ban". These sort of remarks and personal attacks are unacceptable, and it has continued on the Arbitration page itself. Nothing has changed, despite Asgardian's claims to that effect.

I don't think he's being paid by anyone. Nightscream (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You and I should have spoken more about what where we stand before proceeding; if you had known that I was not completely on the same page, you could have proceeded differently or with someone else. (To tell the truth, I was suprised when you decided to move on with me as an involved party in the ArbCom.) As to "if his behavior persisted after the RfC", well the RfC isn't technically over yet - it's stale, but it's still open; at least, that's how I have been approaching it. I have observed instances here and there where the behavior persisted, which I still consider during the RfC (which really is semantics I suppose, as you'd exect someone to shape up a bit when the spotlight is on them), although I have seen a slight adjustment and a claim of willingness to do better.  I did not have a specific timeline in mind of when is too soon and when is not too soon, but I imagine if I had seen anything particularly egregious, or if the pattern had continued more or less on the same tragectory say by March-April, then I would have said enough is enough and brought the idea of topic bans to the table.  I understand that you are not alone in feeling he is irredeemable by his own choice, and I feel that if the ArbCom agrees with you, then so be it.  If they don't agree that he should be banned, then I want to push for the ability to apply stiffer restrictions until the message gets across.  One thing I do not want to do is just "give him another chance" with a smile and handshake, and have him say "Oh yeah, you don't have to worry about me" and just get more of the same.


 * I only caught the beginning of the Beyonce scuffle (and I only caught that because I saw you posting on each other's talk pages which made me curious!) so I didn't see what went on after that. That example is therefore part of the problem - he is maybe or maybe not correct in terms of content, but often enough in terms of behavior he is in the wrong. Denigrating one's opponent by making them seem foolish, hysterical, or mentally ill is a good way to convince other people that maybe you have the stronger argument by default, but it is not the honorable way to "win", and should not be tolerated. This, I'm assuming, is a big part of the reason why he has recently found himself at RfC and now ArbCom.  The biggest problem with Asgardian is that he has essentially been allowed to develop into this by not having been put through all of this sooner. I'm not saying that was intentional on anyone else's part, or that we were at all responsible for "creating this monster", but blocking him and protecting articles has been completely useless for anything other than delaying continued problems, as I'm sure you would agree.  You tried to file an RfC/U on him a year before I did; I wish that had been successful, but it failed because of a techincality - instead we got another year of more of the same.  Really, someone should have tried an RfC even before you did; maybe if this had all been brought to light in the public eye back in 2007, he would either have realized his limits by now, or pushed them to the point where he would not be welcomed back.  Instead, things have continued to escalate.


 * I have to admit, as much as you may want me to be, I am not convinced that he needs to be banned completely. Maybe I am too much of an optimist, thinking that people can change if given the right motivation, and maybe that is a personal flaw of mine. Maybe it's a strength, but that is a subjective question which will be answered differently by every individual.  I do have to agree that there are serious issues at play regarding the behaviors you mention, and they should not be allowed to continue, which is something I think we all hope ArbCom will address sufficiently. I have said my peace on one possible solution, and I will step back from that and try to say no more, focusing only on presenting and affirming the evidence at hand, and we will all let ArbCom decide what to do with him based on the arguments presented. BOZ (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I should have. That much is obvious now. :-) Prior to your statement, I thought we were on the same page. If anything, it is I should apologize for possibly misrepresenting you.

What more is there to be done at the RfC?

I don't think he shapes up either because he is either genuinely blind to the nature of his behavior, or because he is emboldened by people like you who enable him. After everything he's done, he might see you saying that you acknowledge his behavior, but no it's too soon ,but no, I don't have a specific timeline--wait, how about March-April, etc., and conclude that he's getting away with this, because let's face it, he has. Even if you had March-April in mind, and my misreading of your position stepped things up a bit--so what? The pattern has continued, so again, what more do you need? You admit that his attacking his opponents on Beyonce is wrong (and no, this does not show a stronger argument--the one with the reasoning/evidence that illustrates it does), but you continue to show ambiguity on this: You say that you will only push for stiffer restrictions if ArbCom agrees with me--what, can't you push for them now by saying as much at the ArbCom yourself if you agree me?

As far as banning, I wouldn't mind if they gave him a chance in a year to come back, but only if he freely acknowledged the improper behavior, answered questions about them directly, and made it clear that he would abandon this sort of thing once and for all. Barring that, Wikipedia would do fine with him, just as it will continue if and when each of the rest of us shuffles off. Nightscream (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey - ambiguous and vague is my specialty. ;) Now that we are at ArbCom, there is nothing else to be done at the RfC (although it is still open for anyone who would like to comment further). Someone could have proposed a remedy which all parties, including Asgardian, could agree to, but nothing was proposed. So it currently stands as is, a record of the complaints against him, and his response, viewable by all - which is fine.


 * It doesn't matter anymore if I thought it was "too soon" to do an ArbCom request - it's not like we can take it back (or that it would be at all wise to do so). :) Having gotten the ball rolling though, I do feel now that it is the right thing to do, although I was significanlty unsure of this initially. Maybe it was necessary to jump right in, maybe because the RfC was so long in coming and achieved no significant change, I don't know. My pondering at the timing, after all, is only rhetorical and doesn't change anything. I wasn't going to lead an ArbCom case (and only really wanted a small part, if any) and wasn't thinking of doing much more than making suggestions to interested parties - really, I still don't seek any specific sanctions at this point, and leave that up to others to decide. I didn't even want a part in this one, but since you invited me I felt obliged to say yes.


 * Anyway, enough of this circle dance. ;) What more do you think we need to do right now? What further steps need to be taken so things can progress? Tenebrae posted his statement on the evidence page, and nothing has happened since then. Are we supposed to do something else, or just wait? BOZ (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RfC
BOZ, I've asked Emperor, Peregrine Fisher and Jc37 if they wish to weigh in, or move their draft page comments to the live page (as I noticed you have yourself). I don't know if they're planning to, but I wanted to give them an opportunity before the process moves forward. Asgardian is now claiming that others have lost interest in the process, saying that they have "moved on" and that one has "dropped from view". I don't know that there is any truth to this claim, but if you think there is, let me know.

It seems clear that Asgardian has no intention of changing his behavior, or even admitting that he has a problem (as indicated by both his responses on the RfC page and to my posts on its Talk Page), and I think it's time that we discussed a resolution to this problem. Since he is unwilling to respond directly and honestly to the charges leveled against him, I believe it is time that he is indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. I don't know that a permanent ban is necessary, since I like to think that everyone is capable of change, and it's possible that given enough time away from Wikipedia, he may come around, but for now, his editing privileges need to be taken away, and not for some brief period of time. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be time to contact someone more familiar with ArbCom and see what the next step should be? I'm unfamiliar with the process as I have not yet participated in one (and I am not willing to put as much work into such a case at this time as I did with this RFC!) but I would be willing to add my fair share of help, depending on what is to be done. First I'd give the three you mentioned (I know Hiding was also interested, but he has become scarce) a chance to see if they are finally going to weigh in, and then we can open a discussion with any interested parties. BOZ (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, BOZ. I think you might like to read what has been said here as it is fairly telling. As I suspected, someone would appear to have a personal issue and it is coming out in their language. I really hope that this will not go further, as aside from the work it creates it may become very embarrassing for said editor, and I have no wish to be presenting evidence that humiliates anyone. As to the original RfC, I've made my case. You can also view Scott Free's latest comment. By the by, things have also gone very quiet now that a certain someone has dropped from sight. No edit wars or flaming. Food for thought.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: G.I. Joe video game
Added a cover and a few little bits. Salavat (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Asgardian
Asgardian has recently shown up again at Thor (Marvel Comics) started making some not only substantial but factually erroneous edits. I am afraid this might lead to an edit war so I am letting you now so this situation can be monitored. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Gygax: Longbio
Apologies if this isn't the right way to try to contact you. I'm a grad student researching connections between radio drama and D&D. I saw on the Gary Gygax discussion page that you have a copy the longbio referenced there. I congratulate your integrity in not posting that in its entirety, but was hoping you could help me out on a point. You mentioned that the longbio talks about radio shows EGG listened to. Any chance you would be willing to either communicate which shows he mentioned, or even possibly send me a quotation? If it would help to verify my status as a researcher, I would be more than happy to do so. -numenetics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
 * No problem! Let me know how your research goes. In Gary's words:

