User talk:David A/Archive 2009

Question
Hi, Dave. Hope the New Year finds you well. Looking back on this page, I realize that with the family events of last few months, I never got back to you and Asgardian regarding Thanos &mdash; or, now that I think of it, maybe it had already been resolved by the time I had a chance to look in.

This current issue regarding Galactus seems so lengthy and complicated, I'm afraid I wouldn't know where to start. You've cc'd the above paragraph, beginning "Naturally," on my talk page, and I'm not sure why; someone reading it might think you were referring to me as "a manipulative liar," etc., and I'm sure that wasn't your intent. Being as I'm not involved in this Galactus discussion, I'm wondering if you might add a clarifier of some sort on my talk page or perhaps remove the paragraph? (I did mention to Asgardian that I agree with Cameron Scott's assessment that Asgardian is generally with a good and capable editor &mdash; though as I said to Nightscream the same day, he sometimes suffers from some civility issues &mdash; but that seems rather tangential to this specific Galactus thing.)

As long as I'm here, though, I'll offer a suggestion that all parties in this Galactus discussion seem a bit heated, and some unfortunate words are being exchanged. Perhaps everyone might agree to a cooling-off period, or to seek a mediator? Just at a glance, everyone's making at least some good points, and I'd wager that if some of the heated rhetoric weren't here, some middle ground could be reached. Just saying. In any case, thanks for anything you can do to avoid misunderstanding on my talk page. With regards to fellow prolific and dedicated editor, -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason for the annoyance is that I have _very_ repeated and lengthy experiences with how the Asgardian/TheBalance duo (and possibly others that I don't remember) have tended to approach the matter as long as Galactus is involved in some manner of reference. I don't have a problem with Asgardian's past (language) 'incivility' (I do however have a major problem with when he uses false justifications to his edits, and tendency to claim "pov" as a catch-all regardless if there is any basis to it or not, or if he inserts worse examples of it himself in that very edit), but I don't like what to me has given the impression of a very consciously manipulative way of approaching things. I do agree that he's turned around considerably though. At least we've been able to find rational solutions lately, but this matter seemed like a reintroduction of same-old-same-old again. As long as the key important theme of the story is referred to somewhere either in the Thanos or Galactus page, alternately that all justifications are cut out as well (which would be silly as that would similarly butcher the key elements of the Byrne & Loeb stories), I'm fine with it.


 * Btw: Not that I'm one to talk, given my own literally manic-compulsive "right should be right" editing-addiction, but given your current situation, I hope that being here doesn't cause problems for you? Dave (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo
Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

List of superhuman features and abilities in fiction
Hey David, I was wondering if you had sources available for the entries that lack them. You have access to a few handbooks or something right? See, there is but a plethora of Marvel entities needing issue citations or reliable references (I pretty much covered the DC guys with stuff from The DC Comics Encyclopedia). So then, what do you got there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've more or less got every single Marvel handbook around to be checked when needed (and have some recollections of most entries), but don't have much time nowadays. Dave (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Nullifier
Before you add that line back in, remember we do not go to the OHOTMU for powers, power levels, power description, etc.

I'm sorry if you don't like this, but I do believe that you are familiar with this standing consensus for comics related article.

And, yes, that means that TheBalance was not censoring but applying standing consensus. So you may want to reevaluate what you put in your edit summaries.

- J Greb (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We do in fact use the handbook when this is in conjunction with contradicting information, and this wasn't a power description. It was the official editorial final say on the very nature of the device, and I have a very long experience with exactly what 'TheBalance' almost always does to found my conclusion. Dave (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are using it as an in universe reference to explain how the object works in the comics. That is as bad as pulling a strength rating/comparison from the OHOTMU.
 * If you want to work up a PH which includes how Marvel has tried to limit the things use in stories and present what it can do to the readers, please do. Within that frame work using the OHOTMU point is reasonable.
 * But in an in-universe history of the thing? Uh-uh.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Every single 1st level (direct issue) reference is in-universe. The handbook is the final editorial word on the issue, and as such more reliable. The entire reason for any problem with it is that it turned overdone/into copyright-infringement level plagiarism, and as such I definitely disagree with that there is anything "bad" with official policy statements, when completely unreliable introductory attention-flash exaggerated recap blurbs are apparently ok in other entries. Particularly in this case, when 'TheBalance' wants to maintain a claim that is not supported by editorial, and dubious if it was even intended the way he originally presented it, it's very relevant. He wants to state to all the world that it's a part of Galactus (which is just as irrelevant as when the same writer recently had Galactus state that the Grandmaster and other Elders of the Universe equal his power), while Marvel the company disagrees with him, and simply considers it a weapon in G's keeping, similar to the Stranger and the Infinity Union, which is my overall recurring problem with him.


