User talk:Mobb One

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Al e  x  (talk here) 16:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Talk:Galactus
You raised a good point and I've responded there. CovenantD 00:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Galactus Surfer.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Galactus Surfer.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue dates
Dude! Thanks! I was feeling like the only guy who goes on GCD & UHMCC. Good stuff, man!--Tenebrae 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the above are? I've been gathering a list of G's appearances over the past week. just for the sake of having a comprehensive list. I realized when you made the edit for some issue dates that I had many for the ones that were still missing...I don't have much for the ones outside of FF, Thor, SS, and the Thanos and Stormbreaker mini's though....Mobb One 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TaaII.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TaaII.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Silver Surfer 031 21.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Silver Surfer 031 21.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Images
Hi! Thanks for adding a pic to Death (Marvel Comics). If you're interested in adding more images to Marvel articles, I've started a list here. BOZ (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LT' relation to the Vishanti?
Is there one? Have they ever interacted? I know in the universe of the Vishanti the "faces" may be the IT, LC and MO, but where is this stated and how does it effect the LT?

Asgardian (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Firelord1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Firelord1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Galactus
Tenebrae's rather late over-reaction aside, I think the PH looks rather good now. It has retained all the creator comments and still conveys the necessary dates/facts without any POV or unnecessary info from the FCB. I hope you agree.

Asgardian (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course! The Trial of Galactus! D'oh (slaps forehead). Let's get that in there.

Asgardian (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Asgardian, you will please stop mischaracterizing other editors' work. The fact is, I asked a simple, direct question &mdash; why do you believe that WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines do not apply to you? &mdash; and as a diversionary smokescreen to avoid addressing this, you name-call ("martyr") and throw around labels. Why are you afraid to answer the question? I'm discussing this here since you brought me into this page, talking about me.


 * Why do you believe that WPC MOS at WikiProject Comics/Style guidance for volume numbers and months don't apply to you? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Thanos03.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Thanos03.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Galactus02.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Galactus02.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Galan-galactus.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Galan-galactus.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Galactus

 * Your opinion on this would be welcome: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&oldid=247883656 Asgardian (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Galactus P&A/DavidA
It seems that DavidA has requested mediation in an effort to further his anti-Galactus agenda. I've made a small listing a his questionable edits on the Galactus discussion page, do you think you could go through and make note of some of the more questionable edits he's made to the Galactus article in the past? Thanks. TheBalance (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * DavidA's latest agenda-driven edits to the Galactus article may interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&diff=prev&oldid=288044646  TheBalance (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to this, DavidA is obsessing over the Template:Marvel Cosmic and One Above All again, despite several differing views. I think he takes this all way too seriously and needs to take a step back. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And again, it seems...

Asgardian (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't _have_ an "anti-Galactus agenda". I have an extreme annoyance with extremely selective disinformation, and Asgardian is the worst Wikipedia user that I have ever encountered in this regard. Habitual lies, deceit, and insincere manipulation is a red blanket to me. I've been engaged in cleaning up plenty of other pages from this kind of hyperbole as well. Your selected section is simply the first to be this completely unreasonable and fanatic in inserting them. Dave (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Galactus Edit War Mediation
Hi. I'm trying to mediate an edit war over the Galactus article here. Can you chime in with your two cents? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DeathMarvel1.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:DeathMarvel1.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What is going on?
I am beginning to think our "fellow editor" is unbalanced. I can almost imagine him shrieking at the computer as he reads other people's edits. His edit summaries are illogical and even a tad unhinged. Failing Wikipedia's requirement to be civil seems to be the least of his worries. How many times does he have to be told? Asgardian (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I only get annoyed with you personally, because I never lie, can't think that way, and you are the absolute opposite. I'm not unbalanced, but have never made any attempts to hide that I am autistic, add, bipolar, and manic-compulsive in the anal-retentive respect, so I have no ability to lie, filter, or use any form of deceit whatsoever, but have an extremely high iq, unfiltered observation, and structural matter-of-fact analytical ability. I form a pattern of every explicit non-contradicted fact that i encounter. Thus I literally can't stand systematic lying, deceit, and the generally underhanded every-dirty-trick in the book tactics that you personally routinely employ, and this comment is just another proof of exactly what you are systematically attempting to lead up to, which I always observe the patterns of but never sink to the level of. I have pleaded and pleaded and pleaded with you to let me go by finding rational matter-of-fact compromises, so I can go do something else after facts are accurate, and I am so very very very tired of this and you and all of this horrible mess, and its literally painful for me to go on with this, but you seem to take sadistic pleasure in it. You, Asgardian are personally probably one of the most genuinely dishonourable and deceitful human beings that I have ever encountered in my entire life, and that's saying something. Naturally you are the one with a proven track record among reliable informed and high-quality editors, of suckpuppetry, rule manipulation, false justifications, and multiple bans, rather than the opposite, but MobbOne could likely only be focused on the smaller picture of a seeming overlap of personal opinion regarding his pet character, so you might be able to rein him into your little scheme. Congratulations. I hope that you are proud. Dave (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm getting tired of this and may take another hiatus from wiki. This was never a competition yet he treats it like one...why are not simple descriptors (size alteration, indeterminable, etc.) insufficient? Instead laundry lists pop up.Mobb One (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't do it, Mobb. We need all of the logical, reasonable editors we can get.  Don't let DavidA's antics get to you, you have support.