I was fortunate to have no television in my youth, so radio and imagination were there to assist my creativity. Some of my favorite programs were: …and Any music program broadcast in c. 1954 from station WLAC in Nashville, especially those hosted by Gene Nobles and Herman Guisarde (spelling?)
 * Smiling Ed McConnel
 * Tennessee Jed
 * The Lone Ranger
 * The Green Hornet
 * Gangbusters
 * The FBI in Peace and War
 * Mr. and Mrs. North
 * Lights Out
 * Escape
 * The Hermit
 * The Whistler
 * The Hall of Fantasy
 * Dimension X
 * Sam Spade
 * So the Story Goes
 * The Passing Parade
 * Calling all Detectives
 * The Transcribed Gold Coast show
 * The Arbogast Show
 * The Spider Webb (R&B music) show

BOZ (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incubate please
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_McAuliffe&action=edit&redlink=1 to Article Incubator/Tim_McAuliffe

thank you. Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I say Ikip, you say Okip? ;) BOZ (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! BOZ (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Are you now saying that you wish to see him banned, and wish to participate in that effort? Nightscream (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties are expected to post their evidence on the evidence page, within a week, if possible, as AlexandrDmitri stated above. I'm still writing and editing mine now.

But again, what is it you wish to do? Are you asking because you intend to argue against banning, or for it? I thought you were neutral on the point...? Nightscream (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As a question of intent, presenting evidence is not separate from the outcome. The desired outcome was named by me when first requesting the case be opened, so it bears relevance on my question, what is it you wish to do--that is, what is it you hope you accomplish from presenting your evidence. When you say you want to see if you have anything to add in the way of evidence, the question becomes, evidence of what. Tenebrae and I know what we're presenting evidence of. Because you continue to waffle, I'm not clear on what that is in your case. Again, I don't see why you are so married to March-April, and so opposed to a slight modification to this utopian timetable (a modification of, at the low end, one week), that you refuse to either consider banning, or name what this "restriction" is. Nightscream (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I never said anything about this being "my" decision, or about who determines his fate, or about "which" evidence you present, or your level of involvement. I merely asked, pursuant to your question to me about presenting evidence, that I didn't understand what it was that you felt you were presenting evidence of. The other things in your message to me are those that I never brought up. Of course you can participate for whatever purpose you wish. But since you were asking me what you're supposed to do now, expressing confusion as to what you expect to get out of the arbitration, particularly given your refusal to take a stand with Asgardian, the question I asked was valid--"what is it you wish to do?"--was valid. Nightscream (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Yep, I concur." So, you're saying that you concur with yourself? Wow, how magnanimous of you! :-) (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Nightscream (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Man, I don't even necessarily concur with myself, that's the sad part. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the arbitration
RE:

Good luck :) Okip  03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
Hi, BOZ. Heaven knows, I understand your frustration. The process is slow, but I believe in the end productive, and I here have something that I think might help.

I don't believe "either/or" is the only answer. That is why, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence, I've added this proposed solution, to which I hope other editors can sign on. "His fellow editors need a 'probation officer' admin to whom they can turn, who has veto power over Asgardian's disputed edits and unilateral changes to Project MOS. In addition, we need a reinstatement of the probation he was under in, I believe, 2008, in which he could make only one rv (either via 'Undo' or by a multitude of edits essentially comprising an rv) a day. That last probation lasted a year; as his behavior did not change, bringing us to this point, this probation reinstatement should last two years.

Given that at least one other editor is calling for a ban, this probation seems a less drastic and more productive solution." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That has some promise. :) Would that be in conjunction with the "mentor" idea (which he is, thankfully, stating that he is willing to sign on with), maybe as one person or as two separate people? Maybe multiple volunteers, in case one person is too busy or goes on wikibreak or whatnot? Like with your previous arb case, we could have specific provisions set out to point to, to help this uninvolved admin in knowing how to deal with situations that come up. We'd also need a setup for escalation of blocks, as necessary. Do you think my idea of topic bans on specific articles has merit? Maybe that could be part of the escalation process as well.


 * I think the workshop page is where we put specific proposals, so when this idea is more formulated, it would be a good idea to post there. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank God I don't know anything 'bout no Sunturion! :-)


 * I hate to think so, but you're right that Asgardian might require two "parole officers," or maybe a handful of volunteer editorsw working together. I am so sorry it's come to this, but heaven knows we've tried to work him and it's always the same: He blames some "conspiracy" out to get him, and doesn't accept responsibility for his own actions.


 * I guess I'll try to look up the language of the last probationary period and see if we can adapt it to a proposal. BTW, the admins at the Arb haven't apparently checked in since Feb. 18. Should someone notify the clerk? I don't want to do anything that violates protocol. Any ideas? -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. Succinct, straightforward, neutral &mdash; if you're not a professional writer, academic or attorney, you should be. Simple, direct writing is the hardest kind there is. As a professional myself, I'd like to offer my compliments on your writing as evidenced at, well, the Evidence page. Bravo. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Anne Brown
Hi Boz. I noticed in the history of the Anne Brown (game designer) page that you seem to have had some suggestions for changes from Anne herself.

Over at Spelljammer Wiki, I am attempting to build up a website that can (amongst other things) serve as a reliable secondary source for Spelljammer related articles.

As Anne Brown has a connection to the Spelljammer Campaign Setting, I have an interest in seeing both the article here and the article there reflect the work she has done. One of the things I want to do (over at SJ Wiki) is ensure that, if people are still in the industry, I can point visitors onward towards homepages, blogs or other sites that help people find their newest work.

However, 'Anne Brown' is such a common name, that it has been hampering my research. There are so many false positives that come up when I search for her, that I find it hard to locate useful links. If you are in touch with Anne Brown, it would be great if you could pass on any useful links. Links good for the Wikipedia article could go over here, but SJ Wiki can accept all useful links about Anne Brown (as its remit is useful information about Spelljammer rather than notability).