 * I'm not sure if I understand what you propose as a solution to this particular problem? Could you clarify how it could be set up in a more properly accepted manner? Dave (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So it's simply easier to vilify me than to adhere to standing Wikipedia consensus? TheBalance (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As we both know I genuinely have this impression of you, so no "vilification" is definitely not the term I would use here, since that implies deliberate lying, and that's very much not fitting with my personality. Dave (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (sigh) David, see here. Hiding puts it pretty succinctly:
 * What you want is, in part, WP:WEASELing
 * It's broaching WP:SYNTH
 * The article on the whole is close to an exercise in WP:OR
 * It also becomes an exercise in WP:POV
 * And he makes a very, very good point: The article is entirely primary sourced and framed as an in-universe document.
 * Repeat after me:
 * This is not a fan site.
 * When writing about fiction, the article must be primarily in a real world context.
 * Articles should cite secondary sources for that real world context.
 * We as individual editors, do not draw conclusions or cherry or cherry pick information to suit our tastes.
 * Consensus can, and has in the case of the OHOTMU, be reached that a particular source is less than reliable for a real world context.
 * As for what can be done with the article... broad, blunt ideas?
 * Revisit the lead, paring it down to the following:
 * What it is - ie "A weapon featured in works of fiction published by Marvel Comics."
 * When it was first appeared and the writer and artist on that story.
 * A brief sketch of its function in the stories.
 * Scrap "Bio" as a section header. It's bad form for a header and it's an inappropriate term to use in regard to a thing.
 * Rework the "Bio" and "Powers" into 1 section that is essential "Function with in the stories". This section can include the following that is already there:
 * A short description of how it was presented in FF #50.
 * It's connection to Galactus - that it was used to back him down and that it is traditionally found in his ship.
 * A few examples its use in stories as a "last resort".
 * A short explanation of the in-universe power of the weapon clearly stating that these are the powers/explanation shown within the stories. (Basically "Powers" with the clarification.)
 * That section should also look for secondary sources for comments by Lee and/or Kirby about why it was put into the initial story. And possibly comments from later writers who have refined it (which it really doesn't look like has happened).
 * "Other version" can be compacted down to a bullet point list keeping in mind:
 * A source other than "It uses both names" or a fan list is needed to includ the Amalgam.
 * The Ultimate version look a hell of a lot like "This plot device filled a similar function of the Nullifier in the Ultimate re-work of the first Galactus story." The text is pretty explicit that the plot device in called the "Ultimate Nullifier" nor are there any references from reliable secondary sources that it was intended to be.
 * Both the use in JLA/Avengers and Earth X can be simplified down.
 * The "In other media" section can also go through this contraction.
 * Also, avoid phrases such as "this possible claim", "official editorial description", "The reason behind this inconsistency may have been...". The first is weaseling. The second is POV slanting, unless there is a reliable secondary source that the EiC at Marvel sent a memo out to the writers laying out how to use the thing in a story. The last is drawing a conclusion, something that is not to be done.
 * And, again echoing Hiding, if there aren't the secondary sources to really flesh the article, it may be time to see if there is a logical article to merge it into. One possibility would be a "List of Fantastic Four items" or some such. There are at least two other articles that could be folded into there that I know of.
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's an awful lot of reformatting, but I suppose that I could do some of the suggested shortening down, cuts, and rewordings. Getting quotes from creators and the like on the other hand will be very hard, especially considering how little time and energy I have these days. More specifically, if I understood correctly, you mentioned earlier that within this context it would be acceptable to use the handbook reference, as long as any potential personal interpretation was cut away from the sentence, and preferably the preceding column? Dave (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just skimmed the link. So does Hiding state that the possible Galactus claim should not be included? I'm generally of the 'if ambiguous, include both the for and against references, or cut out all of them' camp, so that could work as well. Dave (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the OHOTMU... that is actually useful from the point of including a statements along the lines of "In its 1985 Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Marvel Comics included a profile of the 'Ultimate Nullifier' which, using technobabble, described the device within the context of the Marvel Universe."
 * And on "ambiguous points"... That's fair with aspects of the real world. If it's unclear who wrote a story or created a character, it is a good idea to include sources presenting all versions of the event. Once it gets into the nuts and bolts of in-story things... No, it isn't a good idea. That's writing to fans. It's also going to be interpreting the story (OR and POV), drawing a conclusion from multiple stories (OR again), and filling in blanks (SYNTH).
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the help. I'm very short on time and interest/energy these days, but for starters I'm inserting the version you worded above into the Nullifier page. Dave (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your accusations concerning sock puppets
In the past few days, I have checked up on some articles that are of interest to me. Incredibly, there are a number of instances in either the article edit history or the discussion page of the article where you blatantly either accuse or insinuate that I am using "sock puppets" to edit the page. First of all, I wasn't even familiar with that term until I checked it using Google.

This is going to be brief. You will always, without fail, know when I disagree with you. Obviously, that has been often and detailed in my response each and every single time.

In some articles (Thanos, Galactus) I have been an editor since before you started conducting edits. What possible reason would I have to hide behind alternate accounts when I take up issue with one of your edits. I don't care if these sock puppets waste your time, as you apparently have previous extensive experience with them.

I care that my contributions are attributed to me. In the case of disagreement, I care that my stance is reiterated in every single edit I make. That is facilitated, in large part, by having my actual user name appear next to all my edits. Not by using alternate accounts, or sock puppets or whatever.

This reflects quite poorly on you as an editor because the your mere use of the term means that you've been exposd to it before, whether here on wikipedia or on another medium. You either had an editor employ the tactic against you, or you yourself used them to hide behind (wow, it's easy to accuse isn't it?). That then begs the question of how your editing relationship with other members of wikipedia even degenerated in the first place, to the point of sock puppets being used. Clearly, the actions of one or both parties brought the use of sock puppets into play.What is even more telling that it the different articles where you've insinuated that I used sock puppets, instead of reverting the edits and keeping accusatory comments to yourself or reiterating your position you throw out wild accusations simply because someone else is disagreeing with your edits, and since you're insinuating that I am those alternate accounts, I can only guess that they disagree with the same edits of yours that I myself disagree with. Now I find it astonishing that when someone comes around and disagrees with you on a topic that happens to be exactly the same as what I disagree with you on, you throw up your hands and while you acknowledge that you can't tell for sure, your accusatory tone and outright threat of permanent ban belie your true position. Incredible. Clearly, someone has either disagreed with you so strongly in the past that you've consolidated all people who disagree with you into one editor, or you convince yourself that you are the only "legitimate" editor who is above employing such tactics, and thereby anyone who repeatedly disagrees with you is immediately branded as a suspected "sock puppet."

