User talk:David A/Archive 2008

One-Above-All
Hi David! I've been following your contributions on One-Above-All, and I'd like to talk to you about the recent section you created, called "greater powers". You state there the possibility of powers even greater than One-Above-All's. However, look what Marvel:The End says about this:

However, contact with the Heart of the Universe allows Thanos to learn that, due to a fundamental flaw, the universe is doomed to end very soon, and that this flaw could not be corrected even by the power of the Heart of the Universe. (...) Ultimately, Thanos learns that the only way for him to repair the flaw in the universe would be to destroy the universe and re-construct it. He is finally driven to mindless rage by the attempt of the cosmic powers to usurp his reign, and decides in one fateful, final moment to absorb the entirety of the universe back into himself, so that none might ever again threaten his reign. Thanos is thus able to use the Heart's power to absorb the cosmic beings into himself - and, in doing so, he absorbs the entire universe. The cosmic hero Adam Warlock, who was outside space-time continuum when Thanos absorbed the universe, appeared to Thanos and explained to him what had transpired. Adam convinced Thanos to sacrifice himself to restore the universe. Thanos speculated that the whole scenario had been a set-up from the beginning by a far greater power (implied to be the "God" of the Marvel universe) to fix the universal flaw. Thus, Thanos had himself been manipulated and possibly even guided.

This evidently shows that the heart of the universe is not a greater power than One-Above-All's, to the contrary. I dont know what Avengers Infinity says about this, but I think you should at least rewrite the reference to Marvel:The End, to correctly address the (supposed) power relationship between One-Above-All and the Heart of the Uniaverse. Best regards, Waldir talk 16:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem with the entire "One-Above-All" scenario is that there are different versions out there. The Infinity Gauntlet 'original' one being that the One-Above-All committed suicide, and Living Tribunal apparently took over his position. By this reasoning something far greater than the Gauntlet and the Tribunal should rate higher than this entity. With this other unknown entity manipulating Thanos likevise rating above, making the entire concept moot in the essence of being an 'ultimate ultimate power' rather than simply the creator/God of the Marvel multiverse. My problem with the article is that it doesn't address this dichotomy, rather than stating an absolute structure (based on selective information) where none is to be found.


 * I've read Avengers Infinity and nothing indicates they would be more powerful than One-Above-All. As far as I know, several entities can exist outside the universes, create and destroy them, and manipulate objects at a galactic/cosmic scale, without being considered more powerful than One-Above-All. Besides, this page classifies them 4 levels of power under One-Above-All. For all this, I think that section can be renamed, rewritten or even deleted. Waldir talk 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is comcvine official word from Tom Brevoort/Marvel itself or just fan interpretations? I may have worded this inappropriately, but the 'problem' here is that there have been shifting mentions to the One-Above-All. If I remember correctly the Infinites state that they are greater than any to them 'finite' entities like Eternity, i.e. they're higher-dimensional than 'he' is. This would rate them above the Gauntlet (and Tribunal) which at one point was referred to as the One-Above-All. This is the essence here. Not whether they are greater than the entity hinted at in MU: The End, which is up to speculation. Just that the page tries to present a 'necessary' case of a single referred entity (which is entirely possible), rather than the few discrepancies surrounding the issue as is. This should be mentioned in some manner. I sometimes word things in a slightly incomprehensible manner, so I hope you've understood my point. Othervise I'm happy to explain further. I have no problem whatsoever with you rewording/reformatting it.


 * Well while not saying so explicitly, in the manner of direct comparison, they are supposedly higher-dimensional entities scales of Infinity (i.e. it's Mr. Mxyzptlk vs. Superman, to make a semi-humorous comparison) beyond Eternity, and given that the latter was at the very least able to 'slow the Gauntlet down' in the challenge department, and the Living Tribunal was at best slightly more powerful than the Gauntlet, neither rates scales of Infinity above. Just because there was no direct comparison doesn't invalidate that these entities are, by exclusion of possibilities, at least an order of omnipotence above the Gauntlet/Tribunal in terms of raw power. (Being higher dimensional doesn't necessarily mean that you can necessarily use it for anything fancy, just that you are infinite to lower entities). That said the entity Thanos referred to may likewise be higher, but this was apparently not the One-Above-All/'Infinity Gem Being' referred to as the former master of Eternity at some point if I don't misremember. At the very least these discrepancies should remain as mentions in some form. Dave (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Do as you think is best. I confess I know very little about the Marvel universe, most of what I know came from wikipedia itself, since I've read very few of the comics. I made that remark because to the extent of what I know, that reasoning didn't make perfect sense to me. Now with your explanation, it is clearer, though I must agree that the issue is still somewhat blurred because of the lack of details. I just want to note some passages from Infinity Gems:

Discovering the true potential of the gems, Thanos explains to the Runner that the gems are actually the remains of a once omnipotent but lonely being. Attempts to create other life forms failed as the creations had no concept of good or evil and devolved into beasts. Realizing its error, the being destroyed the flawed creations and committed suicide, being unable to endure eternity alone. A fraction of this being remained, however, and became the Infinity Gems.

The god Loki enter the Ultraverse and recollects the gems. He discovers the existence of a seventh gem - Ego -, and that all seven were originally extracted from the consciousness of a cosmic being known as Nemesis. The Ego gem, possessing the Eternal Sersi, merges with the other gems to reform Nemesis


 * Doesn't this exclude One Above All as the origin of the gems? I know that the seventh gem plotline was developed after the "original" version of the Infinity Gauntlet, but then again, Thanos never mentioned One Above All directly, did he? Besides, what would his name mean anyway, if he wasn't the one above ALL? :) Waldir talk 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I don't know anything about Ultraverse and Nemesis, so possible retcons in that regard are unknown to me. Thanos and Mephisto did refer to it as the previous 'Supreme Being' when conversing in Silver Surfer (#45 I believe), and I think Adam Warlock (Warlock and the Infinity Watch #1) conversed with Eternity and the Tribunal referring to this previous master of reality. However, that bit is a bit muddy in memory. Do whatever you find best. It’s not like this is actual error-correction, or undeniable explicit fact addition on my part, just insertion of notable oddities, since I don't see a solid coherence, rather than various writers doing whatever they feel like. Saying that they seem above the Gauntlet and the Tribunal is probably sufficient as food for individual thought.


 * Also, what about this? http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/slsur1.htm :s I'm getting confused... Waldir talk 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Haven't the time right now. Must go to bed. Will check later.


 * btw, there's no article on them, apparently. Perhaps an entry in Soul Survivor (disambiguation) would be good for a start... Waldir talk 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I'm up for starting pages right now. Will check later. Dave (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw: I just ended up with troubles with a particularly unpleasant editor going by the moniker Manssierre regarding various semi-connected Marvel entries, where he either cherry-picks irrational references, wildly speculates, or censors matter-of-fact references, while stating that my long list of points "isn't worthy of replying to" in the Talk, with the obligatory additional pompous sidestep insults, to give a hollow appearance of knowing what he's talking about, and summarily edit-wars away, to push extremely debatable personal views, regardless if I've made a non-countered case ending up with a compromise previously, and he doesn't bother at all. Thorough solid reasoning usually doesn't work on these guys. I've really tried, and thought compromises had been reached, but end up with unfounded categorical censorship anyway, which admittedly regrettably made me annoyed enough to reflect in my replies. My tolerance quotient has lowered after encountering his very taxing kind a couple of times in these circles, and I don't have much remaining energy/interest/attention-span reserved for them, so they'll outlast me, censor away, and push a rabid exaggeration eventually. Logic and discussion doesn't work. In any case, given your interest, some help would be very appreciated. Thanks.


 * There is even some possibility that he's a sock-puppet for one of them, given his very similar tone of speech, and here mismatched choice of insult words. (Basically 'The most POV, fannish, misrepresented, unreadable speculation text I have ever seen, anywhere on Wikipedia! In truth! You are a retarded illiterate degenerate, who cannot possibly write encyclopaedic entries! Go away and die!' This for changing a sentence from unfounded extreme hyperbole, respectively striking out some wild speculation, alternately adding two matter-of-fact references to very much fannish and unencyclopaedic entries?) As well as his non-existent user space, very limited Talk, and sudden rabid assault on several pages at once, after being 'inactive' for some time, and that the person in question has posted on his discussion page to gain (/'legitimising'?) assistance in the past, with a somewhat suspect track record towards myself. Hmm... Then again, it's more likely that they just have similar personalities, and have kept track of each other's activities. Dave (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest creating a WP:SSP report (like I did for Peter Vogel here), or you could request a checkuser if you decide not to take it to WP:AN/I. I'll back you up, sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, although while the Jjonz/Darrel37 case seems very suspicious, and he has similarly used multiple IPs to make the edits, the user referenced above simply has similar speech-, backhanded "If I may say so... you're a despicable piece of excrement" insults, and pompous personality-patterns. I'm not sure if it's just paranoia on my part, and he seems to have backed off. Being disproven is fully all right, but I always get into a mixture of intense confusion and gradual annoyance, whenever Wikipedia seems enforced on principles of gang-up censoring and out-there point-pushing, rather than matter-of-fact reasoning with the most solid case prevalent. So I'm generally at a bit of a loss to handle these things, vainly trying to use increasing amounts of references, but being ignored, censored, and insulted. I'm a bit short on time, given being mixed up in this kind of situation, and have made another attempt to solve it through matter of fact discussion, but I'll consider it. Your help is very appreciated in any case. I didn't know that it was possible to use an IP-comparison service, so that's very useful information, but shouldn't it be weak against people who use different IPs each time, like Darrel? Dave (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm back Baby Boy!!!!
Hey Baby Boy, did you miss me???--JJonzclone2.0 (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * David, would you happen to personally know this user, ? The person seems to have a grudge against you. Regardless, I've reverted all of the user's disruptive edits and gave a warning. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, no personal relation. He's just an obsessive lunatic stalker who needs attention any way he can get it, and seems to latch on to certain users. He's used over 30-40 sockpuppets in some personal vendetta for over half a year, since he doesn't like that he can't deliberately lie and vandalise on Wikipedia, and blames some of it on me. To paraphrase another editor just before perm-banning one of them. "Trolling, lying, and vandalising are the only things he does on Wikipedia." Alternately, he's a vast series of socks used for a more 'respectable' identity, to push POV lies and behave like an idiot in ways the person in question cannot 'officially'. Either way, he's mostly harmless, and kind of funny. It's very hard to take him seriously. Maybe he got mad because less boisterous vandal-socks like Darrel37 didn't work out? Oh well. If the IP-detect service used above can actually perm-ban his computer from accessing Wikipedia that might be an idea. As he frothingly 'screamed' on various occasions, he's actually unbalanced and fanatic enough to keep this up forever just to 'avenge' himself. I even heard that he made threats towards another editor. Dave (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be back!! Again and again!!
Oh Baby boy, you wound me. You're calling me "obssessive" about you?? Well, of course I am, your my buddy, my pal, my bestest friend in the whole world. Where would you be without me?? Well, catch you later, bud!!--JJonzclone33-3 (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, you're a stalker, with all the requisited mental illnesses, on top of the delusion that you're Lobo's younger brother, and using multiple scream points in every post. You're not even annoying, just repetitive and pathetic. At least you haven't stolen my underwear yet. Who are you fronting for anyway? In any case, start doing balanced, sourced, non-vandalising or POV speculation edits, like most other users, and you'll stop getting them reverted, or wasting both of our times. You're nothing to me or User:Gscshoyru‎, or anyone else you've latched on to, and desperately trying to be a nuisance, or behaving like an idiot won't change that. Whee! You got my attention by reverting 20 edits! How cool. That must make you important... Seriously now, even you must realise that this is ridiculous. Dave (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Excess fair use image in Ranma character articles
This was raised on the WP:Anime and on the main Ranma talk page. I agree that we have to cut down on the images, but have been waiting for you to chip in to the discussion before removing any of your uploads, since a lot of the uploads are yours. Derek has signed on to the idea. Broken Sphere Msg me 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I've been away for a while but will chip in. While cutting down on the images seems ok, one displaying the character in the manga and one in the anime should be a minimum, and the ones showcasing a described event or similar should be kept as well. Dave (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The adding/readding images back and forth in character articles may be seen as edit warring on both sides, so be careful. I would hold off given that there's a dispute between what to include and what to exclude.  -- Broken Sphere Msg me 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But what am I supposed to do? I _have_ been extremely compromising and taken the time to check through which images to keep and which to remove. I have cut them down to half. Why is this seen as unreasonable? I went the middle path, yet he won't relent 1 inch. What am I supposed to do? Just let him destroy this entire section because he feels like it? It's so very easy for someone to go in from outside and make sweeping destruction, but it took 100x more time to make an effort in improving it as much as possible in the first place, and yet I am still the one willing to compromise, while he isn't. Why is that? Dave (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All I can really say is bring your concerns and arguments in support of image retention to the main talk page. The point was originally raised here on the project talk page.  There has been a trend towards reducing fair use images in character articles and especially in lists.  I've also had many images removed and deleted because of this trend.  I've had to accept that as that as a reflection of how consensus has been moving in regards to fair use images.   Broken Sphere Msg me 20:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I've now written a small entry. I would greatly appreciate if you could pitch in to help me out. Dave (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much help I'd be, as you may have noticed that my position has shifted re. image use.  Broken Sphere Msg me 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be nice if you could just back me up regarding that we don't have to delete everything except the top header, and can keep the strength/speed/durability illustration (but take away redundant ones. The one with Shampoo and Kiima may be unnecessary for example). It would be very depressing and stale if eveything was categorically deleted. Dave (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ranma pages
I'm currently going through the character articles, doing updates, and pondered: are all classified as martial artists in the series? Think the category should only be placed here if this is so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Gosunkugi, Kasumi, Nabiki, the Jusenkyo Guide, Tsubasa, Rouge, Akari, and technically Hinako, aren't martial artists, and plenty of the minor characters aren't as well, but you could always create a [:Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters|sub-category]] if you'd like.