Thanks in advance for anything you can do. And if you can't do anything, then thanks for your time and consideration. Big Mac (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey there! :) I found her on facebook of all things, and a number of other game designers as well. I showed her the bio and she helped me fix a few inaccuracies. I asked if there were any other bios out there that I could draw on, and she didn't know of any. I can certainly ask if there is anything else she would like to share with me! :) BOZ (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Saga of the Shadow Lord
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Saga of the Shadow Lord, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/foreign/x11for.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Que, come again? BOZ (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, the page was empty. Hekerui (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea! :) BOZ (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up of evidence
KnightLago, the drafting arbitrator, will start posting on the workshop page early next week, so this is the time to submit any final evidence. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, ChildofMidnight's behavior sounds like it harbors some similarities to Asgardian's. I think the five behaviors I pointed out in my evidence, especially the first four, might lend themselves to what you're talking about (along with his other policy violations). Nightscream (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear ya. What do you mean you're doing those things? You mean you're reviewing them to formulate the behaviors/facts in question? As a suggestion, I think the recent RfC summarizes them well, as a good place to start. But to each his own. Nightscream (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think perhaps a summary of those four or five behaviors I mentioned would be appropriate for findings of fact, and the policies/guidelines he's violated for principles? Nightscream (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, BOZ; I'll add some brief comments as an "other party" then. I can adapt some of the material at the Evidence page. I've been away for a week or so, swamped with work. Thanks for all your incredible efforts and diligence -- it's amazing and welcome! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct Links
The links you suggested were correct and I put the right ones in. I'm used to getting rid of red links that I forget it might be a typo. Thanks for letting me know and not deleting my edit and tell me if something similar happens in the future.Merotoker1 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fred VII
I did what I could but DAMN that article needs a lot of work. Well intentioned stuff just spilled out all over the place. Lots42 (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blazing Combat
Hi, BOZ. Just wanted to ask you to keep an eye on Blazing Combat. There seems to be an edit war brewing. An anon IP with an agenda appears to be violating POV, OP and "words that may introduce bias" guidelines. Details at Talk:Blazing Combat. Another editor's opinion is always helpful. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft decision for Asgardian Arbitration case
Please see. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Arb
Will do; thanks. Running off to work now -- as of couple weeks ago, doing six days a week and running errands on 7th. I asked Dougweller above how long I have to submit proposal, etc. I'll get to it this weekend. Thank you, once again, for all your tireless efforts. Judging from the tone of what I saw on the proposal page, this case is being taken with suitable gravitas. -- Tenebrae (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, BOZ. Thanks for the User Y/User Z note. I did go to the page &mdash; which I think is where I saw your generous and pretty enlightened suggestion that Asgardian, should a one-year ban take effect, could shorten it with constructive behavior. I couldn't find the User Y/Z stuff, which was probably right in front of my face. GPS me? -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Gah
I took your advice too well and totally forgot about having to do the review. I promise I'll get to it ASAP, the weekend. Sorry. Hekerui (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I finally did the review. Funny thing, I had only seen copies of White Dwarf maybe ten years ago and never thought about it again - now I notice how I never pondered at the time how an English version must of course exist and the mag probably originated from it. Hekerui (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian now in voting
Just a friendly notice that, with the posting of the Proposed decision, the Asgardian case has moved on to the voting stage. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 22:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am keeping an eye on that. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Deadpool
Sorry if I was "edit warring" with Friginator. I understand and accept my warning. At this time, me and Friginator are talking it over, though I might ask you question if I feel the time is right. --Ottertron 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Talking it over is the best way to handle it.  If talking doesn't work, then following the dispute resolution process is the way to go. If the two of you think you have resolved the conflict, let me or another administrator know and we will unprotect the article. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, and if we do then I will let you or someone else know. At this time, Friginator is using Wikipedia is not a crystal ball argument. I agree and incite the guide lines be follow, but I read the whole page and came to this over the Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." Even though the comic has not been published yet, it comes out this upcoming Wednesday, the 7th. While I feel this is argument over a comic book is childish, it's still wrong to change information when it's validate and correctly reference. Since the article will be unlock tomorrow, or today, (when ever you are able to see this message) I can wait until Wednesday, however, as I pointed out to Friginator I will say the follow; by following the WP:Crystal, you would have to remove even more from the article than just one ongoing series. I'm again sorry for the inconvenience over a childish squabble and we, me and Friginator will try to come to an agreement. Ottertron (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you tried bringing up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics to gain a wider consensus? BOZ (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic entities template
Hello. I need input regarding possible changes in this. I tried to modify my own notions considerably from previous comments. Would the current version be acceptable to change the entry into, or does it need further modifications? Dave (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if I'm the best person to judge that sort of thing - if you figure it looks good, I say go for it. :) I'll note that Cosmic Cubes are mentioned twice on the cosmic template.  Adding a mystical template sounds like a good idea, as I don't think that's currently represented. BOZ (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They are? I'll have to fix that then. Anyway, I've asked for in+ut from two other editors as well, and don't know exactly where the line is drawn regarding what is or isn't appropriate consensus, so I'll wait a little more to be on the safe side. Dave (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw: I noticed that the Galactus entry you previously corrected for me still says that G's origin issue says that he contains the sentience of the previous universe, even though all it shows is incubation and transformation within it, this is repeated in the handbooks afaIk, and then relevant image shows them to be separate. The same goes for the image text. Is there any chance that you could fix the wordings to neutral variants? Dave (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Asgardian hasn't edited in a few days, and I suspect he may not be back before the ban goes into effect. Did Mobb One and TheBalance have issues with that aspect of what you were posting? Give it another try at fixing it; if the three of you are still having trouble agreeing with each other, maybe we can give mediation a try? BOZ (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure what they think of the new one. The current version seemed to be fine with them, but since Asgardian wanted to change it and asked for outside support, I took the opportunity to present my own preferred version. Then I tried to take in J_Greb's advise and modify it according to that, but basically anything that doesn't state that Galactus is the best character ever, the embodiment of everything and more powerful than all other entities combined, and should be thanked and have statues built in his honour for being todays designated snack-food blood sacrifice, is likely to sit wrong with them, and beyond that type of misaimed fandom sitting very wrong with me, I simply see it as a category of entity, the ¨individual acting out a function and physical rather than abstract force¨ type, which is matter of fact. Dave (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about Galactus article rather than the template, then yeah, they have a major issue with that it should be explicitly stated that he contains a universe within him, regardless that nourishment of planets wouldn't be an issue if that was the case. Dave (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I was referring to the Galactus article. Are they also conflicting with you over the template? BOZ (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not currently nno. There used to be problems long ago, since they wanted to structure it in a power-hierarchy pattern, with Galactus put as equal to Eternity, Infinity, Death, and Oblivion, since as Mobb put it 'Galactus was the second biggest plot device deus ex machina after the Infinity Gauntlet, and able to counter its power' (never mind that the Magus wielding an incomplete IG considered G to to be as comparatively inconsequential as the regular Marvel heroes, and dispatched them all by snapping his fingers). I much prefer to index them into type. Meaning fully abstract ideas in one column, the physical forces performing a function in another, and the ones who are either beyond this scale, don't have a specific purpose or both in a third, and there was no good reason to keep Stranger and Eon, who have been stated as fulfilling a function, in the last column. Abraxas is a muddled quantity and could be either the second or last. Anyway, since there were two of them (A & TB) I had to let the column merging go, and we eventually arrived at the current compromise. Then Asgardian wanted a convenient case to redirect blame and started it up again, and I decided to take the opportunity to try to present the case for the people he notified, but J_Greb (who tends to know best in my experience) said that I shouldn't have a 'mortal universal power+' scale anomalies section, and add ones for objects and space characters, and add a few overlooked cosmic cube entities like the Beyonder, but was somewhat unclear beyond that, so I tried to adapt the draft to that, but he might tell me to merge section one and two, but I still want to at least show my version for overview first (the bigger template is my version). Dave (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.


 * User:Asgardian is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Something to keep an eye on...
With the close of the ArbCom case, Asgardian has left a farewell note - - on his talk. Actually used it the replace the ArbCom case notes and two "complaint" threads, but that isn't the real issue.

The content of his farewell... to be honest some of it reads as "troll bait". We may want to keep an eye on the page in case some rise to that bait.

And I'm a wondering if we should run a few of his phrasing choices past the ArbCom since they look like parting shots at them.

- J Greb (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian fallout
Just something to keep an eye on...

It looks like at least one editor - Rtkat3 - is hitting, and reverting, a good chunk of where Asgardian was editing.

On a cursory, very cursory, look I found most of the edits limited to restoring/re-inflating IoM and AV sections. At least one instance though - Rhino (comics) - was a top to bottom revert and included link changes didn't and shouldn't have happened.

This may not be the only occurrence we'll see.

- J Greb (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I had only planned that one last comment on User talk:Asgardian, because I realize nothing good will happen if I continue the conversation. I stated my opinion and I will leave it at that. I probably should have left things as they were and not make that comment, so I apologize.


 * With regards to User:Rtkat3 making massive reverts of pages where Asgardian was editting, you will just want to keep an eye on him. Warning him on his talk page seems to take a long time before he fully listens. -- Spidey 104 contribs 15:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had noticed that Rtkat is kind of nonresponsive and tends to go about things his own way, but not as badly as recently-blocked NickLenz. You might want to mention these changes on the Comics project talk page so that multiple editors can keep an eye on the situation. 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Invitation - Cowboy creation
Howdy, you are cordially invited to give your input at

Enjoy your day! --Scott Free (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Galactus
I hear you, and I'll support you on that &mdash; I saw the lengthy and unproductive-looking blocks of discussion halfway up that talk page. Seeing as how debating each other's points didn't work, what I'm hoping to try is to get them to focus on their commonalities, maybe by using more general and less detailed descriptions of things. I admit this seems a last-ditch effort, but sometimes people can surprise you.