Going forward, I am going to contact the wiki staff and see what their policy is in regards to editors accusing others of being sock puppets. Nevermind the fact that you also made an implied threat of a permanent ban, simply because you "felt" confident enough that there was a strong possibility that it was I who was behind the edits, and you felt it strongly enough in such a way as to specify me and threaten me with a ban, since you deemed the possiblity that I was NOT the editor as being remotely small. Otherwise, you would have taken the true editor's route and simply reversed the edit.

This is quite a shock to me and I have now taken note that you resort to accusatory, implied statements when people disagree with you. That is a fact. Behavior such as yours is exactly the type of person that will always make Wikipedia second-rate, if at all. I'm done with you. So long as you continue in this "well you must be the sock puppet, because you're the only one who disagrees with me and I know I'm right so you better stop or you'll get permanently banned" approach, I'm done communicating my disagreements with you, I'm done explaining my reasoning each time, I'm done defending my points. And I am done taking your edits with any degree of respect.Mobb One (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mobb One, I reached the same conclusion several months ago. TheBalance (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sockpuppets, I only mentioned an "if that is either of you" once that I remember. The reason for my suspiciouns being that someone at the official comicbook talk brought it to my attention that the there were a high number of continuous anonymous ip reversions to your versions whenever one or both of you were involved, and you and Asgardian are the only ones I know of with a vested interest in doing so. The other long-previous case being an ongoing paranoia about JJonz due to consistent cyber-stalking (I'm long over him by now). And no, I don't accuse "anyone who disagrees with me" 'just because'. I don't lie, ever, since I can't filter as a side-effects of my handicaps. That's kind of my thing, and the reason why I have such a mad-on for all sorts of deliberate manipulations and falsehoods. I can't realte to the mentality at all. If I say something I definitely believe it when I do so. Whether that view turns out to be inaccurate is another matter entirely. Regarding TheBalance my especial suspicions regarding him is due to an ongoing censorship and very slanted and inaccurate statements which he kept reverting to, most extremely so in the "Power Cosmic" articles. Regarding MobbOne, you have generally been more reasonable, but I occasionally get the feeling that you're more interested in wordplay than upfront honesty. Regarding Asgardian, I haven't had any problems with him lately, and he wasn't overtly involved in this. On the other hand he is the only identity of you three which has an actual proven history of using sockpuppets, but then that was long ago. Dave (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is NOT for you to say people should be permanently banned. That is plain rude and you should apologize. Asgardian (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope that you're not playing games for a perceived audience? In any case, yes I do genuinely think that anyone who deliberately uses sockpuppets for double-play, and/or repeatedly insets deliberate lies on a page should get banned from editing. It's disgustingly manipulative and the ultimate crime on Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned. I'm currently ambivalent whether or not TheBalance fits or if he's simply extremely blindsided, and unwillingly backed up by someone else who has used various anonymous ips to revert to his edits. At this point he's built himself up as such a recurrent element of annoyance for me (Since he won't allow me to ever let the Galactus article go, so I can focus on something else. I really hate it at this point) that he and other users such as Mansierre are starting to blend together and it's hard to see him from an objective angle to me. As an odd tidbit he just made a strange vandalism of my talk page, by reinserting some irrelevant bot messages, but that may just have been a mistake during a revert spree. Dave (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Poor Dave, you see nothing but conspiracies all about you. In reality, the entire point of contention results from your insistence on "getting your way" and implementing your Galactus-deflating agenda above improving the article.  Don't disregard the fact that your edits are generally either substandard, far more questionable than those they replace, or both.  TheBalance (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a major difference between being paranoid and being observant. I'm far more of the latter than the former, and I'd be a drooling idiot if I hadn't noticed the regular 'coincidences' where Asgardian, a proven sockpuppet user who has stated himself that he finds the notion of finding manipulation and deceit distasteful 'childish' and 'laughable', is concerned. If the problem you claim was the true concern I'd have no problem with it and appreciate the help to clean up the text. I'm mostly concerned with accuracy rather than flow. However, given your own track record of inserting claims that are blatantly contradicted in the given sources and that you don't improve the accuracy modifications, you delete and replace them with false claims, it's hard for me to swallow. Dave (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Given what has happened with Galactus of late, I'd be really careful about entering into edit wars with others or making still more accusations. An example of an edit war is Numinus. We can't use the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, and a mention that a character has a resemblance to a real-life person is void and null unless the creator "goes on the record" and it can be sourced. This is Wiki-101. An example of an accuasation is your good self claiming I'm "pumping" up Galactus. I was simply putting the character where it belongs - on par with Death and Eternity. This is sourced, proven fact. So please, no more of this for your own sake. The ice you are standing on is very thin right now. Asgardian (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)~


 * Ah, so that was your plan. I suspected it. Still, you're the one with multiple bans and a proven track record for using sockpuppets, so not really. Also, no, Galactus has been repeatedly outright described as a physical entity who filfills a function rather than an abstract like Eternity and Death (and infinitely below them in raw power), which is the reason for the segmentation, but at least you seem to admit that the entire reason for your modification was that you wanted Galactus 'higher' up. (Technically not accurate distinction, as for example there are multiple entities with far higher levels of power than ones above his category of "cosmic functions" in the section below) So, yes, I still maintain that a segmentation according to nature is far preferable rather than sepecifically trying to form a thin air non-fact similarly to the whole "contains a universe within him" thing that was never stated and outright contradicted in the referred origin story. Dave (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick comment - I'll take full responsibility for the "Numinus looks like Whoopi Goldberg" comment. :) I'll confess that I was still fairly new around here, and well, I looked at the only picture I'd seen and made some quick original research. :) Although entertaining, the article is better off without it. BOZ (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Numinus.jpg)