 * Btw: Given that you're likely more well-versed in the extremely self-conflicting Wikipedia regulations than myself, do you know of a 'shortcut' to be able to showcase images of some of the minor characters? They're currently in list form, and thus a few recurring, or othervise semi-important, characters don't get any image at all. Despite being a visual medium it sort of got swept under a collective indiscriminate banner-regulation in that regard, but my experience here is that there are rules to justify or ban nearly anything somebody feels like if you really try to dig it up, or form a 5-man committée to drive an agenda, so there should logically be a loophole available somewhere. Dave (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You lost me after replying to my concern. Yes, it makes sense to have a Category:Ranma ½ superhuman characters, however, what categories would go in there that would apply for all superhumans? As for your other thoughts, think you want something like Category:Dragon Ball images? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not expressing myself clearer. I meant that the semi-minor characters are currently kept in lists, and as such go under the "no images used in lists" banner, but this greatly diminishes the pages. It's a visual medium after all. However, my experience is that there are usually conflicting rules, so if you know of, or hear of a loophole, that would be great.


 * Regarding the Ranma sub-category, it would probably better to call it "Superhuman martial artists" or something like that. It's a 'semi-cartoony' series after all, so even supposedly non-superhumans tend to be able to withstand more damage than they should. Dave (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you're interested, there is a discussion going on here regarding the gallery of pics for minour Sailor Moon characters. Think Category:Ranma ½ superhuman characters will do for now (if someone comes up with a better name, there's always cfr). Since you know more about the franchise than I, would you do the honours in creating the cat.? I'll give you a hand with other details if necessary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've now created the requested category. Please feel free to start inserting tags at the end of appropriate character pages. I have to stop in a few minutes. Dave (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations for Powers and abilities of the Hulk
It's really only this section which need them. I have no idea how to get these verified so, hopefully, you have reliable sources? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that part of the text, and have no idea where that particular information is taken from. I just didn't want to be rude and cut it out, as it sort of fits with some vague memories. Basically, it's probably 'true', but I'm still waiting for someone to fill in the sources. Dave (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably refers to the Hulk movie, though I don't recall any particular events because it was one of the most boring movies I've seen. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Was I correct in doing this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. The misunderstanding stems from an extremely old handbook entry, but 1000 miles was stated outright in the referred book. Dave (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just had a thought, we could reference that too. Say something like an extremely old handbook entry gives 3 to 4 miles.undefined What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah. The handbooks almost always downplayed the established power-level of this particular character. The Hulk character nearly jumped into orbit before these were released, he has always withstood the 1000000 Fahrenheit nova-blasts of the Human Torch, and even at weakest saying that he could 'only' lift 100 tonnes is pretty ridiculous, given regular displays. The ratings were always a joke in that respect, but useful for official definitions and relative comparisons between the characters. Dave (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello DavidA, are you O.K. today???
I just wanted to check in with Baby boy today and see how you are doing. It's been a while since I last spoke with you, I stay very busy with my other personas that I have created here in Wikipedia. By the way, one of them you know very well, but I'm sure you don't even suspect who I really am. Here's a hint, I've been an administrator for over three years now. Well, got to go now, see you later sweet pea!!!--JasonJonjonzz (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking the original JJonz has a too low IQ, and too manic-compulsive, plain obsessed, metally ill, and generally retarded behaviour to fit with most people I've had some form of disagreement with. While occasionally severely pompous, I sincerely doubt Thuran or Tenebrae would even consider debasing themselves to this level of ignorant fanatic vendetta, and generally half-baked edits for example, or at least the personas they choose to outwardly present, even if the intents initially overlapped, but yes, you have left a couple of tracks when making inconsidered edits in the past on pages of coinciding interest with a select choice of users, even a couple of IPs, and it is not impossible that a few other fanatic deliberate serial-liars have joined the train, since setting up an "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YoJonzieboyYoMama123456789!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" identity is an automatic acquittal, as everything is put under the banner/fault of the 'original'.


 * Administrators cannot acquire, much less maintain, their functions without an at least semi-serious disposition and grasp of grammar, logic, context, and/or non-chaotic mindset. None of which you have ever demonstrated in the slightest in any of your edits of interest, unless it's simply an "Hey, I'm an insane, evil, slimy little turd, and have discovered that the administrators won't ever bother to track, identify, and block my access. Muhahaha, the power, the power! Aren't I neat?" deal. You are simply far too crude, inane, childish, bratty, and attention-whore-y to fit. That level of, and commitment to a two-faced charade would take a severely disturbed individual to enjoy. Now admittedly, the glove fits yourself, but pompous most definitely does not equal insane for the rest. Keeping 1-2 'bitchy back-up' personas seems to be pretty common in the American comics 'community', and is pretty hard to overlook for a few users enforcing exactly the same type of edits/agenda, and thinking exactly the same way. Someone with even a minimum of observation prowess can notice that, but you? Nah, way too conspicious, tiresome, and over-the-top, beyond temporary 1-shot pettiness. That you would even try to imply anything in this line is the best indictation that this is not the case, and that you are simply another one of the standardised base pack-liars which I tend to grow bored with very quickly. Now go play with someone else. There's a whole wide world of damp-affected 5-year-old kindergarten brats around. Dave (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * David, I don't see why you bother responding to this troll. Ask for temporary page protection if it keeps going on or, ATPIT, revert, block, and ignore. Also, this user, along with the main account, have been blocked indefinitely. (Yay!) In any event, could we get this dealt with? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Naivete I suppose. I always have a hard time grasping that some people cannot be reasoned with no matter what. Additionally he currently believes himself on some 'brilliant' scheme to trick me into chasing ghosts, which had to be addressed. That said, half of the American comic book character pages truly do seem to be run by extremely deliberate liars, with multiple sockpuppets, rendering Wikipedia useless and completely unreliable except as their personal 'propaganda' tools. (No the above-mentioned two are not in this category, I simply found them offensive.) The problem with JJonz is that blocking single users is ridiculous. He's got over 60 separate identities. What's needed is someone who goes through them all, checks the IPs, and edits, identifies him as an individual, block Wikipedia from displaying at his home account, and send him a legal document expressedly forbidding him from continuing, or charges will be brought against him. It has been extensively proven that nothing less will do. He's one of the most fanatic sockpuppet-overkill vandals Wikipedia has ever had.


 * I'm extremely short on time these days, and have lost much of my interest for Wikipedia, partially due to loosing faith in it, since a sea of lies to ridiculous extremes can easily be enforced by 3-4 guys and their socks, but also since I don't really see it as worth the effort/not fun anymore. I've been busy uploading and editing images, and am going to bed soon, so I'm afraid that I don't believe I can set up a new section today. I'll check it up the next time I'm around (which could take a week) User:BrokenSphere is usually a very helpful fellow though, so maybe he can help out in the meantime? Dave (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words, you plan to retire? Also, concerning User:BrokenSphere, is he familiar with Ranma ½ enough to help me sort out the categories? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not exactly plan as such, more like that I don't have so much energy and interest, and see my personal semi-compulsive prerogative to delete or mediate outright lies as mostly a vain struggle. I'm trying to tie up my 'commitments', and then we'll see what happens. Never mind about Sphere, he's very knowledgeable about Ranma, but has got enough on his plate without me giving him extra trouble. I'll create an initial frame for the category myself, but am somewhat hesitant to enter unfamiliar territory. Do you have any comments about what you'd prefer it to be like? Dave (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Use Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters as a basis and see how it goes from there. I'm unsure of what the description should be so improvise if you must. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Belated barnstar thanks
It's a few days back now, but thanks very much for the barnstar (I seem to have a nice set going ... have not won the same one twice). I suppose it's for standing firm against JJonz, enough to put me on his shitlist with you, but I'd like to imagine it was for that day a couple of weeks back where I blocked about 44 accounts within an hour (all but two for vandalism) because nobody else at the time was monitoring AIV. I wonder if that's a record? (Probably not, I'll bet). Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome for the barnstar. It's not much, but at least I'm trying to be polite, and as you noted you've been active in considerably more ways than this.