It feels so much less stressful to come to Wikipedia these days. I have to say, you're really turning out to be a terrifically diplomatic admin who can nonetheless get things done. Bravo, BOZ. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you're right about a topic ban for DavidA and The Balance at Galactus. (MobbOne doesn't seem to be around much.)


 * My efforts at refereeing haven't produced much good. Here's what I just posted to them at Talk:Galactus. I think it lays out the situation pretty plainly:


 * I have to say I think I gave this my best shot, But with all respect to both parties' knowledge and genuine caring, and your devoting admirable time and effort to try to write something useful and encyclopedic, I'm afraid that trying to reach common ground is doomed when you each refuse to budge from your positions, reject compromise phrasing (User:TheBalance), and seem unable to work with the concept of succinct responses and short replies (Dave) Unless each of you learns to collaborate -- which means to find reasonable compromise and commonality -- then my own efforts won't produce any good results.


 * One admin I've been in touch with has suggested banning you both from this article for a time, and presumably letting other editors write a plainer, more basic version of the disputed sections -- leaving out excessive detail to write plain-vanilla, inarguable facts ... which you two have not provided, since you're arguing with each other.


 * I said to him, "Wait and let me try this first." But I can see it's not going to work. I'm disappointed. I absolutely know you both are operating in the best of faith. But I, at least, can't help when there's such refusal to compromise -- which, frankly, I see more with David, who, despite good intent, is doing OR synthesis and analysis and continuing to defend his positions at excessive length.


 * I'm sure we'll work together on articles in the future. You both care and know your stuff. But this intransigence means you'll both keep reverting each other over and over again. That's not doing any of us, the article, or our community any good.


 * So, there we are. I'll be glad to go in and do my best to clean up -- maybe us two and Emperor could make short work of it, or I could post a Noticeboard call to improve Galactus. Whatever way you think works best. After everything the Project has been through, I'm all for cutting off escalation and a cooldown. Hang in there. With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'll suggest it to them. And I'm glad you're busy -- in this economic environment, that's a nice change from what a lot of my friends were saying just six months ago!--Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Only if you feel comfortable with my asking: I'm a writer/journalist/critic. What do you do? (And if I hear no reply, I perfectly understand; anonymity is freeing.)--Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dig it, man.
 * DavidA explained at Talk:Galactus that he was a differently abled condition that affects the length and tangentiality of his posts. It's a big much for me in terms of mediating, so I regretfully have had to bow out. He seems like a good kid and I wish him the best; it's just a bad situation there. Ah, well. -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, exactly. I was trying to mediate informally first. But then, like I always say, leave it to the professionals...! :-) --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So is anyone going to continue the mediation soon? Because as it currently stands the article uniformly enforces TB's (no, seriously, it really itches to call him as self-styled title he's the antithesis of) largely misleading propaganda-styled extreme bias and double-standards. Dave (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know if TB is willing to go to formal mediation? It's a voluntary process and requires an agreement to participate from all involved parties (i.e., if you set up a case and not all parties sign, the case gets rejected). It is a very interesting process though, and probably the most painless step in the Dispute Resolution process, in my experience. ;) That is to say, RfC and ArbCom are much less pleasant! BOZ (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno what he'd accept. Generally he just tends to undo any accuracy adjustments whatsoever, no matter if I try to compromise, and he hasn't been very responsive so far, whereas I remember Mobb once said that he will continue to revert no matter if he gets banned for it. I want the issues to finally be resolved though. This is ridiculous after all, but given that TB sees me as some enormous threat to his favourite character, and somehow thinks that I'm worsethan Asgardian despite that I have no bans and close to never intentionally lie, and I almost see him as a scientologist by now, given the sheer fervour pouring out of them when talking about the character, and no neutral compromises are ever accepted, we're not on good speaking terms. Dave (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll ask him then. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been awhile now, and I'm getting really tired of waiting. Is there any chance that you could comment on a solution to the already discussed point in the meantime, or am I allowed to revert TB's uncompromising censorship? I didn't think that my last batch of accuracy corrections were of a controversial nature. Dave (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverting isn't likely be to productive, is it? I asked The Balance if he wanted to do mediation regarding the article; he stated that he "wouldn't object" to it, but that he would be too busy to participate at the moment. Given that mediation most certainly requires participation, I asked him to ping me if his situation changes. If disruption resumes instead of discussion/compromise, you might want to just skip the nonsense and take it straight to AI/V. I honestly have no solutions to the Galactus situation that don't involve heavy handed measures for all participants, so I'd prefer to seek an option with a lighter touch first. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that my impression of TB is not that he is generally interested in compromise, given that he's mostly reverted the slightest change, and not recognised attempts by myself to reword in as neutral fashion as I am able to. He wants to keep the page exactly as is, so why should he enter a tiresome discussion when he can just wait until I eventually lose interest? I have been patient despite that it is very hard for me to do so. Basically the only way to solve this is that we each say our piece, and verify that this is it, whereupon you and Tenebrae (or equally objective onlookers) listen and independently decide upon a non-misleading neutral wording regardless if either of us like it or not. We already said our piece about some of it, and I spent some time replying, so it seems like a shame to suddenly break off when neither of us basically had anything more to say. Then at least we'd get some of it done. You could also check out the actual edits I made. I really don't think that there was anything factually wrong or particularly controversial about them. Dave (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm the person with the best judgement, as far as being qualified to determine who is right in such an argument. Tenebrae is probably better at that sort of thing than I am. That's why I'm trying to get you guys to resolve it amongst yourselves; if the two of you can't compromise because one refuses, and if mediation is impossible because of that, and if the edit wars resume and continue, then I will be forced to protect the article from you both to keep the disruption from happening. I don't want to do that, but it is the eventual likely outcome when we have two people going at it for so long with no signs of stopping. If I get one of you banned from the article, then the other one "wins" and gets to do what they please, so I would have to get you both banned from the article. Continued discussion is the better option, but when that reaches a stone wall you need a different option. If you ask me to be the judge of what is the right way to resolve this dispute, I'm likely to throw my hands up in the air and say "I don't know!" so you need someone else for that. I'm just tired of the whole thing, as I'm sure you are too. That's why I suggested mediation, although that only works if you are both on board. If that isn't going to happen, then you need another solution. BOZ (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that ban us both and he, i.e the uncompromising fellow who tends to go for extreme, unreliable, censoring, and revisioning the way he'd prefer events to have been fellow, wins entirely, and Mobb is probably roughly just as much of a Galactus-follower as TB. So waiting and doing nothing while I'm forbidden to interfere, or getting banned, both work great for him. I also don't really know anyone else of matter-of-fact enough viewpoint who'd be interested beyond you and Tenebrae. J_Greb didn't seem interested when I asked him after he resolved Dormammu, although I suppose Nightscream and Emperor might be an idea. I do however believe that the only way to conclusively resolve this is: "say your argument, and then we decide after listening and trying to understand, that's it, deal with it", and it is the kind of annoying disinformation itch that won't go away for me, so I really do want it adequattely done and over. Dave (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell you what: I'll ask all four of those fellows to weigh in, and I'll see what they have to say. I don't think I have the presence of mind to be the main, or only person to deal with the situation in an outside objective manner, but I definitely don't mind being part of an multi-person effort. BOZ (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing TB's contributions again, it seems like he hasn't edited the article since April 19, and the talk page since April 21. He claims to be busy, and the dearth of his editing lately seems to support that. Given that he has been pretty quiet for about three weeks now, I'm not sure what could or should be done at the moment. If you have a suggestion, I will contact the other fellows, but right now it looks like nothing is going on. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have little doubt that he would return quickly if I did revert any of his changes, but as I said some of the discussion is actually done, so evaluating the relevant parts of that would be a good start. Dave (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * TB is back destroying neutral solutions elsewhere, without contacting you that he has returned, and I'm getting extremely tired from waiting and playing his game. I'd appreciate if we could get this process started soon. Dave (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll get up to speed on it and see if anything suggests itself (this side of a topic ban). (Emperor (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC))
 * That would simply play 100% into TBs hands, as he wants to avoid a point-by-point official scrutiny of all the multiple errors that he has inserted (which is the line I want to go by, see above), by provoking a convenient topic ban that does not resolve anything and keeps his version intact, by dragging out the situation to create impatience, and when that didn't work, is now trying to start an edit war at Cosmic Entities over the same issue that was mediated in the Galactus talk. I want an official evaluation. To say my piece and have neutral parties decide what goes, to get a final resolution to the matters rather than push them to the future. It might take a while to get the points hammered out one-by-one, as there are limits to my time and focus as well, but some of it is finished to be evaluated, and we can go from there. Dave (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I invited a few people to discuss; I didn't have time earlier today, and I still don't know, but I put the word out that we need some kind of resolution. BOZ (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's do a formal mediation. I can see Dave is working behind the scenes to diminish any credibility I may have here, so we may as well get this underway.  TheBalance (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm saying exactly what I think as usual, filtering is obviously not my thing, doing so openly not through secret messages, and yes you really have been very unwilling to compromise in the slightest. I like Tenebrae's solution, with the addition that neither of us gets to decide the final phrasing, as concisely putting up the points of each issue for evaluation is the best way to avoid a repetitive back-and-forth. We already have the points out for the first issue in the Galactus Talk, with the exception of a few handbook scans which I suppose I'll have to check for again, as my portable hard-drive wherein I stored the Galactus folder with relevant images is in for repair. (Another reason, beyond time restraints, that this may take quite a while) Moderators can start by evaluating the relevant points of that part first. Maybe the segments could be copy-pasted to start with? Still, I'm fine with Cameron and Emperor starting to clean up general problems with the structure of the article in the meantime. Dave (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * David, are you still willing to give mediation a try? If TheBalance is on board, I'm willing to get things moving. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is remotely possible to get any sort of compromise whatsoever with TB on my own, so yes I'm open for mediation if it is done in the "level-headed non-biased final say point evaluators" manner. If I write anything whatsoever TB will almost automatically reject it, and I have no enthusiasm whatsover for a pointless back-and-forth. There is also the matter of very limited time availability (people can't expect my answers immediately. I'll tell when I've said my point), and not immediate access to my old image collection that I had prepared for whenever there would finally be a discussion about this. Dave (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ravenloft
Ok, so i added the image for Ravenloft: Stone Prophet, but hit a problem for Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession. Ive come a choice for Strahd's Possession out of two images, but couldnt decide which one to upload because neither are to my liking so ill give you the option. Ive got the German version on Mobygames which is good for size bar the german writing and watermark (which i can probly edit out) or a small english version which is only 200px wide. Ill ask you which one you prefer because i wouldnt choose either or you can ask around to see if anyone else can find a bigger english image. Salavat (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * and added. as a side note to be fair that image on ebay looks like it probly came from allgame.com anyways, but the german version is pretty much the same except that "Strahd's Possession" is in german. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, ill look into it when i have some spare time. Salavat (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