 * An addendum to this - see WikiProject Comics/copyright. - J Greb (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that it was the only good one that I could find, but I'll check through her regular appearances for some alternative. Dave (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic articles
Dave, please do not revert portions of an article that are part of an ongoing dispute and Talk Page discussion. Doing this can get you blocked. Discuss it on the Talk Page with others. Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought that violating the 3-revert rule or interfering during protection time were the only problems. Also, TheBalance has consistently done the same thing, to a version littered with my personal red flag, what I, given dozens of similar incidences from Asgardian, and to a lesser extent TheBalance, read as either extremely biased/blindsided or even deliberate inaccuracies, and I have repeatedly listed the matter-of-fact reasons for removing the inaccuracies very extensively in the Talk. However, it has consistently resulted in being ignored or side-tracked diversion-insults in return, which is the reason that I tried to get some impartial editor help in wording it in a factually accurate, non-slanted manner, so that I can finally leave the matter behind. Asgardian, TheBalance, MobbOne, and Mansierre have explicitly stated extreme bias for the character, so with the possible exception of Mobb I don't particularly trust them, and I don't have much time or energy left for it. Dave (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe left an identical admonishment on Balance's Talk Page. No one should edit the disputed material during a discussion on it until some consensus has been reached. Also, regarding your dispute on Template:Marvel Cosmic, and One-Above-All, please be advised per this that in-universe reference sources like the Marvel Universe Handbook should not be used as sources. I myself had used it until this was pointed out to me. Also, be sure also to respect the consensus. If you feel the group forming the consensus is too small a group, invite others to join (as long as you do so in keeping with WP:Canvas). Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really keep track of that many people nowadays, but did invite some of them. You were the only one even semi-interested though, but feel extremely free to invite more reasonable editors. I've turned completely weary and unmotivated with Wikipedia and half the unreasonable and/or extremely manipulative people in it, given the whole "if there are enough of us, sockpuppets or not, we don't need reason, just to keep inserting "the Earth is flat". It takes its toll after a few years. As for any potential claims from Asgardian that I'm using the handbook in the One-Above-All entry, that's pretty much his standard tactic of getting away with something completely unrelated to his edit text pretext. He does that all the time. Dave (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Marvel
Thanks for the heads up on Marvel. I really hadn't noticed that the official bios are just a wiki. Kind of makes me wonder what the point of the other Marvel Wikia is for...? Oh well. Thanks for your work on Emma Frost!Luminum (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I also really appreciate when I meet someone as reasonable as yourself. Many people don't just go along with: "Ok, that's obviously inaccurate, so let's change that". There wasn't much that needed to be modified so it's nice to just fix it and then it's over and done with. Dave (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A few things you edited:

Intellect http://img293.imageshack.us/i/93836910.jpg/

4 is genius level by the Handbook key at the back of the book.

Enormous:

http://img15.imageshack.us/i/74987541.jpg/ 196.210.166.226 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No 4 is "gifted", 5 is "genius", 6 is "super-genius", 7 is virtually omniscient. "Enormous" based on a brief 1st page blurb is irrelevant, and more importantly not set in relation to the general requirements for that in other pages. She'd have to be planetary-control level at the very least, and has never actually demonstrated a remarkably high power-level. "Extreme" is fine though. Dave (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, in recent depictions she has, able to generate a world-wide telepathic broadcast to all remaining mutants without Cerebra, and to detect the various X-teams or telepathically join them from across the globe also sans Cerebra. Is Marvel beefing her up?  Most likely.  Anyway, in regards to this editing fiasco, I invite you to check out the talk page section and review my suggestion to mediate the situation.  Let's avoid edit warring as much as possible and let's give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not "blatantly lying."  If an editor is adding what you may consider factually incorrect information, perhaps it's more to do with interpretation than an intent to lie.  I'm sure returning users have better things to do with their time than intentionally lie on Wikipedia.  Take care! :) Luminum (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised regarding the lying bit. There are quite a lot of fans who routinely use very twisted or misrepresented thin air 'information' in combination with censoring what's actually explicit, rather than using what's matter-of-fact and not contradicted to form a picture. They tend to get far more fanatic about seeding worldwide disinformation than the reasonable types are in correcting it. I'm a bit of an oddity in the respect of not being able to let go when they start up that sort of thing, as have a born mental disorder that makes me see pretty much everything in terms of matter-of-fact patterns, so any form of deliberate deceit drives me incredible annoyed, and essentially locks me up at that section until the issue is resolved, and if it isn't it'll drive me nuts, but I still can't let go no matter how much I want to, and given that they tend to form little disinformation cliques, or invent sockpuppet personalities to do it for them, I haven't been active at all lately. Wikipedia is pretty much a lost cause in the fiction sections, as I really really don't think it's any fun anymore, and have far more relevant real-life matters to focus on. Fanatic irrational blindsided fanboys and systematic every-dirty-trick-in-the-book liars like Asgardian tying me up to sections I have long since grown bored with is not my ideal waste of time. I'd much rather have been allowed to clean up page after page from inaccuracies, and it's a bit of a shame too, as I likely possess the greatest amount of schematically memorised non-speculative/taken at face value power ratings, statistics and feats of all comic book section contributors (which is a really really depressing quality, but I grew up with them, and automatically remember and categorise stuff like that), which could have made me much more useful than I've been allowed to be, but now this entire place is just a big pain in the neck filled with completely honourless manipulators and intellectually dishonest sect-like fantaics.
 * JJonz (Jeph Loeb, or someone he knows? He did mention me, and seemed to refer to it in an interview) seems to have returned again (alternately Asgardian is impersonating him), which is downright refreshing in comparison. He is/was honourable enough to stand for what he is. At least Cameron made me a huge favour by getting rid of that awful redundant Hulk page that I had to watch all the time. That's something.
 * Anyway, Emma broadcasting globally is almost sufficient to make her rate enormous, but then you have to fix the reference to suit that issue. "Extreme" is still more warranted. A brief starter blurb is not a reliable/official source in the way a handbook or a recent-years actual comparison is. The whole "equal to professor x" thing should also go, as it has been blatantly contradicted in every handbook and issue out there except this particular phrase. Charles even makes a more official statement about being stronger than her within the referred issue. "Among the five most powerful psychics on Earth" (and Professor X most definitely isn't the most powerful telepath. That's Moondragon, by far) works on the other hand. Highly arguable yes, but as far as I know it's not directly contradicted anywhere or taken out of context. Dave (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Civility
You need to be civil as you conduct your edits or face sanctions. Your recent comments in edit summaries are insulting and inflammatory. Take note. Asgardian (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how am I supposed to point out the contradictions between your editing and your justifications as you lie, and lie, and lie, and lie, and lie hundreds of times in a row. It's virtually all you ever do as far as I've experienced, and you're so far gone that you even stated that you found it funny that I get annoyed with it. You deliberately provoke me all the time, likely to get some perceived leverage for this kind of completely out-of-context scenario, rather than simply listen to reason and logic or compromise in the slightest, with everything you do being a contradiction of policies and justifications, and selective disinformation, and this is somehow considered acceptable? That's insane. (Heck, I don't get why you weren't permanently banned after your first sockpuppet was discovered) Dave (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * David, I'm sorry to hear that you're still experiencing conflict with Asgardian, and I left a message on his Talk Page admonishing him about it, and also contacted another admin who previously was involved when I had a dispute with him, but I notice that you are also responding with personal comments to him, and as I told Asgardian, this violates policy. This must stop. Now. If you have a dispute, then try to have a consensus discussion on the matter, or ask someone else for help. I don't know what Edit Summaries he was referencing, but this message can be problematic for third party observers, who can interpret it as incivility on your part. He is not justified in making his comments about "obssession" and what not, but just because someone is uncivil to you does not justify being uncivil to him. Perhaps you didn't see your comment as such, but merely as a criticism of specific behavior on his part, but without diff links citing it, an observer may not come away with that impression. Please, both of you, try to cool down, and abstain from personal comments. Nightscream (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't lie, I don't have the focus or ability to scheme, intrigue, and manipulate policy as he does. I have tried to handle him for years. I don't have any energy any more. All I can do is speak the truth and tell what he is doing as he is doing it. He lies in every sentence he speaks, every edit he makes in false facade as he's doing something else entirely, and makes inaccurate justifications and accusations. I can't handle him in any other way. I am the absolute opposite of a lawyer of bureaucrat, and he never ever stops or compromises or does anything whatsoever honestly. A sockpuppet here, a lie there, a systematic censorship there, a manipulation there, and eventually you've got thousands of them. He couldn't play straight if he tried, and I can't handle that sort of thing. My talent is in ~unfiltered matter of fact analysis, observation, and patterning, that's it. I don't know what to do, and can't let go if something is factually wrong. Dave (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interests of peace and education, have a look at these, as they may help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Strengths.2C_weaknesses.2C_and_article_quality_in_Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another note: I actually wasn't aware that you had a medical condition. You may have told another editor. While I believe that your editing style needs work, it was not my intention to belittle you. I apologize for the "shrieking" comment. Asgardian (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Asgardian. David, you cannot just accuse someone of lying or sockpuppetry with evidence, or even so much as a Diff. If you feel an anonymous IP or editor is a sock puppet for another, you should contact someone who can check IP's to verify this. You don't just accuse someone of it outright. And as far as the Handbooks are concerned, use of them is discouraged, as indicated here. Nightscream (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've answered that I am a few times to another Galactus fan. It would have been hard to miss that since he read the discussion, but I'll allow that it's been awhile so he may have forgotten.