 * The problem with JJonz is that he continues to create new cover identities, which makes all bans pointless, so identifying him as a person, or blocking his ips from accessing the lexicon in the first place seems necessary. While a habitual liar in all things, he has also claimed that he is a 3-year administrator of Wikipedia, from Texas (I'm sure his fellow Texans are overjoyed that he's acting like bad stereotypes) and a 10-year graduate of communications from one of his home state universities, i.e. supposedly able to emulate various patterns of speech/writing/general trolling, although he failed quite horribly in this regard in previous instances. Other Wikipedians had identified some of his pseudonyms as aliases for 'Peeweehurman', so he at least isn't limited to being active in the 'JJonz' areas, and given the rather simple and petty nature in the early edits of his oldest known identities 'CrystarB4' and 'JJonz' this puts the 'administrator' claim in severe doubt, and I don't have much energy for bothering with him myself, but still, it may be of general interest to check it up. It's not good for the standards of the lexicon as a whole to allow the lunatics to run the asylum. Dave (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "magic" in the category
Should it have been magic and not [[Magic (fantasy)|magic] ]? And I left an inquiry over here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The pure fantasy-connected probably. It's just silly fun&games adventure, not systematically structured 'real-world' connected occultism. Dave (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's fine? And of the Hulk response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably fine. I previously didn't notice the other comment. Sorry. Dave (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
I reverted a flurry of unconstructive edits on Powers and abilities of the Hulk soon as it popped up on my watchlist. You do have this page watchlisted, do you not? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, but I visit Wikipedia more sparsely nowadays. Dave (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm content that some of the more superfluous images were taken off, but can you replace that image in #Strength with a clearer one? I can't tell that he's lifting a mountain, as the caption suggests. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the "Hulk" query? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I didn't see it amongst the 'deleted image' warnings. In any case, that's the best one available. An immense mountain range is shown hovering in the air, it is estimated as larger than the Himalayas by a character, and then drops. Later the characters are shown in a cave at the bottom, with the mountain supported by the Hulk. The cover, with a text blurb included, is actually the best image available, as far as I'm aware. Dave (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanos and telepathy
Thanos doesn't have it, but I'm sure he can talk to people's minds. Kind of like the Surfer doesn't have TELEPATHY, but he can still communicate across vast distances with his...mind I guess. Loki has done it as well. I'd say Thanos has some kinda mental power and TP resistance, but he's not a fullblown telepath. DCincarnate (talk)


 * No, it was clearly shown that he needed Moondragon for telepathic skills, and that instance was written by Starlin, his creator (well, technically he started out as a hollow Darkseid rip-off, but I digress). On the other hand his mind is strong enough to reactively engage Moondragon on even footing, but that kind of thing doesn't make the Hulk a telepath either. You can't insert powers he hasn't demonstrated. Psychic powers implies a wide spectra. As for the Surfer he does have some telepathic ability, such as scanning memories for information and similar. Dave (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Powers and abilities of the Hulk
I don't think they're socks but look at what the page was reduced to. Kinda bad copy-editing all around, especially on the refs. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they may be socks of User:Asgardian, but most likely not. He tends to use deliberately misleading information, combined with extremely suspicious justifications that routinely contradict each other from page to page, depending on whichever view he prefers to push, combined with simultaneous faux-polite cover-up language, and using socks whenever he risks getting too much attention, or is temp-banned from edit-warring. User:TheJaff seems more reasonable, so he is either a new user, or a sock of a semi-reasonable editor who prefers to keep the context/pattern of previous association hushed down. Dave (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I checked User:Doppelganger3.1, and, beyond the deliberate handle, he edits exactly the same way as Asgardian would. I added a "suspected sockpuppet" tag, along with one for JJonz to be on the safe side. It wouldn't be the first time he tried to use misdirection. Dave (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear from you again. So have you alerted User:Daniel Case? He should get the socks banned ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no conclusive proof that it's a sock, beyond that it edits/revert-vandalises exactly the same way Asgardian consistently does in the Thanos page, and shares his views on Hulk/Hercules/Thor, or possibly JJonz sticking to being a low-key nuisance, since he thinks it's more funny to use subterfuge, but if Daniel is an IP-checker I suppose it could be an idea. Dave (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Doppelganger as a specific sock. Any others, let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your effort. Do you have the means to IP-check 'him'? (To get some clarity in whoever is using the sock, as an unidentified puppet-master will effortlessly continue to gather new ones, while retaining a facade) Is there a reference-list with all IPs to check more easily, or must each one be painstakingly compared one-by-one? Dave (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some wonderful assumptions here...

Asgardian (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You've been confirmed as using sockpuppets in the past, have employed contradictory arguments you can to rationalise pseudo-vandalism edits, and the Thanos edit was identical, so yes, it seemed like a very justified conclusion. Then again, it may just be JJonz again. Dave (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In order - no, a clever hacker; your opinion and remember what is said about people in glass houses and finally, less venom. A tad too obsessed about small edits that fixate on match-ups...

Asgardian (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've tried to be consistent and reasonable, and never ever used multiple identities on Wikipedia. Although I've accidentally edited when automatically logged off a couple of times, including just earlier, but always made a note of it. You've used match-ups when it suits you, and generally twisted into something highly unreliable. Dave (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Actually", some of your edits are obsessive, and smack of that "highly unreliable". I also suggest you keep your six-guns in your holsters and stop making accusations of sockpuppetry and call others edits "lies and vandalism". A lot of what you keep trying to insert into the Thanos article is sub-par.


 * No it isn't. It's completely accurate to avoid a wording that creates an inaccurate picture of what was very explicitly displayed. I went through all the arguments with MobbOne, and you keep ignoring them. Dave (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As you have been told, the Wiki-way is to avoid POV, hence no theatrical phrases or nebulous terms. Just relate the gist, without trying to showcase one character at the expense of another. It should also be obvious by now that a P & A is just that - a small piece of prose that relates what the character can do. No terms such as "vast" or odd statements about how X can survive Y's attacks because of Z. Just state what they can do. It makes for easier reading. Yes, Thanos' tech also allows for force field projection. It doesn't require unnecessary exposition.

So, when the text is altered again, please try and understand why. Asgardian (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Relate the gist" such as stating in such as way as it appears Thanos knocked out the Fallen One in personal combat, when this didn't happen, and he simply outsmarted it to knock out itself? When you deliberately edit out the explicitly stated facts that this was only a small part of Hunger and that Galactus was not evenly matched with it, in fact it was much more conclusively stated that Galactus was completely outmatched against it, than Thanos vs. Galactus, which you naturally choose to keep, and so on. Again, I'm completely reasonable to solid _logical_ _arguments_ (not rationalising weasel-rhetoric), as is MobbOne, usually. You have none whatsoever, and keep ignoring the other side with vague outright lies of POV, when what is stated are direct citations, and simply keep vandalising the same way to deliberately push a false version of events. Your complete inability to offer solid explanations, and absolute willingness to use lies to justify the same edits over and over again, has convinced me that I sincerely cannot assume good intentions from you. It's apparently all false play-acting to attempt to present a polite facade while doing something else entirely. You've claimed "photographic memory"? Well, I don't, I simply have a knack for remembering minutiae, but either you are mistaken, since books I look up to verify repeatedly directly contradict you, or that's another lie.


 * The "subpar" rationalisation is irrelevant, as rephrasing existing factually accurate sentences isn't your goal, just to revert to complete insidious misrepresentation. How is "vast" a bad wording, but you "superior" (to what?) acceptable? "Vast" is accurate, as is examples of the extent of an ability, which you and everybody else routinely use anywhere else whenever possible, and are right in doing so as it is more informative, but you cannot cherry-pick exclude or include whenever you feel like it. Dave (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So there's no POV in your edits? Ever? You certainly seem to have a view. The essay on the Galactus Talk Page confirms as much. As for being "irrelevant", if you can't see the flaws in your effort in Thanos' P & A, then you truly do have an agenda. In fact, you seem to take great offence whenever anyone disputes your edits on the cosmic characters. And no, "vast" was yanked some time ago. Too nebulous and cannot be quantified. "Superhuman", "superior" and so on are better.


 * I do in fact have an agenda yes. It's to remove any and all deliberate lies, or mistaken assumptions that I can find. I seriously can't stand them. I'm severely manic-compulsive on that point. If you mean POV in the sense, am I a robot with no personality, then yes I obviously have, as do everyone else, but unlike yourself I do continuously attempt to stick to explicit facts and not censor out any inconvenient details, and do reconsider if someone presents me with a solid, and factually accurate case. Given all of your combined devious behaviour it's hard to simply take your word for that some 'hacker' was responsible for your sockpuppet. Dave (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PS - "insidious misrepresentation"...heh. How old are you? Asgardian (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice try for an irrelevant diversion while offering no specific arguments whatsoever for the Thanos case, but yes, that is exactly your apparent modus operandi, as you do consistently edit or censor in such a way that the reader will draw inaccurate conclusions about what's been explicitly shown, while assuming some standardised vague 'POV' catch-all rationalisation without any specific arguments whatsoever pertaining to the case backing it up. I have successfully defended nearly all of my Thanos or Galactus edits with quoted text. You have not. In fact, much of the old Power Cosmic and Galactus stuff in particular was very obviously thin air, or outright lies, and that's my problem with your 'cosmic' section. It was more smattered with lies than any comics-related sub-group I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The pages I have followed have turned much more neutral and matter-of-fact than when I started however. Dave (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The RPG stats should be removed. According to the statistics section under the editorial guidelines, RPG stats are discouraged from usage along with stats taken from various encyclopedic comics like the OHOTMU.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have very limited personal investment in the inclusion, but removing it doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever, and while my experience with you does not imply that you personally are one of the people who methodically strives to find ways to censor out any 'inconvenient' facts, to strictly twist information into a very biased certain direction, I have a general annoyance with that sort of thing, as it essentially boils down to lies and misdirection. (Although the cosmic section has made me jaded in that regard.)


 * In any case, users regularly cherry-pick out-of-context statements such as editorial promotion blurbs, which are far, far, far less reliable regarding the official policy, while official handbook references are edited out if they happen to interfere with a personal bias. The same goes for character comparisons. This listing was officially approved and does not give any specific limits, just comparisons, so it seems like removing it would be a case of misinterpreting the intent of the rule, alternately a major contradiction/inconsistency in procedure.


 * Not to mention that User:Asgardian for example is simultaneously pushing the inclusion or exclusion of said character comparisons depending on the page, character, and personal bias. Personally I'd say one of the most reliable/accurate ways would be to go to the source and get the official editorial policy. Dave (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as character comparissons go, I've got no problem with them overall. At least, so long as they convey an actual comparisson of characters of similar strength, durability, healing, etc. rather than a fan's attempt to hype certain characters. For instance, if one were to compare the powers and skills and all that of Wolverine and Sabretooth and all the variable times they've fought to standstills and beaten one another and so on are mentioned, then that's fine. What I'd have a problem with is for an editor to insert something into the comparisson that tries to indicate that a character could only win a fight because of his opponent was sick or lost only because he had sand kicked in his eyes. I feel that discussions or debates or comments of that sort should be regulated to discussion forums.


 * I think such things are extremely relevant to mention or the instance becomes extremely misleading and does push a view rather than what's explicitly shown in the story. It's either defining the exact circumstances or not mentioning it at all. The exact circumstances should always be mentioned if unclarity exists. That goes for the Hulk/Sentry fight, Thanos blasting Galactus off his feat by the advantage of surprise, Juggernaut beating Thor when Thor was weakened or when Juggy was temporarily boosted by Cyttorrak for the 8th Day, without mentioning that Thor beat him barehanded on a more even occasion, or when he repeatedly ambushed Hulk by hiding in the vegetation, and disguised himself as an ordinary worker to make the latter underestimate him. That Hulk punched him gasping to the ground in one blow the next issue is ignored, and so on. I used the same rationale to edit away ridiculous inclusion of Hulk somehow achieving a feat by 'beating' the Destroyer, when he was in fact beaten up thoroughly, inclusion of the fact that he had help by catapults to split that planet, or editing away all the 'virtually unlimited' strength hyperbole. The point isn't about somehow 'glofifying' the Hulk. I'm extremely fed up with the character at this point. It's that much of the cosmic section have a very pronounced editing agenda, which goes completely against what's explicitly shown and stated, and having comparatively low ability to filter/bias analysis for myself, that kind of thing really gets under my skin.