3rd set of eyes might bee needed...
If you don't mind taking a look at Talk:Flash (Barry Allen) and also the "From User talk:J Greb" subsection.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for thinking of me; I'll try to help out, but I've got a lot going on right now so I can't promise anything. BOZ (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

David A and The Balance
I'll be glad to help. I've tried before, as you can see on the Galactus talk page, and the step-by-step approach didn't help -- David A has says he has some sort of mental health issue regarding rambling communication, and The Balance rarely communicates or compromises. Their editing differences could be resolved, I think, by more general and less analytically detailed prose, but the two of them can't or won't meet each other halfway. We might need a drastic approach. I'm on deadline now, but I wanted to respond first chance. I'll be back around in a day or two if you'd like to explore things more. Good luck, and hang in there! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I might only be partially active for a few days, so no rush. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I find that to be a somewhat unfair appraisal. I did try to meet him halfway by stating all 3 takes on the origin after each other, rather than only cherry-picking the one TB or myself personally favour, which as far as I understand the term is very close to the very definition of a compromise middle-ground. Dave (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fyi: TB continues to make heavily biased modifications of Galactus (and the character entry in "Cosmic Entities"), while I'm locked to doing nothing. Dave (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Admonish both to stop edit warring and using Edit Summaries as a tool to do this. If they refuse to stop or respond, brief (and if necessary, incrementally increasing) blocks can be imposed. Once you get both to the discussion, ask them (or have someone) itemize each point of dispute, so participants can offer opinions. My lack of familiarity with the details of those characters made me unqualified to offer conclusions the last time I tried intervening on this, at least beyond general adherence to WP policy. Nightscream (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been edit-warring. I have patiently waited for over a month for talk page intervention without doing any Galactus edits whatsoever, despite this being fundamentally hard for me, and haven't responded to TB's attempts to provoke a for him extremely convenient edit war, as is readily apparent by checking my comments and history, and don't appreciate being referred to as such without valid reason. You see, I really want a neutral Talk evaluation, since I know for a fact that I have very valid concerns in every case, and want to finally truly put this annoying itch behind me. TB on the other hand very much doesn't since that would screw up his current biased information-twisting. Dave (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for a neutral talk page evaluation, have you tried WP:3O or an article RFC? There are volunteers who do that sort of thing - although that may not solve your woes, it may be worth trying anyway. BOZ (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not any good at navigating or sorting out the more intricate parts of Wikipedia, am not sure what to go for, what to say, or if it turns too complex, especially limited to mobile access. I just want to put the arguments out in the open for evaluation point-by-point in as expedient a manner as possible. Dave (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well man, then it is a good time to start learning. :) Wikipedia Third Opinion (3O) is a place to go to seek an outside opinion for a specific disagreement between two edtiors. It needs to be more of a direct, clear-cut thing rather than a general question. For example, the active case at the moment reads as follows: "The page contains the following sentence: "For a particular form of pseudo-scholarship see..." and then contains the following items in list format--Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, Pseudolinguistics, Pseudomathematics, Pseudoscience. Does this require a citation?" If you can formulate a specific disagreement in a simpler manner, I can post that out there and we'll see what kind of response we get.
 * Failing that, there is article Request For Comment. This is similar, yet quite a bit different, from an RFC on another user. Basically, you post a problem (which can be more general than with 3O) and the process invites anyone and everyone to comment. You're taking more of a gamble with RFC than with 3O; with 3O you are almost certain to get a response, but with RFC you may get zero respondents and you may get fifteen. Depends on the issue, I guess. Let me know if you want to give either of these options a try, and if not we'll see what else is available. BOZ (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It would be preferable (and less awkward) to handle it within the comics project community, who are sufficiently versed in the basics to get the jargon and points. The first option also has the problem that it only focuses on one issue at a time, whereas we probably have to hammer out several points over a few months, depending on when I have the time to find and upload the relevant scans. Meaning: We'd have to switch participants a lot, and nobody would stick around to notice if TB breaks the agreement. It would turn confusing. The second has much of the same problem, and would easily turn unmanageable with too many participants, or sudden demands (and insults) of rewriting other large segments of the page. Couldn't we just take the easiest path and have various mainstay levelheaded comics project editors evaluate the presented issues, and make decisions from that? Dave (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is, nobody from the comics project is really responding, which is why I am suggesting other arenas. BOZ (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, with the risk of sounding tactless, but I can't really think in terms of deceit, that may lie in the manner you worded it. Currently it sounds more like "David A is going around edit-warring. Should we ban him to get it over with?" than the more accurate"David A has waited for intervention over a month to avoid an edit-war and conclusively end the problem, despite that the current version of the page contains a very one-sided, biased, or questionable representation". People listen more to you than they do to me, so if you tried again at the comics forum without saying that I'm doing thinngs I'm not, and clarifying that I want people hear the arguments and decide from that, some people should probably get interested at least. If nothing else Tenebrae doesn't seem entirelly averse to act as the judge or jury, which would be okay with me, and if you would be willing to chip in as well that would be nice. Dave (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying not to take sides, and I don't know how to better word the situation without making it appear that I'm taking up for you and condemning The Balance - I am doing neither. I'm trying to come up with a solution that doesn't involve administrative actions against either of you; if I wanted that, I could have taken the situation to AN/I already and washed my hands of it. I really don't know what more to do with you guys. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I've tried to express, it's simple. Do exactly the same approach as Tenebrae did, with the addition that the evaluators get to decide. 15:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean refereeing on the article(s) talk pages, I'm not really the best person to judge that sort of thing, which is why I'm suggesting reaching out to other people. I can help with that, and I am willing to do so. BOZ (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That would be very helpful. I might have to find and upload some handbook scan excerpts for the currently handled issue, and which as far as I remember contradict TB's version, but beyond that I don't think there's anything important left out. Dave (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then. So, if figure my last couple of suggestions above are unworkable (or that you'd rather try them later), I could post a request on the Wikiproject Comics talk page for further discussion on the issue. I would post a neutral message, something along the lines of "there is a dispute, please take a look" and you and theBalance can respond to that thread, or any other threads, as you need, and hopefully that will generate some response. BOZ (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be fine thank you. The other options would be a last resort. I think something in the vein of "Mediation judges needed" might be more to the point, but do what you think is best. Dave (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to look into this tonight. BOZ (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Tenebrae for giving this a shot - I'm afraid the collision of David A and The Balance has led to a stalemate. One of the big issues is The Balance really doesn't seem to want to budge and that is a problem - we are putting together a collaborative encyclopaedia and not playing well with others is going to be A Big Problem. It is an especially big problem as it is an important character and it is stuck in a kind of limbo. Solutions? Bump protection up to admin level or impose topic bans and tear that article apart and rebuild it. The PH has been Asgradianed and is currently awful dry - it is little more than, and he appeared in this and then in that and then this. I'd want to basically get rid of the FCB and use parts to pad out the PH and other bits to create a section covering his characterisation. Other minor points include changing "origin" to "creation" and/or "development". We can then use the talk page to discuss other improvements - David and Balance can add ideas and suggestions, if a consensus can be reached (which doesn't mean everyone has to agree just the bulk of the editors) then we'll update the article. Hopefully we can break out of this deadlock and move the article on so it can push for GA status, which is something it deserves. Thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC))
 * I think that would be great. I'm satisfied as long as I get to have my say in the Talk, and you're probably much more efficient in structuring pages than I am. J_Greb solved Dormammu very handily for example. The connected articles "Cosmic entity (Marvel Comics)" and "Power Cosmic" may also require a clean-up. Dave (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes we'd need to take a long hard look at a number of articles that have been "stalled" by all this, once we've broken the deadlock at Galactus, which seems to be the main problem area (and for quite some time too). (Emperor (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC))