 * In any case, he is a (by others) proven sockpuppet editor. I've linked to it several times, including for yourself if I don't misremember. and that's the sort of underhanded tactic that sets all my blinkers warning for systematic behaviour that isn't explicitly proven the vast amount of times. And previously there have been an assortment of temporary ips that have enforced his edits at times when he's been banned, and given that Asgardian stated that he found my irritation with his general tactics amusing that put it all further in context for me. In addition he consistently systematically edits out my explicitly quoted facts all over the place to replace with his own opinions (or subtly misrepresented facts) of how he thinks things should be, regardless if he knows full well that several instances severely contradict him, and has been completely unreasonable for compromise in this regard, and the fact is that I take a great effort to make everything I write objective/matter-of-fact as a total sum of all explicit statements of upper boundaries, handbook summaries of all said instances, and anything else that I have memorised. In more recent months he has used the new tactic of continuously giving false editing accounts about what he's doing in his edits, to get away with more, to the point that even others have noticed and complained about it, but fitting perfectly into my sum impression pattern (and take note that this is from a few hundred repeated instances here) he said that he would only stop if he would be shown the exact rule forbidding it, and then shouts "civility please" every time I point it out. Dave (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Silver Surfer
Silver Surfer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Character fighting techniques (Ranma ½) has been redirected to the parent article
I've created a subpage in your userspace to archive the information. -- Broken Sphere Msg me 21:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's too bad. Is there any chance that it could be merged into a common page with the Anything Goes Martial Arts section, or are both straining notability policy too much? Dave (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Hulk
Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk here. Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll give it a look, but just because Asgardian drives me nuts in general doesn't mean that I will disagree with anything he does on principle. This one seems extremely non-severe by his standards, simply annoying due to to a low-degree version of the standard misdirecting edit-summaries. Dave (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion
Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? I'm not asking you to speak to Asgardian, or anything, just give your position on the matter, and perhaps respond to some of the arguments for/against that you feel deserve it. It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have responded, but didn't really have anything useful to add I'm afraid. Dave (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Ranma ½ superhuman characters
I have nominated ranma ½ superhuman characters for merging into ranma ½ characters. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. G.A.S talk 04:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused!!!
Pardon me sir, but I'm new to wikipedia. Who or what is a JJonzz, I don't understand.--Repacator4.7 (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He's a guy who used to use handles and edits in the same pattern as your own, and a very fanatic and unhealthy obsession with me. Sorry if you're not him. It's not like I really care about him, beyond that someone is still reverting the few edits I still have energy for, but you could be someone else with a grudge against me who is impersonating him for all that I know. The style is so distinctive that it probably wouldn't be too hard. Dave (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought
Please consider these results (you may need to see the archive), your action here, your edit summaries in this style, and what action you should now be taking.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood and thought that you wanted me to add a mirror suspicion first, but it seems like it's already confirmed that it was JJonz, so I'll add a note of that in your talk thread. Dave (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to J Greb' s advice, think about what you are doing. Articles must be encyclopedia standard, with no fannish commentaries. Once again, no use of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe and its' terminology, or subjective terms such as vast. Have a think about this, and refrain from accusations, such as your latest in the Dormammu Edit Summary. Note some of your changes have been kept. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not "fannish". It's _QUOTED_, completely accurate information that you insist on twisting around into things that aren't there, or censor specific parts that you don't like. You're making a case for that your own "deemed worthy to challenge" is somehow better than matter-of-fact "reached a draw", or that stating that the Avengers entered the Dark Dimension to battle Dormammu, when nobody entered it, his influence was simply exorcised on Earth; or deleting all references to creating Satannish, simply because you don't happen to like it; or going completely against _all established official editor-in-chief (or whatever Mark Gruenwald's, Tom DeFalco, and Tom Brevort's titles were/are) fact-checked and overseen official stances_, to insert your preferred POV "significant power" rather than the apparent monster displayed both in the books and the handbooks summarising them, is preferrable? That _makes no sense whatsoever_! None! Again, _I can't lie_/have virtually no filters whatsoever. If I write something it's because it's what I explicitly read there. If you want to help beautify the text flow: Great! If you want to help check for more explicit issue references that the handbooks summarise, and insert those after the sentences: Great! If you want to censor any referenced facts you **** well feel like in every article you touch and offhandedly rationalise it with whatever badly applied policy you deem convenient, while repetedely contradicting it elsewhere: Stop! I literally can't take this any more. Thanks to you I get stuck on these things forever without any ability to just go onwards to be useful elsewhere on Wikipedia. I used to beautify, fact-check, and improve lots of articles, but nowadays every time I manage to gain some minor amount of energy, you're there to uphold the far more truly fannish tradition to twist around facts and censor anything inconvenient for all the world to see.  The handbooks are fine and highly reliable if they simply summarise the available information, and kept in conjunction with the books themselves. Or at least they are far better than going by virtually nothing save personal bias, and deleting any 1st source references along with them. Dave (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another reminder:

Please be civil.

And again, take note of the following, which need to be adhered to: and.

Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your regular manipulative "civility" tactic (i.e. do a lot of vandalism, drive people insane with annoyance after hundreds of agenda-driven methodical censoring cases, and then complain when they point out exactly what you are doing) has even been noticed elsewhere, and there is absolutely no weakness in my edit compared to your own. I use extra strength DOUBLE-verifications in the references, by using BOTH the handbooks AND the comics which displayed the statements they made in the first place, along with EXACT QUOTES. You use NONE WHATSOEVER beyond your own bias. It's NOT a case of you simply deleting handbook references. You sweepingly delete EVERY reference, to replace with thin air very misleading POV, and inaccurate plot summaries. I spend several hours to track down references and improve the article, and you just sweepingly destroy it as usual, and then use manipulative "civility" complaints. Dave (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took me so long to reply, but I've been swamped. I don't know if there is anything I can add, though. I just had a dispute with Asgardian, and there is another one involving him and others, as you know. I also notice that JGreb has had a few things to say about your edits and your adherences to AGF and Civility, so I'm not sure what you want me to do. I would suggest staying away from accusations (unless you have evidence that you can present to the exclusion of other explanations) and Edit Summaries like the one JGreb pointed to. Instead, figure out what are the specific points on which you and Asgardian disagree, and try to start a discussion in which you outline them, and ask others to weigh in on them. If you can do that, let me know about the discussion, and I'll try to participate. `The one point I can comment on is the OHOTMU, which, as I and others have said before, should not be used. Nightscream (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there appears to be (completely non-assembled by myself, as opposed to Asgardian's supposed 'consensus' in the cosmic entities template talk) widespread(/uniform?) displeasure with Asgardian editing out any completely accurate edits that I do whatsoever from the Dormammu page. You could always go take a look if you feel like it, given that Asgardian is now apparently using you as a threat to enforce that. Dave (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ranma
Setting aside that a few characters still have their own pages, and so have less in the main list because there is a dedicated page, the only real difference at a glance (it's far too long to do a detailed comparison) is voice actors. Not really worth keeping the list for. And that can easily be merged without restoring the excessive list. I can't really agree with your reasoning to restore the data, although I have no real issue with your revert or reasons either. Is there any chance you would be willing to merge the lists in a manner you see fit to address your concerns? A lack of stable internet prevents me from doing it myself. It does need doing, it would make it a lot easier to improve the page. Additionally, I made sure to leave a message on the talk page when performing the edit, so if you replied to that discussion (especially if you do adress the concerns) it would be appreciated. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a very limited amount of time and energy nowadays, but I might be able to help out in a while. (I don't mind removing them from the main page as such, just that the imho concise and mostly accurate data was not merged into the character list.) Dave (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling A Truce
Yes Dave, it is me, JJonz. That pesky, evil little turd who has pestered you off and on these last few years. I am not here to cause you any further trouble, I just wanted to let you know that I will cease and desist in all of my efforts to revert your edits or trouble you in any way. I know that you grow tired of it nowadays, and I most sincerely will be putting a stop to any further vandalism on anyone's edits or talk pages. Besides, it seems that you have your hands full with that Asgardian fellow and I'm definitely not getting in the middle of all of that business between you and he. Anyway, I am sorry for the trouble that I have caused you and I promise that I will not bother you again. *Note- this is an apology to you, I am not playing games here or trying to mislead you in any way, this is sincere!! --NomoreJJonz (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, apology accepted, and at least you never made any pretentions about exactly what you were doing. I can almost respect that. Thorough manipulation, lies, and deceit on the other hand is my personal red blanket. I still sort of wonder about if you had any relation to Jeph Loeb, given his odd interview mention of me, but that was morel likely just because of that silly old "powers of the hulk" page I created. Dave (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alerts
Dave, please be aware that a User has raised a Wikiquette alert about you, alleging that you have a habit of inserting inflammatory comments about other users in your Edit Summaries. See WP:WQA. You are encouraged to respond to the alert. Other members of the WP:WQA community and administrators will respond in the near future. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The former JJonz
Hello David, it's me, the former JJonz. I say that because I will never go back to acting like the idiot that I was when I was vandalizing and harrassing you over the comic pages and such. Why did I ever start that stupid crap up? I would say that it was just a matter of trying to escape from the pressures of real life and my job, which is very stressful to me at times. I just wanted you to know that despite any instances where I might have threatened you with physical harm in any way, hunt you down, called you crazy names and what not, none of it was ever meant to be taken seriously. At the time, I was just in it for the fun of it, I didn't take it seriously either. Since I know that I gave you that impression,I just wanted to apologize again to you for the trouble that I caused you and other editors. Why is this bothering me now? Let's just say that as time went on, I've come to realize that I don't want to be thought of as a cyber-stalker, that really bothers me because I've never been that kind of person. I don't want anyone to think that I would ever really hurt some one or hunt them down over something like this, that's just not me. Anyways, I hope this will repair a little bit of the damage that I have wrought to you and some others, and maybe, just maybe, I can start doing some constructive and helpful edits here or there in the course of time. It might be a little while before I do, but I'm looking forward to doing so eventually. Thank you and have a blessed day (or night) as the case may be.--NomoreJJonz (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the usual ways to actually make me seriously pissed off is to either hold values identical to Benito Mussolini, be a wannabe amoral serial-rapist, or be an underhanded liar without a shred of honour. You were just someone who had a go while being honest about it. That's not so bad compared to a lot of the people I've talked to online, and you do hold an appreciation of the values of Superman, so you can't be that bad a person. Read my old story to get an idea about what authentic honest-to-gosh evil is about. (If you were the fellow who did the old "THIS IS SPARTA!" comment at the Hulk Talk you may actually have done so already.)
 * Btw: If you are Jeph Loeb, I consider Long Halloween the best Batman story ever told, liked the Hulk Las Vegas arc (imho Hulk should ideally be played like Ditko played Squirrel Girl, a goofy character that shows up to make evil bastards look silly, not be the bastard himself), the recent point about the frustration with villains played as heroes, and was flattered if you borrowed the "Cheers!" as an evil smugness comment to the last story. Also, you had an additional good reason to went somewhere to say the least. I've had brain damage since birth, and still consider brain cancer the worst thing that can happen to anyone. Dave (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A Friendly Tip
Dave, I think you need to step back. You are on the edge of a cliff here. Really. Please listen to what was being said to you at the Wikiquette page:. In addition to being openly abusive, you are now blindly reverting on several articles - and to substandard material that is not in line with the Manual of Style. The fact that one or two other editors agree with you regarding the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe is neither here nor there, for all the reasons that I and others have attempted to explain. There is also the repeated use of speculation regarding power levels. I'm sorry, but it isn't in line with what we are trying to create, which is an encyclopedia standard series of articles.

If this continues tomorrow, I will have no choice but to take it further. Do you really want to be permanently banned? Please think about it before you respond.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously, why should I trust you? My experience with you is that you simply insert these comments to make yourself look good in a situation, without really meaning them in the slightest, and then you completely ignore any compromises or fact-clearing whatsoever all over again. Basically, make an effort to reach a compromise, rather than have your comments only apply to a small part of what you remove, or state things that are untrue (what "speculation"?) and I will try to take your effort more seriously than systematic censorship. By now you should know that if I'm uncertain about something I mention it in the edit-notes, othervise I fix minor inaccuracies I know about, or if I think a profile is misleading.