 * (1)As for the various stats, removing them makes all the sense in the world to me. Aside from being taken from an old RPG, I don't know what any of the strength stats were supposed to have meant. Did 20 mean a character could lift a battleship? move a mountain? (2) In any event, I doubt they'd have been included to begin with if the creators of the game hadn't put the Hulk's strength stat above that of anyone else, with the exception of Galactus I think. (3) Lastly, the stats of a 10 year old RPG have nothing to do with the various goings on within the confines of the comics. That would be like listing that the Hulk defeated Galactus just because someone used the Hulk to beat Galactus in Marvel: Ultimate Alliance.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) The rpg was officially editorially approved, regardless if you or I like it or not, and as far as I know more thorough with the character roster than the later edition (or at least I could find more statistics for comparisons online, which was the reason I didn't use the 2003 version), which had angry Hulk at strength 18 and Thor at 10 btw (or 36/19 if converted if you will), as opposed to 30+/19, so it's not like that one changed the circumstances for the milder.


 * (2) Not exactly. The Celestials were at level 30. It think Galactus varied depending on how much he had fed. Hulk was the only character who could go past 30 though. Given that it's a 'powers and abilities' page Hulk's outrageous power-listings and displays are obviously of interest, especially the latest games, as the handbooks are much less specific past the 'class 100' range. The latest listing did put a note than Hulk exceeded it several times over though. In the Thor page Stan Lee's comment of creating Thor as the only guy who could best Hulk is included, but not his much later reflection that as a god Thor probably shouldn't be possible to overcome by a mortal, but Hulk just keeps getting stronger the longer a fight progresses so there's no way to beat him either, or that Stan penned a fight with Hulk wiping the floor with an unarmed Thor back in the 80s, and any attempts to include 'the Man' (the creator of both characters) writing Mephisto stalemating Galactus as an indication of the former's power are obviously consistently edited out by Asgardian, or TheBalance, as, regardless that the most prominent creators defining the character (Lee, Gruenwald, Byrne, Starlin, Engleheart, Giffen), only Asgardian's cherry-picked instances are enforced, such as Loki being shown as more powerful than Doctor Strange way back before the Doctor was occasionally boosted to virtually omnipotent cosmic entity levels.


 * (3) No it wouldn't. Results of Ultimate Alliance battles aren't an official listing/comparison of statistics. The characters even greatly shift power-levels depending on experience, and I think Galactus was a gang-up assault foe (which of course still has to be barely beatable or the game wouldn't work), but have only briefly tried to play it so I could be wrong. As for the age of the game, Hulk has been significantly powered-up since then, as has Thor, due to the Odin-force, but you still approve of battle comparisons between Hulk/Hercules or Hulk/Thor or Loki/Doctor Strange (and presumably Loki/Silver Surfer) based on their first encounters back in the 60s, around 40 years ago. And you'll note that unlike Asgardian I haven't resorted to editing those instances out, because they're nearly as relevant as the rest of them. ("Nearly" given the massive power-ups) Dave (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Approved by whom? I don't recall a discussion in the project's discussion page in which a consensus was reached to ignore policy. The editorial guideline says to leave out RPG stats, so I'll delete them if I run across them.


 * 2. While I don't really care what the stats are supposed to mean, my statement was mostly to point out that those without access to said RPG wouldn't know what they are. The primary purpose of the articles is to provide accurate overall information about whatever the subjects of the articles are. I don't see what obscure statistics add to the overall info of the character in which only certain people will know about their meaning.


 * 3. I brought up the age of the game as another indication of just how obscure it was. Even if somebody wanted to, I doubt they'd easily be able to find that game themselves so they'd know what's what. Also, don't tell me what I approve of. I approve of character comparissons if they serve as an actual comparisson rather than the result of a personal bias or agenda. If those comparissons are the latter, then they should be removed or rewritten. I haven't been to any of those articles in ages, nor am I really all that interested in them. If I do though, I'll edit as I always do. If I see something that shouldn't be there, either as vandalism or policy violation, I'll remove it.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Approved by Marvel editorial. They're official. There is no rational reason to allow quoting unreliable event promotion-blurbs, but not official, much more carefully evaluated, handbook statements from the same editors. As far as I've heard other users refer to the policy the handbook stats are discouraged due to the inaccuracy of the 'class 100' scale and similar, not in a strict comparison respects, as they are just as reliable/official as anything else Marvel produces. THen again, I don't really have emotional investment in the issue. There are plenty of references around without it, but right should preferably still be right.


 * (2) Putting absolute, far too low, 'limits' on the characters is the referred reason I've heard to the statistics being discouraged, while strict comparisons are the same as any other reference, and are just as accurate as the regular appearances. As to the 'obscurity' jab, 40 year old outdated appearances are still considerably more so. If there are several other characters listed for scale references (Here, Juggernaut at 19, Thanos at 22, Destroyer at 24, Surtur at 28) it works for a general sense) there is no more confusion involved for the reader than anything else.


 * (3) That's just the thing. It's no more obscure than the other Marvel RPGs, and considerably more recent than the 80s incarnation. Even if people wanted to find most of the referenced comics they couldn't do it in the store. It's an irrelevant objection. If anyone wants to check something up the only reliable resource would probably be bittorrent, which probably has all of them available somewhere.


 * (4) As for character comparisons, if you do in fact allow some less reliable ones, but not others then you would either have an agenda yourself, as cherry-picked censorship as to when a guideline should apply or not doesn't hold, or simply not have noticed them, which is more likely given that you're not Asgardian. The only fair solution is to clarify when specific circumstances were involved or not, an exact matter-of-fact referencing of what character made a statement and what was actually said in the context. Othervise it does serve a deliberately truth-distorting agenda from some editor involved. Dave (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good article qualifier?
I'd like to nominate Powers and abilities of the Hulk for a good article review but was wondering if you'd like to add in anything else before I do so. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That kind of thing will just make various editors put demands on me to devote several days of my time to put it up to their standards, and I've mostly lost interest with Wikipedia to start with. At worst it will give someone with a grudge against the page a chance to push that it should be deleted. It's the most frquent loopholes in Wikipedia society. Calculated gang-up lies, manipulation, and conveniently (mis)quoted tangled bureaucracy. Dave (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Haven't you thought about the benefits? There aren't many comic-related pages rated as good articles, and I think this one has potential. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone else wants to handle it maybe, although it's almost certain to attract people who take a chance to censor or even delete it, but I'm definitely completely sick of editing Wikipedia. For every good person like yourself, there are 2-3 complete slimeballs. Not very rewarding for those who try to stick to facts and straightforward logic, rather than convenient manipulation, and I'm not getting paid for this. Dave (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw: Is there any chance that you could check over [|this] page. I seem to suffer from a gang-up, and I'm too bored from same-old, same-old, and not really caring, to invest myself too much. Dave (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your link is broken, but I'm sure you meant Talk:Galactus. What's the gang-up there exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, when I started going over the cosmic section, I found lots of thin air Galactus hyperbole references all over the place. Literally 'Galactus is the most important cosmic entity'. 'Galactus is more powerful than universe-creators/-destroyers like cosmic cubes', 'he is the living incarnation of the 'power cosmic' (which he uses) and it is the most powerful force in the universe', 'he is not just the balance of Eternity and Death, he is their equal', 'he is a third of the Living Tribunal' (the most powerful of all Marvel's cosmic entities) and so on, especially wording everything in such a manner that it would be misread from what actually happened in the cited (or uncited) issues. It turned downright embarrassing, and I got nervous ticks from it, as virtually none of it had a solid foundation. It's like those annoying "virtually unlimited strength" edits people keep inserting into the Hulk page, but taken to even greater extremes.
 * Currently I've cleaned up much of the pages I've discovered, so it's sort of 'ok', but there seemed to be another lashout while I was gone from Wikipedia last time. No as unmanageable yet as I thought though. The last time it turned nasty, everyone ganged up to undo my edits regardless if I had a winning point in the Talk or not, and either ignored or insulted me, so I got bored and went away. After fixing the Apocalypse page, and a few others, I started to get interested in the cosmic section again, completely rewrote the horrible cosmic entities page, and gradually strated to get drawn back to Galactus, after first doing some larger ones at Thanos, I did a few minor edits there, and eventually got a Talk reaction. We'll see if I need some overview or if they are sensible or unreasonable. Dave (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Galactus will probably work out, as it's basically a case of semantics. [Thanos] on the other hand keeps being hounded with the same censor-edits over and over, which give a highly misleading picture of what was explicitly stated to happen within the comics. Everything censored is completely matter-of-fact as far as I'm aware, as opposed to the serial-restored (no compromises whatsoever acceptable apparently) misleading version. Help would be very appreciated. Dave (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I could help you, but the only comics I read is manga. Have you ever tried requesting protection or leaving a note on WT:COMIC about the content dispute? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a thought, although I tend to be too lazy to read up on bureaucratic procedures. Dave (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I only have little time right now, but I'll check whether or not I've already done a Talk 'point-by-point' argument or not at the Thanos page first. I'll hopefully insert one in a few days othervise. If Asgardian and 'TheBalance' (someone who apparently is so biased that he named himself after a very biased perception of Galactus) continue with the monodirectional factually inaccurate Galactus-pumping censoring (in every 'appropriate' Wikipedia page they notice) afterwards I'll consider putting up a note, but it's not the way I prefer to do these things. Dave (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. My user name has nothing to do with Galactus. It seems you are unable to avoid baseless accusations and misinterpretations in any endeavor.
 * 2. You continued to insert factually inaccurate interpretations of what was conatained in SS vol. 3 #31 in a very obvious attempt to degrade Galactus' stated importance. For example, you stated that the Living Tribunal "likened Galactus to serving the function of Equity" when such was never communicated in the comic.  The Tribunal named Galactus as Equity in the trinity of Eternity, Galactus and Death, nothing more, nothing less.   You are clearly injecting POV here to further an agenda, one I see you adhering to across the cosmic pages.
 * 3. You're not doing yourself any favors by making these wild, exaggerated, and unfounded accusations against other editors.
 * TheBalance (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've inserted a note. Hopefully that should solve any provlems, as I'm far beyond tired of that mess. Dave (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm visiting for the first time in almost a month, as I have very limited interest in Wikipedia these days and basically see it as a waste of time, but here goes: 1: When you consistently try to pump Galactus to completely thin air speculation importance as 'possessor of the most powerful force in the universe', 'one third of the Living Tribunal', 'and quite possibly the most powerful cosmic entity of all', while first avoiding to answer my initially very polite and extensive Talk treatise about the subject, to then switch to making pompous opening statements that I'm 'not worth answering to' in lack of arguments, it's not exactly high physics to draw that conclusion. The alternative would be that you proclaim yourself as completely incapable of bias, which is blatantly proven false. Me, I get going by that sort of thing, as seen on plenty of other US comic character pages than your beloved Galactus icon, unless it's explicitly spelled out without any unclarities, which makes it fine, and if there are these should be mentioned. You might remember that I tried to _add_ that Galactus was shown capable of threatening entire galaxies (in his battle with Mephisto) to his powers section, since this one was without any doubts whatsoever. My 'agenda' is to stomp out any excessive POV speculation or made-up hyperbole, which have been extremely widespread regarding galactus, and have made efforts to improve the strictly factual referencing and quoting at various pages, while yours thus far seems to have been to 2: The LT stated that Galactus served the function of equity in the Eternity-Death duality, yes that's always been my point, and Galactus has stated that he "exists to rectify their balances", and the writer of Galactus modern origin story, creator of the official Marvel handbook, and departed head editor, Mark Gruenwald stated in Quasar and cited in handbook, that he's a physical entity of such importance that he's granted use of M-bodies. You've tried to either support the "One third of the Living Tribunal", 'most powerful being ever, and let's ceonsor all explicit examples that sayothervise, even if... say, the _creator_ of Galactus, Stan Lee shows that he's on equal footing with Mephisto, or Jim Starlin shows a nourished Galactus almost killed by a major nuclear explosion combined by a planetary impact. You've tried to tout him as more important and powerful than later mentioned/retcon-created abstracts such as Oblivion, Infinity, and Entropy, as "the third force in the universe", which was only true at the time Death and Eternity were the only major ones around, except for Chaos and Order, and they were (at least briefly) inserted as rulers of another universe.