 * Oops. Sorry. I was trying both to show support and to add history. Should I remove, and add a note like "I jumped the gun"? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's ok. You always mean well, have the freedom of speech, it can be hard to keep track of what I'm saying. I just needed to clarify that I have actually tried to come up with neutral solutions and avoided edit-warring. Dave (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration structure?
Given that I have been repeatedly very explicit about exactly what I think could have any effect, or I have any energy whatsoever for, i.e. a slow-moving matter-of-fact issue by issue impartial evaluation case, that I'm extremely worn out, have a lot of things straining my focus, am limited to mobile phone access, have at least 5 medical conditions, and can barely even manage to strain together enough focus for that alone, and really really hate getting caught up he-said she-said accusation diatribes, I initially thought that you had accommodated this and it was a content only evaluation, but now it seems like the opposite, which would avoid anything workable and constructive whatsoever. I need getting unwillingly dragged into that kind of thing like a severe case of the measles, and definitely don't think I have any energy to spare for it. If I'm completely honest to myself I'm not willing to be headached, strained, and severely unfocused for several weeks by vainly trying to do research through a mobile phone and be tied up in a blindsided mudslinging contest. Me and TB dislike each other on a fundamental level. It is not reasonable to expect that kind of thing to change. We can however work out solutions if we go through intermediaries and strictly present our logic to them without any personal dislike additions. This would blow it all up and potentially strictly serve as an attack-attack-attack self-righteous agenda game, and unlike for Asgardian I don't actually want TB banned. He's blindsided, not deliberately deceitful and evil. He has however given me a strong impression that he want me banned, and will likely see this as a big chance, which would also remove all focus from improvements inthe article itself, whereas I liked the notion of Cameron and Emperor combing through it on their own, and then me and TB couls state any problems we had with the new version in the Talk, with them and others deciding what goes. That way the page would almost be guaranteed to have any inaccuracies or bias removed, and I could finally leave this thing behind, with me and TB reconsiling our differences by simply avoiding each other. Dave (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying, Dave. Do you mean that you no longer want to do the Mediation and prefer Arbitration (per the subject header)? Users can't be banned as a result of Mediation, so neither you nor he should be concerned with that nor trying to pursue it from that angle. It is a purely content only process, and in fact the case will be rejected if it is clearly more of a conduct issue than a content issue, or if the conduct issues are deeply intertwined with the content issues. I'm not aware of any significant conduct issues in this case? The whole point of mediation is to "work out solutions if we go through intermediaries and strictly present our logic to them without any personal dislike additions" - in fact, in my experience, that is exactly what you do during a mediation case. You present your solution, the other party does the same, and the mediator tries to point at ways of making it all work together in a way that both parties can accept. If it's not something you think you can go through, then I'm not sure what else I personally can do to help you. If you prefer to work with other editors instead, then that is what you will have to do. BOZ (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies, mind-glitch. The mobile makes it hard to read sometimes, and it's been a very stressful day. I misread the case as us presenting our personal problems with the conduct of each other, and somehow thought that this was an Asgardian-style Arbitration. If we're focusing on the article content issues only, then that is exactly what I am looking for. Again, sorry. Feel very free to remove this nonsense section at will. Dave (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's OK, Dave, just some confusion. :)  If you want an idea how a case could go, check out the one I was previously involved in.  Keep in mind that by 2008, some of us had gotten quite hostile with the user in question, but I think we still achieved some positve results all the same: Requests for mediation/Kender  After a while though, it didn't seem to be going anywhere, and everyone had either gone inactive or begun working on other things, so the case was closed - but before then I think I learned a lot and my viewpoints had even been altered. I can't make any promises, but like I've been saying all along I still think it's worth a try. BOZ (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DavidA and Asgardian
I see no cause for giving DavidA any warning, at least with regards to the comment that Asgardians seems to be referencing. Asgardian has been banned, and therefore has no business concerning himself with editorial discussions, much less attempting to police others as offhand comments that they make about him when speaking to others. While Civility may put bounds on what editors say to each other, the fact that David was talking primarily about The Balance, and merely said that did not think that TB was like Asgardian, further mitigates the seriousness of his comment. So does the fact that he has every right to his opinion of Asgardian, particularly since it an informed one formed through years of behavior on Asgardian's part (even if the word "evil" is not the word I'd use). Asgardian has zero legal grounds for "taking if further", as his lack of credibility has become a fact known to the higher levels of administrative authorities on the site, and I do see his comment as being a legal threat, and not one of "traditional Wikipedia dispute resolution", as he alluded to such legal recourses when he whined after being banned. I haven't been following the dispute between DavidA and The Balance too closely, so I don't have an opinion on whether David should be warned for anything he has said in that dispute, but this particular comment is not deserving of any warning, at least not to David, and I oppose the issuing of one for it. If anything, it is Asgardian who should be warned not move on, and seek to find another site for his Net activities. Nightscream (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd consider extending his block to include his talk page - he shouldn't be making legal threats in order to influence the process. As Nightscream says it is time for him to move on - there is the Marvel Database Project... (Emperor (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC))
 * My "warning" to Dave wasn't really much of a warning, so much as a "come on now, play nicely". I mean, I don't think there is anything I could do to him for that even if I wanted to - in fact, if he wanted to continue saying whatever he wants about Asgardian, I wasn't planning to do anything further about it. David's response indicated he wasn't bothered by my suggestions and he figured I was "entirely right", so if I have aggreived him in any way, I wish he would express that to me. I also am not sure if there is anything said between David and the Balance that required a warning, and in Dave's response he also told me that he felt he should tone down his own responses to better focus on dealing with the situation. I didn't notice any legal threats on Asgardian's part, and assumed the notion that he is "willing to take it further" meant involving ArbCom (which, as I told him, he may or may not have any recourse as a banned user), but that is up to him if he feels it is necessary. If I did miss some other implied or implicit legal threat, I will totally apologize to any I have wronged. I do absolutely agree that Asgardian would be best served to find a project he can be more constructive on, whether or not he wants to come back here after his ban expires. BOZ (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and also agreed with Emperor. Asgardian's unhealthy obsession with attempting to police the expression of other editors' opinions of him, and with continuing his little ad hominem taunts of those who disagree with him, even now after he's been banned, makes it clear that he still doesn't get that he's not welcome here, and needs to move on. Nightscream (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
The request for mediation concerning Galactus, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Help
Hi BOZ :) Can you delete my monobook subpage? I only use the peer revier tool on the toolserver now. Thank you! Hekerui (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) BOZ (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hekerui (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help! :) BOZ (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting your input
Hi, BOZ! There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the Year
I meant to ask whether you had voted yet, but then I see you haven't registered on Commons and have made no login unification yet. Perhaps you should do it, I'm sure you've come across the need to edit something on Commons since you became an admin, and I notice your account exists in the German version. I swear I'm not stalkerish, I just found that weird :) Hekerui (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I have an account on the German Wikipedia? I don't remember registering... could be a different person using the same screen name?  And I don't believe I have registered on Commons either, as I haven't had a need to use it yet.  Maybe I will one day, who knows!  :) BOZ (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm stupid, I just read the rules again and you are in fact eligible to vote, you just need to be registered on any Wikimedia project before 2010 and have 200 edits before March or something. Please vote for an image you like before the contest is over tomorrow. Hekerui (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome
I've been working on Wikipedia for quite a while actually, just doing edits, both minor and major without a screenname. I am still technically new, that was my first article, the Red words on the Geoff site have been bugging me for a while. Can we add Modules from the Living Greyhawk Campaign as reference material or is this in violation somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarvenbierschneeman (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