 * Hence, Juggernaut's force-field really did withstand Thor's god-blast, and as Thor stated at the time it really did pierce the armour of a Celestial, and drive away Galactus. Nothing "speculative" there. (If you think so, then you should _definitely_ remove that completely out of context taken-from-1966 "most awesome entity in the cosmos" quote from Galactus, when plenty of characters have been shown as more powerful since, although I don't have a particular problem with it myself) Dormammu does not simply have "significant" mystic power, he's flat-out stated and shown as one of the most powerful mystic entities in existence, easily beyond either Mephisto or Satannish, and perhaps only eclipsed by Zom and Shuma-Gorath, but _that_ "perhaps only" would be speculative, which I suppose can go on pages with lack of better options, but not when multiple explicit references are available, and speaking of which, you wantonly delete these references, not only the handbooks, but all of them, to be replaced with nothing and a POV "deemed worthy", and no Satannish was not Dormammu's son, but stated as an extension of his power, and as far as I remember Doctor Strange fought him in Spider-Man, not the heroes (who should be completely outmatched, but I may have to recheck that one), and I don't think it was ever stated why Dormammu wanted to fight Eternity within the storyline, but going by the later explanation sort of works, and the confrontations with Strange in those early issues leading up to it weren't only about that search. The Living Tribunal's cryptic comment about the Stranger is the only "true" fact known about him and should stay, as should some reference to the lab-world and the dangerous weaponry and species contained there, as the handbook also mentioned them. It's just as relevant as mentioning Galactus' world-ship. Dave


 * And no, I don't want to be banned, and definitely don't deserve it in any way or fashion, but it seems like you're simply using it as an excuse to get away with inserting inaccuracies, and deleting facts. How can I have good faith when you never show me any reason to? Again, start being far more selective in the correlation between your stated reasons and specific edits (meaning: if you have a problem with handbook references, at least _only_ remove those, rather than all of them, and don't claim "speculation" while replacing a quote with a POV), and you'll seem to make an honest effort in the right direction, and in response I'll do what I can to restrain myself to simple mentions about the edits themselves. (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As was said elsewhere, the issue is not trust, but rather good faith. Some of your edits are removed or altered because of the material, not for some personal reason. I'll go into more detail with the next session of edits. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, you'll have to make an effort to be far more specific. Good faith means "initial basic trust until very extensively proven othervise". You can't honestly expect me to just accept that you have turned a new leaf without any changes whatsoever in behaviour, i.e. wantonly deleting every reference whatsoever that I find regardless if it has anything to do with your stated issue or not, and inserting multiple inaccuracies over and over. Dave (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just saw the way you handled the Stranger's profile. That's the sort of specific editing/middle-road solutions that I'm looking for (although in this particular case I'm not sure if stating any interpretation of what the Tribunal said is appropriate, as it was written like cryptic nonsense, but it's ok I suppose. You still deleted the specifics from Juggernaut's profile though. Dave (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous references
Please take a look at me edit here. You may not that I split the reference you added earlier. References need to be useful viz. a reader should be able to find the work being referenced. I expect to be dealing with references that where added when Viz was publishing Ranma ½ in comic format for a little while longer in spite of the fact that Viz divided the comic book series into parts not volumes. Please use undefined if you choose to respond to me directly. -- allen四names 16:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. I may have fowled up the reference because of the ambiguity so you may refer to User:Allen4names/Citing Ranma which I cannot finish until I get the rest of the manga.
 * It seems fine, and useful, since you now simply flesh out the references to include ISBN numbers and the like, rather than remove them outright. Dave (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Be careful
Dave, you need to be careful about trying to chime in on everything and acting "holier than thou." It will backfire. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add something here. Believe it or not, I actually like you and don't want to sling mud. We seem to be coming around on some points, and the whole OHOTMU issue can be debated at the wider forum. That said, please be careful about trying to canvas opinions. I speak from experience as another editor from the long ago did this, then finally lost it and made a rash statement that killed their credibility. Consequently, they are no longer around. Even our colleague T has been told before now to "cool it and take a break" for becoming too involved in Wiki-politics.

So, let's continue to discuss.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean "cool it" and "reason with", and give you benefit of doubt, like I've done over and over and over with you for years? I've tried that, but you never correspond, and always return to pattern, and do the same thing over and over after a few weeks or months, which is really tiresome as most editors including myself would like to just be able to let go after this time.
 * Of course you could probably try to manipulate the situation, like you say in the implied threat, and yes, sometimes I've done stupid things, but the difference being that I've almost consistently come around about them, done them with good intentions, and that they are almost strictly fact-correction related (not about the far more severe reference deletion and censorship), whereas you go overboard in giving the impression that you reward any trust with more of the same. Also, you know full well that the OHOTMU issue is just a small part of the reference deletions you actually do, and it has been told to me that it is fine to use it in conjunction with other references, but you keep avoiding the topic of why you think it is ok to delete any reference you simply don't like, which done consistently gives the impression that you are insincere.
 * Regarding "mudslinging", even you know that I don't/virtually can't intentionally lie, and that you really do tend to use the same type of underhanded tactics at the drop of a hat, and have a long history of this behaviour, so let's see what everyone has to matter-of-fact fill in, and you've certainly repeatedly put notices against other users for far far less warranted reason, so let's see what some truth can do.
 * I can believe that you like having me around, since I'm that funny guy who can be suckered over and over to you, and was extremely unwilling to bring a complaint for a few years. Do I wan't you banned? No, I want you to stop inserting self-serving opinions instead of references along with inaccurate facts, and to leave me alone, but you've proven beyond any doubt that you won't, ever. That said, I have still tried to treat your edits fairly and left in any new references, or stated the reason why I've been unwilling to view you as a troll when asked by admins or othervise, even though it would have beefitted me to do so (to compare your use of "he's got a medical condition, so he can't be trusted" sounds worse than "that girl/guy is homosexual, so she/he can't be trusted", the only thing this really underlines is just how saintly patient and forgiving I've tried to be with you, even though it's hard) but you don't correspond with the same respect, and I've started to actually consider what the editor said: from memory that "the word troll covers several spectra of behaviour, and you don't have to fulfill all of them to be one". Meaning, if you repeatedly use the tactics of a troll, and are even willing to vandalise pages just to make a point (as two long threads other users created were devoted to discussing), but also do useful edits (which I've left in) you can apparently still be one. I'm not sure yet though. Dave (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw: If you want to know in-depth exactly "why" I have such a big problem with deceit. Read my story linked above. Dave (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)