Serving the function of 'Equity' to Eternity's 'Necessity' and Death's 'Vengeance' seemed like the best description I could come up with, to inform the reader of the full context of the Tribunal's allusions, without making comments if this is a good description or utterly inane regarding the latter two. As there have been some recurrent reverting to the whole 'Galactus is connected to the Tribunal, and the most important abstract ever... whooooooah groovy' deal, I've tried out some variations to that to hopefully satisfy everyone. My intent here is exactly the one I've stated, i.e. to avoid the above-mentioned hyperbole, and give an accurate summary of what was said without imposing it upon later 'invented' abstracts. Are these wordings assumed perfect? No, obviously not, and I've said that people should feel free to improve the language, but not modify the essence. The Tribunal stated various symbolic examples of 'necessity' 'equity' and 'vengeance' to the Surfer at various scales and relationships, since the latter had been thinking and experiencing beings and cultures extremely vaguely along these lines. It was pretty sucky and half-baked writing by today's standards, but kind of cornball charming I guess. Galactus can not be the end-all be-all _embodiment_ of _all_ equity as there are plenty of other relationships, some of them illustrated by the Tribunal. As the same writer penned Galactus stating earlier, he "exists to rectify [Eternity's and Death's] imbalances", no more, and no less, as you said. Again, context. I'm not sure if we agree or disagree on this point.

As a few side-notes tying in to some of the above, the story promotion-blurb comment of Galactus being the "quite possibly most powerful being in the universe" should be mentioned as just "editorial story promotion-blurb", rather than presented as fact, when he's been completely outmatched on multiple occasions, and "most awesome being in the cosmos" should be mentioned as a comment by Thor in the late 60s, and in a storyline where I think Odin was mentioned as of comparable power, but it's been some months since I checked it up.

Your cohort Asgardian has aklso gladly used illustrations of other character's displayed abilities, or comparisons of power in other pages whenever it's suited him, so the excuse he usually uses to censor any storylines not portraying Galactus as 'the greatest being ever', to create a far more balanced whole picture, doesn't hold water.

3: It's a good thing then that I don't do wild accusations that I know of here, and that you started being far more dripping with acid towards myself than I was to you. Asgardian does have a proven track record of suspensions and sockpuppets, not to mention an apparently false claim of photographic memory, while you are more uncertain, but have behaved extremely pompously, and repeatedly reverted the power cosmic entry to ione with some explicit lies. One thing to realise about me is that, agree or not, I always believe exactly what I say, and strive to the utmost for factual accuracy, but also quickly change my mind when proven wrong and rectify errors. My memory tends to be good at minutiae and coherent patterns, but also recurrently gets details wrong, and nobody is perfect. If other contributors cover my blind spots then that's excellent. Props to them. I'm not striving for sleazy faux instant-holiness, manipulation, and intrigue. I'm striving for direct matter-of-fact evaluation. If that makes me uncomfortable to you, then I can live with that. Dave (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Stick to the arguments at hand.  Your essays like your edits are loaded with superfluous language.  Please, try to be more concise.
 * You also continue to put false words in my mouth, not a single quote provided above by you was ever stated.
 * Examples: "possessor of the most powerful force in the universe" - never stated
 * "one third of the Living Tribunal" - never stated
 * "and quite possibly the most powerful cosmic entity of all" - never stated. These are misrememberings of statements that are as inaccurate as your misremembeings of the comics you continually base your edits on. Here's a piece of advice, as it's obvious your memory is poor, avoid basing arguments or edits on your rememberings.


 * 2.1. I've tried to support what was actually stated in SS vol. 3 #31, you have tried insert your incorrect interpretion of what was contained in the comic. It's obvious your wording was constructed in an effort to minimize Galactus' importance.  There are more misremberings in this section of your response as well; Jack Kirby was actually the major creative force behind Galactus, not Stan Lee.  Galactus wasn't well "nourished" when he was caught between the two planets and Thanos' nuclear weapons in the Thanos mini.  At the beginning of the mini Galactus hadn't fed in weeks (evidenced by his sustained position over Rigel-18), he was forced to deal with Thanos, then he faced Hunger before being caught in the planetary explosion.  Galactus also clearly stated he was again hungry after dealing with Thanos which  was before engaging Hunger.


 * 2.2. Dave, you can try to present your own personal interpretation on the comics as an argumements, but the following are FACTS which are sourced and easily verified:


 * Galactus IS the "Third Force of the Universe" and the balance between Eternity and Death. It doesn't matter whether you like it or agree with that or not, it's a FACT that was referenced again in the late 90s and just recently by Marvel editors Tom Breevort and Andy Schmidt during the Annihilation event.


 * 2.3. Dr. Strange brought this up again in the issue Galactus faced Agamotto in a Infinity War crossover issue.  FYI, Infinity and Oblivion were already estalished at this point.  There is nothing "biased" or "controversial" about this interpretation of Galactus, it's established continuity.

2.4. You say, " Galactus is connected to the Tribunal, and the most important abstract ever... whooooooah groovy". My response? Grow up


 * 3. Sorry Dave, sorting through your essays is time consuming, difficult and fairly annoying.  You wonder why I normally don't bother to engage in talk page discussions with you?  See the Hulk discussion above.  Your preferred method of inserting your responses into existing text makes prolonged conversations with you next to impossible.  You also need to work on developing more concise responses which supports your argument and stays relevant to the conversation.  Your "stream of consciousness" responses are extremely difficult to follow as they go off on divergent tangents.


 * 4. I know you percieve a personal victory when other editors eventually refuse to respond to you, but that isn't the case.  The real reasons are what I've just stated as numerous other editors have attested to.  TheBalance (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) This tedious discussion has pretty much completely lost interest for me, and I don't have time to waste on re-reading it right now, but here goes. Most powerful force in the universe (not photographic memory, but exactly the same meaning) was the statement at the power cosmic page, which you reinserted when I edited it out, despite that the oppositeclaim was made by Thanos in the cited comic. One third of the Living Tribunal was the way the similarly enforced statement of Galactus being one of its 3 faces and being the embodiment of all equity read. Quite possibly the most important entity of all was in the cosmic entities page. My memory is fine and littered with trivia. I also have the very dubious 'advantage' of having the pretty typical add-asperger somewhat limited metaphorical filters. I see the information I take in more matter-of-fact and less allegorically. I also frequently re-checked several of the mentioned issues beside me when editing those pages.


 * (2.1) You have tried to insert the claim that the living Tribunal stated that Galactus is the embodiment all forms of equity, while neglecting to mention that the latter was likening several different trinities, including Skrulls, and Kree, or Cro-Magnon, and the neanderthal, or for that matter Order, Chaos, and the In-Betweener, to the concepts of 'vengeance' and 'necessity'. Now 'vengeance' in itself is ridiculous as a force in itself, and all cosmic forces should be of necessity per definition, but it is very important to note down that Galactus was mentioned as equity in relation to the other two. I'm not trying to degrade Galactus importance. I'm trying to pull back on the annoying hyperbole beyond his function as the quasi-physical balancing force between Eternity and Death, as the most powerful being in the universe and the most important force of all, and don't like the censoring of all instances that show anything else. Unlike the kind of 'snap your fingers to remake the universe' characters (Jim Jaspers, Protege, Scarlet Witch), or ones which at some point have been referred to as higher-dimensional (the Molecule Man, Eternity, Chaos & Order, the Tribunal, Cosmic Cubes, Celestials) which would make their power literally 3D infinite per definition, Galactus has regularly had very definite limits shown, so it completely transgresses against my available information and logic to repeatedly try to present him as such.


 * (2.2) Yes, I never disagreed that he is the third corner of their trinity. I personally inserted the quotes from the Byrne issues, and references to the issues they came from if I don't misremember, either at the Galactus page or the Cosmic Entities page. The problem is that you knowingly or indadvertantly, are presenting it as if he's more important than all other entities that werent' 'invented' into the Marvel Universe yet back then. He's the third force in relation to Eternity and Death, but he has never been shown anywhere close to their equal in power. As he stated himself, he exists to regulate out their imbalances.


 * (2.3) I'd like to see the exact explicit comparison about Galactus being more important than Infinity, Oblivion, Entropy, Destiny and the rest, as well as the exact issue reference, and a non-misrepresented quote explicitly in reference to all conceptual entities whatsoever, which per definition makes the interpretation that only three forces exist inaccurate. As for Infinity War, one of you Galactus fans tried to present it as Galactus overcoming the Infinity Gauntlet, even though Magus snapped his fingers with the incomplete, reality-gem lacking Gauntlet and very explicitly treated Galactus as less than an insect when keeping him suspended with the regular Marvel Heroes, no more to it than they were.


 * This is my problem with your extreme bias here. Stan Lee created Galactus, and has him just above the Watcher and equal to Mephisto, and with help from Jack Kirby handling pencils the second appearance with the original origin story in Thor, and has him having trouble with the thunder-god, mentioned as equal to Odin, simply shown as the product of Galan transformed by the consciousness of a dead star, and needing help to defeat Ego the Living Planet.


 * Mark Gruenwald later writes an updated origin, that I think John Byrne helped out with, and which presents Galactus as the 'baby' of Galan and the previous universal consciousness. Mark Gruenwald was also the editor defining the structure of the cosmic side of the MU forover a decade, and the creator of the original Marvel Handbooks. He listed Galactus as having power less than the Celestials, and barely greater than Odin or the Watchers, and in Quasar he once more defined both Galactus and the Stranger as physical entities but of such prominence that they were allowed to use M-bodies.


 * John Byrne, the guy who created the second 'classic' arc for the character ("Trial of Galactus") has him shown as needing the help of Uatu to even summon Eternity. In the notes for "Last Galactus Story" he once again shows Galactus as barely above Watcher level, as Ecce (?) stalemates him for a very long time.


 * Steve Engleheart has Galactus stalemating the In-Betweener, and finally at a disadvantage. After the Elders had been expelled from Galactus 'stomach' the indigestion problem stopped and he was back to standard power, with no indictations that he was anything but. They didn't drain his power in there. He simply couldn't digest them due to Death's immortality enforcement. Galactus was previously granted an audience with Eternity in the dimension of manifestations, and given respect for his polite assumption of the form of a star, but this is just a repetition of Byrne's 'one third of the trinity, but not remotely possessing power in relation to the importance' bit.