John Buscema
Hey Boz, sup? Enjoying the summer? I got this fun, light, breezy summer project in mind, taking the JB article to GA! (Boys' Ranch made it to GA recently BTW). Care to sort of moderate the process? You're an old hand at this by now ;-) Another of your comic book colleagues apparently wants to participate and I'm not very comfortable working with him alone. There has been some sort of kerfuffle in the past (a rather long time ago,actually), so if you're not comfortable getting involved, no prob. --Scott Free (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae's a good guy, you just gotta talk it out. :) I'll try to have a look tonight - if I don't fall asleep too early. ;) BOZ (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks - But lay off those evening snacks, they're sure to make you drowsy --Scott Free (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh - tell me about it. :) BOZ (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey BOZ - I'm done with the work on the JB article - I left a proposal on the talk page regarding this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Buscema&oldid=369463797

you are cordially invited to give your input.

--Scott Free (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)s Mic

I guess the GA project ran into a few snags - anyhoo, no rush and no biggie if you want to abstain. There's alway Michel Vaillant :-)--Scott Free (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't really have it in me right now to work on getting anything to GA, especially with all the deletion attempts going on. Maybe later. BOZ (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with an RfC
I'm sorry to ask: The rules for establishing an RfC appear to require that two editors first go the talk page where the dispute lies and try to mediate first. I'm simply notifying you and a couple of other veteran neutrally that there is a dispute at John Buscema. Thank you for any attention to this brewing edit war, a repetition of one from 2008. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry guys - I know it's a cop out, but I've got a lot on my plate at the moment. I'll try to help out when/if I can. BOZ (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Naw, it's OK. These things come up in the Comics Project so much, I don't know what I'd do if I were an admin -- throw up my hands, I guess, like I did when trying to mediate at Galactus! Perfectly understandable. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Milowent/Rachel_Uchitel
Can you delete this for us? Not sure if there's some rule that says it needs an XfD. It's an old version of an article that was deleted at AfD, but has since become a real article, so this old version isn't needed. I don't think it has anything worth merging, and the user who owns it doesn't want it anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why deleting that would be any kind of a problem, especially since the user doesn't want it anymore. I'll trust your judgment in this case, and if anyone has a problem with it they can come see me. BOZ (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
As always, thanks for being alert and keeping a cool head. Don't ever disappear like Hiding or Doczilla -- WPC needs you! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't promise I'll never leave - I've always seen there being a finite limit to how long I want to stick around before I burn out... but then I always seem to manage to find something to do that keeps me around. :) BOZ (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You stay! We need you here :) Hekerui (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not leaving anytime soon... just saying I might not want to be around forever. :) I've found the #1 trick to avoid total burnout with the site is just to avoid its politics altogether! Let other people fight over that stuff; I've got more important things to do. BOZ (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Requests for mediation/Galactus
Hello BOZ --

I have agreed to mediate this case, and I wanted to confirm with you (and, of course, the other parties) whether (a) the issue discussed therein still exists and (b) that you agree to me mediating the case. Please get back to me on my talk page or the talk page of the mediation case. --  tariq abjotu  08:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just notifying you that I closed the mediation case as stale. If the dispute flares up again and there's a need for mediation again, you are welcome to file a new mediation request. --  tariq abjotu  15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments needed

 * Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.


 * Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.


 * Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Offensive comic book characters
Thanks. I'm adding that article to the other characters' articles too. Nightscream (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fred Fields
Just a heads up. You've got a typo in the DrV Washington Post should be Washington Times. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Hi Boz, the above article has been put up for AFD. I remembered that the site Play This Thing, ran by game creator Greg Costikyan publishes a tabletop RPG article every week ('Tabletop Tuesday'), sure enough there was a decent article there. I don't know anything about tabletop games though, in particular which sites could be considered reliable sources, any suggestions? Someoneanother 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have no idea either - but thanks for letting me know about the AFD! BOZ (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Rawhide Kid
Since I don't recall ever encountering this editor, I have no reason to think it's the latter (unless it's an aggrieved editor using a different handle than one I've previously encountered); I assume he believes what he opined he did, even if I think he's wrong. I've started a consensus discussion on the matter here. Would you please participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/watchlist
Hey BOZ,

Noticed you're still adding to this page. Might I ask what advantages it's got over just tracking the general D&D category? Seems that doing this manually is a bit of a wasted effort, no? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really - it lets me keep track of every article regularly. BOZ (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Covers
Hi, just updating that them covers you pointed out that needed to be added to Strategic Simulations, Inc. games (dating back to May 1) have now all be uploaded. Wasnt to hard a list to find them covers. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry i know absolutely zero about tabletop pen and paper RPG's so for that id have to say your in your own, dont hestitate to message when you you move back into the future (aka video games). Salavat (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bart's House of Weirdness
Hi BOZ. Can you provide the text of the article that you cited in Bart's House of Weirdness? Regards, Theleftorium (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks so much! :) Theleftorium (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you I have now been able to nominate the article for GA status. :-) Theleftorium (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think it needs to be any longer since this is the only information that has been covered in reliable sources. I'll add a screenshot later. Theleftorium (talk) 08:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on photo
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion here, and would appreciate your input. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and public domain for upcoming edits.
Please discuss seriously about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_and_public_domain_for_upcoming_edits. Rishikeshan (talk)

