User talk:Fluffyroll11

Supervillains
Hi, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts or show that it meets the notability guidelines. It looked like personal original research, with no sources, none of the villains appeared to be linked with existing articles, and there appears to be no obvious point to the list.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok so you told me you deleted my edit but, you didn't specify which one so I was wonder which edit it was so I could add the sources to properly back it up? Also I wish you guys would just tell me I forgot to add the sources before reverting it so that I don't have to retype it or restore it then add the sources to back it up. So can you specify what you article this was too?

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey can you show me the article that I created cause I don't remember making it and can't find it to fix those mistakes you noted? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Response
As I said, it's addition is superfluous and not in any provided sources. While you aren't wrong, it is similar to the Safari Zone. It's also not really relevant and more of an aside. Rgoodermote (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Iron Man enemies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Netherworld. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Re:Spider-Man enemies rewrite
Hey I am glad that you like my work on the Spider-Man enemies rewrite. Definitely when I feel that it isn't complete and I feel unfinished with the article. Perhaps you could motivate me to work I started when I have time. I don't have a problem with structuring other articles that way. You can boldly do that in certain articles or request consensus I like the idea because it gets rid of the subjective opinion of major/minor enemies along with the reason you already explained. You just need to research the order of the characters. The character page would have the debut on there so that's what would help place the character on. It wasn't easy for me but some pages shouldn't be as difficult. Jhenderson 7 7 7  23:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok cool. Yeah the thing I hate the most about it when you see a Doctor Octopus listed as an enemy of the Fantastic Four which may have happened in one issue but, he's an Archenemy of Spider-man and doesn't belong on that list. When a Kingpin is an exception and should be on both Spider-man and Daredevil's enemy list. Batman's enemies page I believe is alphabetical and has that major/minor enemies issue which I get alphabetical but, by date of debut makes the most sense and helps see things better if you know what I mean. Also the List of Spiderman villains does look complete so how is it unfinished?