 * Jim Starlin's Infinity Gauntlet series paired up the various entities with ones of as similar nature and power-level as possible, and had Galactus together with the Stranger and Epoch. Yet they were at best able to keep Thanos off-balance, and stated as only able to do so because he wasn't given time to focus on his greater scale/consciousness of power. Even his attack combined with all the other assembled entities were completely ineffectual. Eternity on its lonesome was afterwards treated as a genuine threat (far above all the rest put together) and unleashing reality-distorting forces of a far higher scale of power. Hardly the 'equal in power' Asgardian here stated that he thinks (/wants) Galactus is (/to be). Starlin's use of Galactus as nothing to the Magus' with an incomplete Gauntlet is already mentioned. In the beginning of the Thanos series Starlin basically spends the first 6 issues showing up a nourished Galactus as a 1-track monstrously egotistic and amoral hypocrite, has Thanos blasting him off his feet, Galactus stating that he has to "exert himself" to break Thanos' force fields, stating that his might was "as nothing" in comparison to Hunger's, and stating (+ showing + Thanos calculating) that he was almost killed by being smashed between two planets combined with a nuclear arsenal explosion, and this was all just to sever and destroy the very tiny fragment of Hunger that had entered through the portal from it's far greater/bigger part. However it also featured Galactus in the most sympathetic light yet, as a force not callous to the plights of his victims, and willing to go to extremes to set an end to his consumtion of worlds when it is possible to find one.


 * Keith Giffen followed up on this with Galactus still explicitly shown and stated to have been greatly weakened by the battle some time afterwards, to the degree where Thanos thinks that even the Fallen One might finish him off, and later has Galactus beated by Tenebrous of the Darkness. However, he also showed Galactus destroying the Annihilation armada + 3 star systems + the corporeal form of a Watcher (Quasar showed them to be 'beyond death'/able to put themselves back to life and only contingent on their will to live) while simultaneously absorbing the energy of several hundred worlds.


 * From memory the latest handbook entry (probably the Annihilation profiles)/Marvel Editorial also explicitly states that Galactus is a physical entity who has come to function as the balance between the entities Death and Eternity and is apparently seen as such even by the entities themselves.


 * Meaning: Nothing I've seen of Galactus implies that he's remotely of the power scale suggested by various cosmic entries (edits that you have apparently actively supported), which state that Galactus is possibly the most important entity of all, possessor and incarnation of the most powerful force in the universe, fully comparable to Eternity, a third of the Tribunal, and so on. When he tried to kill the now unresisting/willing sacrifice 'Phoenix-avatar'/Rachel Summer by strapping her to a machine that was built to separate the force from her being the stars started going out, but as Death, Roma, and Uatu told him, that was an (by Galactus) unforeseen side-effect of trying to separate the force from its host when the two are one and the same (no that doesn't make sense, but it's Claremont, so what do you expect) and sicne the Phoenix is the lifeforce of the Universe. It doesn't indicate that he's personally far more powerful than the force itself.


 * (2.4) Grow up? We're sitting here babbling about very harebrained fictional metaphysics, and idolatry of same. There's nothing grown up whatsoever about that. Nor is the silly retort. Being completely unreasonable and extremely biased about it is even severely less so. Not to mention that you were the one casting the first stones way back.


 * (3) Given that I tend to take in and sort together pretty large patterns I tend to assemble my conclusions 'stream-of-consciousness'/in absolute honesty, which can lead me to trail off. This can be a rewarding experience or tiresome depending on the listener, but not something I can do much about without the time to rewrite everything into an essay or lab report. I also much prefer to individually address every single issue, as I can't decipher any worthwhile discussion of the actual issues without this practise, but have realised that it can be hard to keep track of who wrote what, as other people than yourself have mentioned this specific problem, and I find it harder to evaluate when other people don't do it, so I've started numbering the segments instead to find an acceptable middle-path.


 * (4) I don't claim 'personal victory', as I strictly see this kind of thing as a very tedious chore, and am not interested in competition, but in honest evaluation, and then ideally to leave the topic without pov-pushers getting right back with an agenda again. (Which extremely tiresomly doesn't seem to work here, as Asgardian will freely censor-edit anything he feels like, with completely contradicting approaches depending on the biased favour/disfavour of the instance, regardless if he has no arguments whatsoever to defend the edits beyond extremely insincere manipulative edit-excuses which recurrently directly contradict what he's actually doing.) I say that if you have no way of countering, and initially resorted to instant insults and forced ceonsorship instead of handling it in the Talk as I attempted to do, then yes, you specifically aren't reasonable at all in this matter, which annoys me. On the other hand, I can understand growing bored with something and add making you having a hard time picking it up again later. I have to fight against that all the time, including right now. Dave (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Abomination edits
I saw your edit today, and it got me thinking about the entire section, so I reorganized it, grouping the 'like the hulk's' into one, and 'different from the hulk's' in the other. Can you give it a review? Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. No problem. Dave (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems completely fine. Dave (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Apocalypse
Hello, I would like to hear your opinion on this. -- DCincarnate (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Apocalypse can evidently change into different basic inert substances and alloys, i.e. mix and match his atomic and molecular make-up to a certain extent, although apparently not to gas, or change his DNA at a whim (his Ultimate Universe counterpart can mimic superhuman abilities through mimicking the DNA of those he has scanned though). The handbook is also the final word from the editor in chief, and far more reliable than, say, editorial promotion blurbs, so I'd say molecular and atomic, but within certain limits. Not always correct though. Nobody's infallible, and the "class 100" range is ridiculous, but certainly a generally reliable reference. He's not as powerful as Franklin Richards and Celestials every day of the week after all. Dave (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanos
Unfortunately I'll have to agree with Asgardian on the Thanos page. His edits do improve the article. Yes, Asgardian is currently getting a -lot- of things wrong (and has in the past), like his refusal to talk things over, but the edits on the Thanos page are preferable, in my opinion. They make the article more encyclopediac. Lots42 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind tightening them up. I welcome that sort of help. I mind that he and 'TheBalance' are twisting the entire story around to ridiculously favour their pet character Galactus in every single instance they can come across. They are either outright lying about the referred stories in question, or haven't bothered to read them. Thanos did not state that Galactus' intent was noble, he lectured the latter about breaking a social contract, having a monstrous ego, and almost destroying the universe in his hubris. Galactus did not 'simply' teleport the 'Fallen One' herald away, he was genuinely threatened at this point (due to being weakened) with Thanos saving him. He did not fight Hunger evenly, he stalled an immensely small portal-entered part of it for a moment and stated outright that his might was "as nothing" in comparison, he did not easily withstand the explosion, it was shown and twice stated, (by both Galactus and Thanos respectively) that he almost died, and so on.


 * It's extremely transparent that he and 'TheBalance' are pushing the page in an inaccurate direction when the information is twisted to Galactus stalemating Hunger's full power, rather than literally being bacteria to it, while Thanos knocking Galactus off his feet and withstanding an assault where Galactus stated outright that he exerted himself counts as "easily outmatched" (which I agree with, as Thanos even stated himself that Galactus was several times as powerful as himself, just not as emphasized when the enormously greater mismatch of Hunger and Galactus was twisted in the other direction. The story premise as stated by Hunger(/the writer) narrating circled around that Galactus eats worlds, but there are fish above that in the food chain who feed off entire universes, and it's not so much fun when you end up on the menu. This was a story that basically completely annihilated everything Galactus stands for. It was the entire point of it, and should be referenced as such, while a story that favours him, such as displaying galactic-level power in his confrontation with Mephisto, should also be stated as is, just not try to bend either occasion in another direction.


 * Asgardian is also using incredible double-standards since he's used exactly the same type of entries in other characters' powers sections. I.e. an example that Silver Surfer can destroy planets, but somehow edits out Thanos, as well as any actual issue references of instances when Thanos used the referred abilities in question. Me, I've edited out any inaccuracies that have either favoured or disfavoured characters, recurrently the same ones, as long as it turns factual in the end. You're free to use my less biased version as a template to tighten up the flow. Asgardian lies, lies, lies, lies, lies, uses sockpuppets, gets temp-banned, and adapts to turn more scheming and manipulative. It's all that he ever does, although he's started to clean up the pages to cover up the simultaneously POV edits for casual editorial inspection. Take his "I hope that this was helpful comment" for example. He did exactly the same edits he always does, without budging an inch. He's a blatant manipulator.


 * In any case, feel extremely free to try to edit out all the mentioned inaccuracies in a more encyclopaedic fashion building on my last edit. I'd welcome the help. My strengths lie more in seeing what I take in literally, rather than being brief about it. Dave (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this: You, or/and some other editor/s download the issues in questions, and then take over the edits from there, to make certain that everything is factual and not twisted around, with none of us (David A, Asgardian, TheBalance) involved anymore. There should be a collection of all Thanos appearances available at isohunt, and I'd be extremely happy to get rid of the nuisance. If you don't have the time and/or energy, I can recommend User:Tenebrae, as he's generally a very professional and reasonable editor, if somewhat too trigger-happy, and has little reason to like either myself or Asgardian, which should ensure neutrality, but I cannot guarantee that he's interested. Dave (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to request for third-party help
Thank you for the kind words and your confidence. I've been away dealing with personal issues &mdash; my mother is in the last stage of cancer, and my wife recently lost her job &mdash; but sometimes working with Wiki colleagues is good therapy, or at least a mind-respite.

I can try and offer suggestions regarding some of the Thanos issues if everyone would like. I might not right away &mdash; judging from the discussions above, it looks like there's a lot to wade through to get up to speed &mdash; but I'll try to help sometime in the next few days or this week.

And honestly, it's not a matter of like or dislike. People disagree. As long as things don't get personal and nasty, we're all colleagues working for the greater good, as far I'm concerned. I'm a fair amount of years older than most of my fellow contributors, so (my occasional, admitted and all-too-human temper about certain things aside) I try to take the long view.

Sorry if I'm being long-winded &mdash; I have a lot on my mind. I'll offer some suggestions soon. With regards, &mdash; Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well... I obviously came at an extremely inappropriate time. I'm getting a bad conscience now. Seriously, go spend any time you can with your mother. Never mind getting involved in our manic-compulsive nonsense.


 * If you could mention the matter to some comics editors with professional attitudes, no emotional stake, (and preferably a fanatic compulsion for factual accuracy) who can download and skim through any issues in question regarding Thanos and Galactus that would be more than enough. I'm extremely ready to let someone else keep the 'cosmic section' in check, and don't even really care about the two characters in question.


 * As for apologies about being long-winded, remember who you're speaking to. ;) Dave (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thor's super-speed
I know there's been some discussion on this somewhere, but don't you have a handbook or something that compares his super-speed with Spider-Man's and Hulk's? See, Thor's page lists the ability, yet he isn't in the category. What are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He´s got super-speed, but it´s not particularly high officially. 110 miles an hour or so. (It doesn´t really make sensse that he or the Hulk should be able to contend with characters like Superman, Gladiator, or Sentry who move many times swifter, but it´s part of the ´convenience´.) Dave (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 110 mph?! That certainly seems to be more than what Cheetah, Morbius and Spider-Man have shown. If that's what your sources tell you then he should be in the category, regardless of not being as fast as Sentry, or even Dracula. Am I right or wrong here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right obviously, although Spider-Man is about the same, and I think Cheetah is supposed to be much swifter. Dave (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get to adding it, but would you mind writing in the reference at Thor first? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, what about the handbook reference? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you wanted me to add the category. I don´t remember which handbook it was, and it´s probably unnecesary as the attribute is already listed. I´m also far too tired to potentially pick another fight with people who don´t want handbook references, but if there is trouble with the category I will check for it. Dave (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm about to take it off my watchlist. Can I trust that the page is on yours? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It´s there, but I`m s growing bored with Wikipedia editing, so I can´t make any promises about longtime dedication. However I sincerely doubt this sort of minor detail will create any trouble. Dave (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Powers and abilities of the Hulk
I have nominated Powers and abilities of the Hulk, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Powers and abilities of the Hulk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Cameron Scott (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is how this is going to go down
If you think I am a sockpuppet of this J'onns character, then you are going to collect your evidence and present your case. If you don't want to do that, you are going to stop trying to poison my interactions with other editors by making accusations about me. If you have a problem with my editing, you bring that problem to me. If you think that I am acting in some manner than requires admin action, you bring that problem to an administrator. Whatever you decide to do, have some backbone and come out and do it.