Now I ask you a question
I'm trying to track down a book that my weird notes indicate as 'Transformers ID3 Priceguide'. Google indicates nothing. This will help improve the Transformers articles; they badly need third party references. Lots42 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Success! http://tformers.com/reviews.php?op=showcontent&id=823 I have the page numbers for everyone of these little monsters. I can't work on the references right now but at least we know what the hell I am talking about. Lots42 (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Full marks for persistence
As you may already know, Roy is scheduled for tomorrow's main page. Looking back, I can't quite understand what drove me to work on it at FAR, as I've never actually read any of the strip that I can recall. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Stonewallers
I'd really like to add something to policy/guidelines that suggests a remedy for this stuff. Or at least points in the general direction. There are too many editors who do this kind of thing. Gavin is not the first and some of his defenders are right that it's unfair to single him out. I'm hoping you agree... because I could really use some help spearheading an effort to add a couple lines to WP:GAME or WP:DDE or WP:IDHT. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, just let me know what you're thinking. BOZ (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Wanted to see if you had any ideas. Off the top of my head... Maybe add something WP:DDE about "if an editor engages in filibustering and stonewalling instead of working towards a consensus" (linked to WP:GAME and WP:IDHT) ... and maybe elude to the remedy you've put together for Gavin. Not necessarily in the specifics. Maybe a bullet about trying other forms of dispute resolution. And another bullet point that says if a pattern emerges, then ... Shooterwalker (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing off the top of my head, but then it is getting late. :) Maybe there is a current sort of admin noticeboard we could look at for inspiration? BOZ (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to get a discussion going with a few other people. Or just to do some reading and brainstorming. Let me know if you can come up with a good place to start. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Joe info
You should know I no longer have access to the Joe book info I had put in. At least not right now. I'm open to any suggestions to improve the articles. Lots42 (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

On your suggestion
There's a billion Joe vehicles. Thrasher's one is pretty noteable, heck, it had it's own puzzle. Not all are noteable. Lots42 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

More Joe refs?
Apparently 'Google Books' might have Joe info. Lots42 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OH SNAP. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=g.i.joe+mobat&btnG=Search+Books I don't have the 'oomph' to do this thanks to a migraine. Lots42 (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

more fun refs to add
Erickson, Hal (2005). Television cartoon shows: an illustrated encyclopedia, 1949 through 2003, Volume 1. McFarland & Co.. p. 376. ISBN 9780786420995. Lots of good G.I.Joe refs. As you may have already figured, I added in some, such as in Vamp. Lots42 (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to look this book up in Google books and help me add in the refs. 8-) Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_%281985_film%29. IIRC, has lots of G.I.Joe action figures in it. Lots42 (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Review
BOZ- I noticed your addition to SimTower. Could I get the "Eye of the Monitor" review in Dragon #217? (Guyinblack25 talk 19:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Absolutely! :) The only question is, will I still remember that by the time I get home? :) BOZ (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC))
 * No problem! BOZ (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Odd question
I know this is an odd question, but in which G.I.Joe episode was Cobra replacing American generals with synthetic doubles loyal to them? Lots42 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh geez, I don't know... haven't seen the cartoon in over 20 years, hard to remember. :) I kind of vaguely remember what you are talking about. Looking at an episode list, probably "The Synthoid Conspiracy"? BOZ (talk) 05:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Running totals
I just blanked that section. I think running totals tend to short-circuit discussion, which is the more important part. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, okie dokie! BOZ (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pointless silliness
http://www.i-mockery.com/comics/protocomics12/default.php As a Joe fan you might get some laughs. Lots42 (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah, that's a good one. :) Messing with the "Fred" family. :) BOZ (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

YESSSS!!!!
Happy days are here again!--Robbstrd (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Web Warlock (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

6 Sick Hipsters
A fun fiction-thriller novel with tons of G.I.Joe descriptions. Casablanca, Rayo (2008). 6 Sick Hipsters. Kensington Publishing Corp.. p. 61. ISBN 9780758222831. Lots42 (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh cool, that's another one for Google Books? BOZ (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, a lot of G.I.Joe refs on the GB pages. Lots42 (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool - hopefully tonight when I get home, I'll have some time to devote to that. :) BOZ (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL - now that is awesome, and funny. This one is much better because you get a good view of the actual pages of the book, and not some tiny little preview where you have to guess what they are talking about.  I'm going to go ahead and add a little paragraph to each of the characters referenced there.  You can see that I have been busy doing something similar for D&D modules recently, which is why I am responding slowly.  But this, for the Joes, is worth it.  ;)  We've got to get as many good independent sources on as many articles as possible to keep the deletionists at bay. :) BOZ (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The trend continues
Now Mogo the living planet is getting a 'notabillity' warning. For crying out loud. Lots42 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it too much, if you figure there's no real possibility about it getting deleted (Ego the Living Planet was not deleted at AFD). Do look for independent sources, and if you don't find any, I would not worry about it as they have a tendency to pop up unexpectedly for characters of any particular significance. BOZ (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If we need refs for DC Comics
Gresh, Lois (2002). The Science of Superheroes. John Wiley and Sons. p. 83. ISBN 9780471024606. - A good place to start. I used it for Doiby Dickles. Lots of great DC comic book info according to Google Books. Lots42 (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I recall seeing that used as a reference before, and/or seeing people discuss it as a good source, so yeah that sounds like something to go for. :) BOZ (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

LadyKiller
my page LadyKiller(band) was deleted. it should not have been. Before I completed my explanation about why it should not have been deleted as it contained many cited sources and explained an interesting relationship between world renowned recording artists and a world renowned studio - I came to find it had already been deleted. If this page has been taken down - then all of the wikipedias related to it - or any wikipedia page about any musician or band should be taken down as well. LadyKillerRock (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2010
 * Hi there - I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, but if you bear with me and remind me later, I'll take a look. Do you have a link of where the article used to be? BOZ (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi.


 * Wow thanks - I appreciate the high praise! :)  Have you seen User:BOZ/Dragon video game reviews? :) When I left off, I hadn't realized that there was another computer game reviews column, which I think covered the late 90s and maybe early 2000s - great, more work for me. ;)  I'm pretty busy at the moment with tabletop RPG stuff, but I will come back to revist that one day. I've also been thinking about going back in and fleshing out the little bits of text that I left laying around all over the place - in fact, on some articles people removed them because they probably didn't find them useful. Oh well, back to work for me. ;) BOZ (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen that page before; I visited it recently, in fact, to check for a review. Anyway, in the event that you ever get back to the grind, I'd just like to say that you're clearly the guy for the job, and one of the few Wikipedians with the endurance to accomplish such a task. Until then, good luck with the tabletop articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I manage to keep going in spite of myself. :) BOZ (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Sir! :) BOZ (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Return
Hey, thanks for your kinds words. Sometimes it's nice to hear your effort is appreciated. By the way, why/how did you finally realize I was Freak104? Spidey 104  16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian sock investigation
Hi. I started an investigation into Asgardian's socks. I don't know why one from last month closed without any apparent resolution or finding, but one of the IPs named during that one is one of the three I've named in this newest one. Someone on that page mentioned that a CU could look that investigation over and forward it to arbcom, but I don't know exactly what that means, whether it was done, and what, if any effect that had. I'm going to notify arbcom myself of that investigation and this newest one. Nightscream (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up on that. I don't know why no one followed up on the one I filed either, other than the fact that the IP addresses stopped posting for a few days so the CU decided it was no further threat. BOZ (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Extra set of eyes needed
Hello. It's been a while. Could you take a look at [this possibly escalating situation] for a neutral evaluation before it gets any worse. Thank you. Dave (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. BOZ (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a pretty tricky subject to write about, given the character's history and suggested nature. I'm not sure which version is "better", to be honest. It's always best to discuss controversial changes, and if that's not going well, you may want to neutrally seek outside opinions from the comics project talk page. BOZ (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Need opinions on photos
Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey man, you too! :) BOZ (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)