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * lol Not every supervillain is on there is what I meant....among with maybe needing more sources etc. I apologize for the delay. I am not as active on Wikipedia as I used to be. I will check out this Avengers enemies sometime and see if I can do it maybe sometime. You can always try to do it too. Jhenderson  7 7 7  21:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roxxon Energy Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winter Soldier. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Comic Book Character infobox addition help request
Have you thoughts about searching for a consensus in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Comics? That's probably a good place. I need to jump back using PC again because tablets give me lack of motivation to edit Wikipedia because of how complicated it is to edit. But overall I am mostly ok with the idea except for the idea that it's kind of IN-UNIVERSE territory. Jhenderson 7 7 7  20:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah I've already started that process you just need to go there and leave your opinion on there if you support or oppose it and since you support that would be helpful since I think I need one or two more supports to get the consensus of adding it. The discussion is already on the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Comics under Relatives I believe. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry the discussion is under the RfC on relatives in comic book character info boxes on this page's Wikipedia:Wikiproject Comics talk page. I need 1 or 2 more supporters to get this approved in a consensus and the discussion I think is a focal point to derive that consensus. So yeah. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I just did. It might not be the answer you wanted though. Do you have a sandbox or anything displaying your intentions? Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I meant to but, got distracted with the discussion. I haven't successfully used my sandbox yet but, will try for this very purpose to add it to the discussion. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you wanting an Avengers enemies page when there isn't any? The talk page's primary role is to discuss what changes you want made or discuss disagreements. If you get response you can boldly try what you want to do. See WP:Bold. There are certain rules you shouldn't do. You shouldn't canvass for example when you want the consensus. Consensus should be for the majority to agree on. If there is disagreements then it's probably best to leave it be or you might be reverted. You should always be civil in disagreements which it seems that you are. I hoped I helped a little bit. P.S. I was a seasoned editor but it's more like I am semi-retired now. I return occasionally.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * the is an avengers enemies page. Also I didn't realize canvassing was a thing but, it didn't affect the discussion and I fixed it as well but, only people with the unbiased message commented. So anyways did you want to help with that page so I can learn from you or are you saying that your done? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing vio
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my intention I was just trying to message people who were interested in comics and get more people in the discussion. Also you can't say that I just messaged people who I thought would support it I messaged you and you opposed it, Also same with Co... I didn't know how they would vote and she just so happened to support it I messaged a lot of people off of Jhenderson's talk page as I knew they would be interested in comics. This wasn't my intention and I don't know why I decided to change my message from the neutral one that you and Co... got to that slightly tilted message I changed it to the one you got like many others as I saw your point and wanted to conform to Wikipedia standards. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So can the Rfc be restored as this has been resolved? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look at all to me or, I believe, Argento Surfer that the issue has been resolved. If you'd like, we can go to the Admin Noticeboard and ask for an admin to give an opinion. Otherwise, as it stands right now, my feeling is that this RfC is tainted. An admin may well feel differently. But until we get such an opinion, I don't believe any admin will be comfortable closing this RfC one way or the other. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well seeing as the only three people to actually comment on the RfC from my message were ones who received my unbiased message and that I fixed the ones that received the slightly biased message before they saw it or commented on the RfC would in fact mean the RfC hasn't been tainted as this was swiftly corrected before it could become tainted as well as the fact I did message more than just people who I thought would support it but, just people I thought would have an interest in the discussion since it was comic book related. So I feel we can call this resolved and restore the RfC. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You may well be right. Or you may not be. I think an outside opinion is needed. And, frankly, I don't think it's the place of someone accused of canvassing to say whether the canvassing issue is resolved or not. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok bring in the outside opinion but, I feel like you are trying to kill this discussion for whatever reason. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, see, that's not showing good faith. I don't think there's anything wrong whatsoever in saying that we all should play by the rules.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok but, I don't feel the conversation should have to end because I didn't realized I was slightly breaking any rules and when it was brought to my attention I fix the messages. The only people who commented where the ones of had the unbiased messages and the biased ones were fixed before any of them have commented which they still haven't so they didn't see the message yet making the RfC not tainted. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * I would like to point out in your message when you say "This resulted in at least one editor joining the discussion to support the initiating editor." isn't accurate. Every who commented in the article to the RfC had initially received the unbiased message including Coquidragon the one you called out even said that she receive the unbiased message which cn see is the original if you look in the edit history. only with the others. Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok so how does this work and when will we get a decision from the admin? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

MCU character lists
Hello. I see that you wish to make a change to all the MCU character lists, and have left the same message concerning this on all the talk pages (including twice on one of them!). This isn't very helpful, because it can lead to confusion and multiple discussions about the same issue, rather than one focused push to sort it all out. So, I want to ask you to go back and undo all those talk page additions, and then go to a central hub (perhaps Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series) and post the request there, so that we can all have one, central discussion about the issue, and any changes can be made to all the individual articles thereafter. And in case there is some confusion about this, let me be clear: I do not own these articles, so it isn't up to me what we do with them. We need community consensus for this sort of thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok done. So do you want to contribute to the discussion in the right place? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We aren't going to do this for you. Clearly explain what you want to do, how, and why, and we will respond. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
at my request has explained canvassing if you'd be interested in looking at it. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:DISAMBIGUATION pages
Hello, I wanted to alert you that most of your additions to dab pages have been reverted as I didn't want you to waste your time on good-faith additions; you may want to look at MOS:DABRL, MOS:DABENTRY and WP:WRITETHEARTICLEFIRST. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Husk (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Johnson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Hulk (comics)
 * added links pointing to Rick Jones and Jim Wilson


 * Everett K. Ross
 * added a link pointing to The Black Panther (film)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Marvel Comics superhero debuts, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S.W.O.R.D.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Redwing (Marvel Comics)


The article Redwing (Marvel Comics) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Redwing (Marvel Comics) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Redwing (Marvel Comics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Redwing (Marvel Comics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)