If you persist in the following, we can head off to AN/I where I will ask for you to be blocked. False accusation drive away editors and cause mistrust and problems and I will not allow to cast me as the bad guy because I've taken good faith actions you disagree with. Is that clear for you? Do I need to explain my position further? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have had 2 years of experience of JJonz stalking and threatening me, the Hulk page, and any editor that intervenes with over 50 sockpuppets that I know of. Thus far you fit the pattern, and if you had come to me with your problem about the page rather than attack and insult it in official matters I would not have brought it forth in the initiated setting. You choose to try to get it deleted rather than simply clean it up, not me. Regarding evidence, I'm not a hacker, and the heavy add gives me extremely limited patience with bureaucratic matters, so that's pretty hard beyond linking to the oddities, and hoping that someone does an ip-check. I have plenty of backbone in the respect of always telling outright about suspicious patterns, and try to handle things through evidence and reasoning in talk and edit mentions of inaccuracies rather than try to swing a case in a certain direction to the ultimate degree in an official instance with mostly very uninitiated outsiders. I'm nearly incapable of thinking in deceitful patterns. If I say something seems very off, I genuinely believe it. And yes, if you are going to convince me that you're not JJonz, you're going to have to further explain your very, very odd actions of suddenly turning up out of nowghere at administrative pages, apparently having previous experience with the jargon, targeting this one in particular rather than an enormous amount that are simply brief thin air nonsense, and being so dead-set about it. Not to mention that your just displayed 'hard-ass' attitude personal Talk Page 'threatening' was JJonz in a nutshell, although he tends to go much further ("You're going to be stomped into paste and have your edits reverted forever!" "Stay out of my way or be crushed like a bug!" and the like). Either you simply have a in the thus displayed respects very similar personality, or you're very much him again. And I hoped that he was tired by now. Dave (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You have this back to front, I'm not going to try and convince you of anything, I've done nothing wrong and it's a complete waste of my time. The bigger problem here is your ownership of the page which is nicely covered by if you had come to me with your problem  - why would I come to you? I have no idea who you are and your "weight" at that page is the same as the rest of us, you have no special authority or rights to the page. The only reason I know who you are is because of a) comments about you at the project page and b) because of your attempts to discredit me rather than concentrate on the issues.


 * This is my last word on the matter - but as I mentioned before, if you want to persist in those false accusations than we can take it up with an administrator and see how that goes. Since I'm a) not a sockpuppet and b) I am editing in line with accepted practices and policies, I know that I have nothing to worry about. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not come to me. Come to the Talk page of the Powers and Abilities page, as is the custom of honourable conduct. There is also a great difference between not seeing anyone as _owning_ the page, which would be odd as it's a public page, and paying some minimal amount of respect to the amount of effort put into it. I'm also focusing a lot on the issues by reformatting the entire page and making a case for it, but I am also observant, and your behaviour regarding the situation is extremely odd, so no, I'm not trying to discredit you while thinking something other than I say, you genuinely behave extremely suspiciously to me. It doesn't make sense for someone that doesn't use sockpuppets to suddenly appear in administrative pages, be familiar with manipulating local jargon, doing the most extreme things possible as a first resort, and target this page in particular while neglecting all the rest, so if you wish to convince me othervise you very much do have to explain yourself. I'm a reasonable sort so it's not that hard. Dave (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note if anyone is reading this, Cameron has since told me that he'd like to delete the 98% of all American comicbook character articles that hold a similar, and most frequently lower, standard, which convinces me that he's not JJonz, and honest in his endeavour, since he's consistent about the approach, even if I personally don't think there's any harm, rather than simply marking articles as Start-class, C-class and similar. Dave (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Urgent!
Yes, I have already left a comment there some time ago. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Sorry about the oversight. Dave (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.
Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ewwww. Bureaucracy. ;) Well, I suppose, although I'm extremely tired of Wikipedia at the moment, and additionally don't tend to keep my references in my head several months after the fact. In fact I tend to remember things considerably less well once I have talked them out of my system, so I don't know if I have anything of particular use to put in there. I also traditionally prefer to tell Asgardian what he's doing indecently 'to his face' the specific times he's doing it, but it would be a major bother to research old edit history 'confrontations' to link to. Dave (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities of the Hulk
There is a discussion about the merging of "Powers and Abilities of the Hulk" into the main page. I'd appreciate if you'd like to chip in. I'm extremely short on time and energy nowadays. Thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * User:David_A/Powers_and_Abilities_of_the_Hulk merger into the main page.
 * Thank you for the notice.
 * The question of content aside, Before I decide to wade into this discussion, I'd like to note that I personally wasn't thrilled with some of the comments by several people in the AfD, including yours. Too many unfounded accusations that were without the support of diffs/evidence.
 * I hope that, should I decide to contribute to this discussion I won't see more of the same.
 * Anyway, again, thanks for the notice, and I suppose I'll see what I see. - jc37 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. During the deletion affair there was a very extreme series of odd circumstances combined with a number of very blunt disparaging comments leading up to it that made me draw likely inaccurate conclusions, but I've made an effort to put forth the current case of how to manage the outcome as politely as I can, and give honest answers to various misunderstanding of my perspective in the current topic.
 * However, my energy for Wikipedia has waned to a flicker of what it was. I usually only have 30-60 minutes a day for the Internet, and can't justify spending time vainly attempting to find a way to communicate/find a way to synchronise mindsets that are so different that we basically can't seem to understand each other (but my handicaps may play in at that front). The problem is that it's been very hard to have a discussion about the points in question without straying. Chiefly, that the decision was merge, not delete, so we'll have to handle that, and I have tried to shorten it down to a non-intrusive minimum, but am flexible in narrowing it further. That I've simply made a template from the currently existing text, which we could commonly discuss how to modify (which parts to keep/that are relevant, and which not). That the entire point of a P&A section is to state the shown abilities, and the extents thereof. And mainly that I don't seem able to understand the perspective that it's far preferable to not use any sources whatsoever for various statements throughout the text, rather than use matter-of-fact 1st party references in _combination_ with the pre-existing 2nd and 3rd party ones. There are a number of points and misunderstandings we apparently need to clear up to find some common ground to discuss from. You, and JGreb (or Gschoyru, if he has the time and interest to chip in, and Tenebrae as well obviously, although he has far more important real-world matters to attend to, so I'd rather not disturb him) tend to be more sensible than the rest of us, so maybe you hbave a better shot at straightening out the mess? Dave (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Get your fights off my talk page. That thread, on my talk page, was stale because the conversation was centralized to the article talk. If you feel that that's no longer working, and are choosing to go out to all the user talk pages of users involved and have fights there, be aware I'll take it as harrassment. Don't do it again. ThuranX (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, Cameron was the one starting to attack me there, and I responded far more civilly. I can't possibly see how that could be interpreted as harrassment, but ok, if you took offense I apologise. Dave (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hulk talk pages.
I'm keeping this simple: Stop refactoring the talk page.

You are free to add you comments, and to edit your comment to clarify your position(s). But you should not be refactoring the thread flow to suit your personal tastes.

- J Greb (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the discussion has deviated so much that it's impossible to keep track of any new actual content, considerably worsened by the apparent troll making his best to exacerbate this. Cameron also keeps making comments (and pictures) about beating a dead horse, including in the actual editing references, which likely make it even harder to bring forth any points whatsoever for any viewers who wish to find them quickly rather than browsing through a sea of mostly unrelated content. Put simply, it's been very, very hard to get a meaningful discussion here instead of lots of accusations. Dave (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dave, stop and think a moment — Cameron is referencing the saying "beating a dead horse" because you are fulfilling the cliché. (Please, read the linked article on the idiom if you aren't familiar with it.)
 * The standing consensus for the article is that the P&A section is not the place for listing of the Hulk's greatest feats. Not an exhaustive list nor a "short list" of 3, 4, 5, 6 or more examples of each general feat.
 * The standing guide line, Wiki wide, is to move articles away from reading like fansites. Proposing or editing in text that makes an article read like a fansite is not going to go over well. To be clear the "fansite flavor" tends to be prose that aggrandizes the subject and/or adds trivial minutia. As per the P&A consensus, that is exactly the type of minutia the feats list is viewed as.
 * As for trying to get a meaningful discussion... Yes, I can see how it can be seen as frustrating. But, it is as frustrating, if not more so, for editors to have to go through what amounts to the same discussion almost immediately after a consensus is reached. And please, don't dress it up as "presenting an alternate idea/method/version'. It is boiling down to "add the feats list back in", which that standing consensus is against, and the majority of voices that spoke up when you first proposed this supported that consensus.
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm mostly motivated by attempting to make sense of a lot of very confusing happenings and reactions, but I'm not attempting to "dress up" anything. I've adjusted the new version to simply use references without comments, no mention of the specifics of the feats whatsoever (or at least I think that I deleted them all, but any deviations can be easily corrected), just actual sources to validate the mentions, as well as expanded slightly on what the repeatedly shown powers are, and slightly adjusted the "surviving in a vacuum" sentence, since it currently reads like he consistently needs air, rather than currently being shown as able to 'hold his breath' for several hours to days. The "virtually unlimited" mention was linked to the only actual in-comic 'reliable' measurement of Hulk's upper limits (by the Beyonder), which I suppose you have a point in sort of counts as a 'feat' mention, but regardless, I've consented to the angle of not mentioning these outright, what I still want to talk about is the inclusion of references versus empty claims, and inclusion of all the main abilities (for example, reflecting energy-blasts was a forgotten one-time occurrence, and thus not important, while growing more powerful from radiation or mystic forces has happened several times, as has resisting transformation, or psychic attacks). Dave (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, adding in multiple cites is going to read as adding a list. Fleshed out or not.
 * Right now the best course would be to leave the section alone, both in the article and on the talk pages, for a while. Read that as "at least for 3 or 4 months." If/when the section is revisited, then limit yourself to straight questions and suggestions. Leave the examples and "for instance" comments out. - J Greb (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just so we're both on the same page/potentially don't remember the current version of my suggestion right, I'm reposting it below. In any case I'd appreciate if we could talk this out thoroughly, as there are several things that confound me about this entire matter, but I don't have much time right now.
 * Regarding the dead horse mention, it's not really about the sentence itself, although inserting a mocking image is definitely beyond what's acceptable to me, it's that those kind of comments along with all the pointless fillers, diversions, uninformative title, jumbled conception, unnecessary edit-note comments (it's a Talk page) that seem to play to an audience/shoo it away/give a very one-sided view of the contents of the thread/the impression that I'm much worse than I really am within it etc. The main problem is that the entire thread feels like it's crafted to encourage people to stay away from the discussion, and then give opportunity to claim that I'm deliberately dragging it out, when it would long have been done with if we had just avoided all the inaccurate accusations and misinterpretations, but then neither 'side' can really make sense of the other. On top of that I'm not sure how to respond to various unfair or inaccurate claims I just read in the Talk, when these are complemented with an 'If you attempt to defend/explain yourself, I'll try to get you banned', and this after I thought that we had made peace, could go on to handle it peacefully, and after Thuran specifically said that I wasn't some asshole that deserved to be baited. Dave (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hulk possesses the potential for near-limitless physical strength, depending directly on his emotional state, particularly his anger. This has been reflected in the repeated comment "The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets." His durability, healing, and endurance also increase in proportion to his temper. Greg Pak described the Hulk shown during World War Hulk as having a level of physical power where "Hulk was stronger than any mortal --and most immortals-- who ever walked the Earth." Pak went on to say that even then, the Hulk would lose to characters such as Galactus.

The Hulk is resistant to most forms of physical, and psychic injury or damage and is immune to disease and poisons. He has been shown to have both regenerative and adaptive healing abilities, including growing tissues to allow him to breathe underwater, surviving unprotected without air in space for hours to days (yet still needing to breathe), resisting transformation, and when injured, healing from almost any wound within seconds.

His powerful legs allow him to leap into lower Earth orbit or across continents. He also has less commonly described powers, including abilities allowing him to "home in" to his place of origin in New Mexico, to see and interact with astral forms, and growing more powerful from being subjected to intense radiation, or certain mystic forces.

As Bruce Banner, he is considered one of the greatest minds on Earth. He has developed expertise in the fields of biology, chemistry, engineering, and physiology, and holds a Ph.D. in nuclear physics. He possesses "a mind so brilliant it cannot be measured on any known intelligence test".

In The Science of Superheroes, Lois Grest and Robert Weinberg examined Hulk’s powers, explaining the scientific flaws in them. Most notably, they point out that the level of gamma radiation Banner is exposed to at the initial blast would induce radiation sickness and kill him, or if not, create significant cancer risks for Banner, because hard radiation strips cells of their ability to function. They go on to offer up an alternate origin, in which a Hulk might be created by biological experimentation with adrenal glands and GFP.

Charles Q. Choi from LiveScience.com further explains that unlike the Incredible Hulk, gamma rays are not green; existing as they do beyond the visible spectrum, gamma rays have no color at all that we can describe. He also explains that gamma rays are so powerful (the highest form of light and 10,000 times more powerful than visible light) that they can even create matter- a possible explanation for the increased mass that Bruce Banner takes on during transformations. "Just as the Incredible Hulk 'is the strongest one there is,' as he says himself, so too are gamma ray bursts the most powerful explosions known."

File:Thanos.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thanos.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanos
Try it. This is why your edits - which were strangely obsessive - on Galactus were shut down time and again. Then when you perceive someone as not adhering to what you perceive as the literal truth, you accuse them of lying. In the case of Thanos, some of what you propose actually adds nothing for the layman and has inherent POV (eg. no "vast", which has been mentioned before). You have also been shown to have a bias against the character Galactus. I note you were sensible enough to retain the FCB changes I made, which is a start. We will work through the rest, which is admittedly minor, but some will change. Asgardian (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * All of these changes were explicitly mentioned in the linked image, and you have previously continuously specifically inserted wordings that slant the text in a false direction, while editing out any that state what happened. This, along with claims of photographic memory, to have read the series in question, finding my own irritation at lying funny, and previously consistently ignoring any rational arguments, in combination, is the reason that I get the impression that you've been deliberately misleading. For all I know you'll simply do the usual thing and revert it completely in a few months whenever nobody else is involved. I.e. you have far more slanted interest than myself, and I tend to modify misleading descriptions (favouring or disfavouring), regardless if I like or dislike the character. Dave (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I am not that familiar with the details of Thanos, and because I don't know which edits you're referring to, I don't really see what specific aspects of Asgardian's edits you're referring to. Linking me to the Edit History of the article as you did doesn't really help. I looked at the most recent edit by him, and it seems that what he did was to remove vague time references (which I agree with), and make minor changes in terms of grammar and image placement (which at present I see as rather neutral). If there is a specific edit you're referring to, it is customary to use Diff links, and to explain precisely what aspect of them violates guidelines/policy. Right now, the only behavior on his part I see that violates WP policy is the language in his post above, including the section title he originally chose (which I changed to a more civil one). Since he's been blocked for issues pertaining to incivility and communicating with others, I'll warn him about that, and look into referring this to an uninvolved admin or noticeboard. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is also the temporary image collage, which contains all of the inaccuracies in question, and is 'easily' skimmed as a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thanos.jpg


 * The text I feel is misrepresentative is:
 * "Thanos discovers the truth and attempts to stop Galactus but is easily outmatched. As Hunger begins to enter their universe, Galactus stalls the entity until it adapts to his power, and Thanos fails to destroy the portal that separates it from the majority of its being. Thanos then distracts Hunger and forces Rigel-18 to collide with another planet while detonating a large nuclear arsenal at the point of impact. Galactus survives the explosion, and Hunger is believed destroyed, although a tiny remnant of the organism apparently survives by attaching itself to Galactus and then fleeing. Thanos states that although Galactus' intent was noble, his continued consumption of inhabited worlds will eventually unite the universal population against him, including Thanos himself."


 * The problems I had were the following:
 * It is mentioned that Thanos is easily outmatched by Galactus to (appropriately) keep the scales of the two separate and avoid misunderstandings, which is correct as Thanos states that his "personal power is lilliputan compared to [Galactus] might", and after blasting Galactus off his feet (with no actual damage), Thanos is almost unconscious from a single blast despite activating all of his shields. The problem is the suspicious combination with the soon following phrase: "Galactus stalls the entity until it adapts to his power", which gives the appearance that it is a roughly even confrontation. It is not. It is stated outright, first that Hunger is far higher up on the food chain than Galactus, as the latter eats planets, while Hunger eats entire 'dimensions'/universes. Later during the actual confrontation, that Galactus' power is "nothing compared to power backed by an entire reality" which Galactus affirms ("Yes. I sense this to be true"). Also he does not even manage to stall the small piece of Hunger between one frame and the next. :


 * Second, the sentence: "Galactus survives the explosion, and Hunger is believed destroyed". THis gives appearance that the entire Hunger entity is completely annihilated by the explosion while Galactus easily withstands it. Galactus is explicitly stated (by himself) to have "barely [survived]" and by Thanos to have had only "60% chance of survival", while Thanos' and Galactus' endeavour was always to "cut [Hunger] off from the bulk of [its] being"/stop it from entering, and later again "separated from the vast bulk of its being". The best way to word it would be to phrase it as: "Galactus "barely" survives the explosion, and the Hunger is believed cut off from the majority of its being", alternately "the entered segment of Hunger is believed destroyed".


 * Formerly I also had a problem with that it is stated that Galactus' intent was "noble". In fact Thanos repeatedly berates Galactus for "[breaking the] social contract with the rest of the universe" by "[consuming] without any regard to the effects of your ravaging". That the inhabitants of the Universe have "little sympathy for this gluttony" and will eventually "join forces to put an end to the peril that is you". Thanos mereley states that finally attempting to find alternate sources of nourishment to populated planets was "the proper thing to do". He dismisses Galactus statement of a "manifest destiny" for "others [to] die so that I may live", observes that Galactus' "monstrous ego almost destroyed [him] and the Universe", and that he has "been given a second chance" to behave differently. However this has apparently been kept rectified. (For how long=?)


 * Happy Hollidays to you as well btw. Dave (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide the Diffs in question?


 * As for the content of your dispute, it appears to be editorial. If he's ignoring attempts by you to communicate with him, do this: Start a discussion on the Thanos Talk Page. present your arguments there as you did to me. Then, solicit as many editors as you can to comment, in order to reach a consensus. Make sure you don't violate WP:Canvas in doing this. I would suggest contacting any editors who've made edits to the article, as seen in the Edit History. Solicit Asgardian to participate. If a consensus is reached, implement your changes. If he continues to revert without discussion, esp against the consensus, or he does so while a discussion is open and ongoing, before a consensus is reached, that is when you should contact an admin. Let me know if that works. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a simple answer - none of that material should be included to start with, it's the sort of fanboy level of detail that should be scrubbed from articles. The series should be described in the publication section but that's about it. I'm busy this week but remove the in-universe cruft when I get a chance next week. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, for all the reasons I stated to Cameron Scott. It is now a dead issue. In the next 24- 48 hours I intend to strip back the article and remove most of that "tell the story." Have a look and then comment. Asgardian (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Naturally the problem with that is that you are very enthusiastic in describing instances wherein Galactus continued genocides of sentient beings are described as "necessary" or "unavoidable", which is fine, and I've added a few of those myself. The problem is that you and User:TheBalance have continuously been attempting to censor the instance wherein the counter-argument is presented, that it is in fact not necessary, or excusable, and simply driven by a "monstrous short-sighted egotism and feeling of entitlement" on Galactus' part. Stripping down this instance to the bones while allowing the rest/excuses to stand shows an incredible manipulative double-standard on your part. You have not "come around", you've been trying to censor this instance all along (i.e. taking it out entirely rather than rewording it while keeping the context accurate obviously suits your purposes equally well), while I've written mentions such as keeping the universe safe from Abraxas in the cosmic entities section and not attempted to take out other justifications. Meaning: To be fair both sides of the coin need to be shown, and the only reason that you've "come around" is that I've finally bothered to completely and utterly prove you to be a manipulative liar when handling this case. I.e. you can't make false claims anymore since these will be blatantly transparent for everyone to see, so you try the other solution. Very typical behaviour on your part. Dave (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously - who cares? It's all a load of fanboy in-universe crap that doesn't belong here to start with - if Asgardian doesn't find the time to scrub it this week, rest assured I will. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very typical behaviour on your part - try not to finish with claims like this. Rather, please listen to the core message. I rewrote Thanos from almost nothing. Me. 95% of what is there is my work. That said, I am going to wipe much of said work for all the reasons stated. It is pointless to be arguing over the actions of a fictional character as it is just that, fiction. Pick the most impressive number you can think of... and then multiply it by zero. Guess what? The answer is zero.

My point being that arguing over this is pointless. Both versions are going. So, feel free to critique the new version when it appears. Asgardian (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, you're the one who used to consistently revert any compromises etc to your preferred version, no matter what was agreed previously, and from my perspective usually waiting for an 'appropriate' moment to do so. Any mentions of Galactus anywhere on Wikipedia used to have some of the most slanted misleading hyperbole I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I don't remotely enjoy having to do this all over with you over and over for months, and wholly agree about the pointlessness issue. I don't have a problem with stripping it down just to get rid of the problem, what is noteworthy is that you "come around" first when I've completely annihilated your attempts to slant it. Then again, it's very hard for me to keep track of "who did exactly what" over the span of over a year. TheBalance may have been more actively involved in the active slanting bit, while you've simply gone with the shortest description for all I know. The 'opposing side' tends to blend into one entity with time. What is relevant to keep during the revision, and most notably within the main Galactus page itself, is that the core essense of this story was Starlin making the counter-argument to Byrne's old rationalisation of Galactus' actions as beyond reproach, just as the Loeb Abraxas arc introduced some Thugee "forestalling Kali Youga" elements. I tend to get annoyed when someone actively censors the bit he/she prefers to while keeping the rest. If you can come up with a way to appropriately compress this main issue it seems fair and balanced, and I (thankfully) won't bother further with the mess. Dave (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)