 * And I have to make note of Dave's statement, "because I never lie". Does this guy buy into his own propaganda?  Is he really that deluded?


 * Wait, Dave answers that question next. He says, "so I have no ability to lie, filter, or use any form of deceit whatsoever, but have an extremely high iq, unfiltered observation, and structural matter-of-fact analytical ability."  Sorry Dave, but anyone that has witnessed your discussions and your "analytical ability" in action know better. Your self descriptors, as usual, are far, far removed from reality.  An actual anal retentive and/or OCPD would never insert blatant misquotes and inaccurate information as you have done so many times in the past; also, I find your "obesession" with details to be highly (and curiously) selective.  This does not indicate a compulsion, but rather an agenda.  TheBalance (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is complete BS, given that I do have a definite diagnosis, and an evaluated iq of at least 167 (although that was several years back, and I have considerably lessening ability and energy to focus on and waste time to structure this nonsense as the years go by, especially given that the ADD, that I think you have complained about several times, makes it very hard to do so). I have absorbed a pattern of an anwful lot of blatant references which are regularly edited out or extremely slanted/misrepresented by yourselves due to personal favourism. I mainly value the explicit, non-contradicted stuff. For example, do I think Galactus is better character than the Celestials? Well, yes, but he was still described as "less than an insect" to the Beyonder/a cosmic cube during the Secret Wars, including the sum of the destroyed World Ship energy, whereas the cubes were described as "several orders of magnitude" below the Celestials. That's the way I think. If available, I go with what's explicit, rather than ignoring this in favour of making very POV speculation, and occasionally feel like I'm talking with a bunch of scientologists, which is pointless. That's the way I think/my agenda, as anyone paying true attention would notice over time. Dave (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously you have no comprehension (recollection?) of a retcon. Galactus was described as insignificant to the Beyonder during the Secret Wars story arc. When Kosmos and Kubik took their tour around the universe, they revealed that cosmic cubes are below the Celestials...this story is part of the retcon which depicts all the cosmic abstracts, including Galactus and the Celestials, as letting the Beyonder think they were defeated in order to nurture his "growth." This is known as the first of the Beyonder's retcons...where Marvel editorial saw stories published a few YEARS after secret wars to retroactively depower the beyonder from the vast omnipotence that he was to one of a "mere" cosmic cube. The latest Beyonder retcon was last year which reveals that the Beyonder is in fact simply a mutant Inhuman. Blackbolt even goes back in time back to the Secret Wars time period (again, this is RETROACTIVELY) and scolds the beyonder for his actions...scolds!. Galactus was insignificant to the original, pre-retcon Beyonder, i.e. it was mentioned and illustrated in the same debut story. The Celestials bit that you keep harping about was mentioned after-the-fact and was part of the retcon. Hell in the same issue, Kosmos and Kubik mention that Galactus is one of the "Great Powers" and tellingly, he does NOT include the celestials within that distinction. That is besides the point however.


 * Honestly man...do you read comics? Or are you so arrogant as to think that you are the only one who knows accuracy and proper continuities?Mobb One (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Galactus1.JPG)
 Thanks for uploading File:Galactus1.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  03:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U
Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun.

If you like, you may post an "Outside view" below Asgardian's response section, detailing their own feelings on the matter. Likewise, you may endorse the main statement, Asgardian's response, or any other view posted on the page.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to help! Right now there are five views (the main summary, Scott Free, Nightscream, David A, and Wikikaye; Asgardian has yet to post his response), and you may endorse one or more of those by signing the "users who endorse this summary" section, just as if you were signing a talk page, by using four tildes (~) - if you need an example of that, you can see that some of them have been endorsed already, so just follow what has been done already.
 * If you mean to post your own view of the situation, look over some of the "inside/outside" views which have been posted to see what sorts of things have been said already, and when you know what you want to say, just add your summary here by replacing the parenthetical text with whatever you want to say.
 * Any more questions, fire away. :) BOZ (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Galactus
Greetings. Thanks for the assist. As you can see, Dave tends to get stuck on minor details and it can become a battle to get things back on track. Kudos for hanging in there on that last session. Just be careful not to make more than three reversions as that is illegal on Wikipedia. Regards Asgardian (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am familiar with Dave's details. As he had the sentence structured it was imposing too much of the critic's analysis into the actual PH. I didn't mention this for fear of dragging it out further but I have quotations from Marvel editors (read: not byrne himself, therefore, a 3rd party critical analysis) commenting on byrne's interpretation as saying it was a way to metaphysically reaffirm Galactus in such a way as to demonstrate it being a rationale beyond human comprehension, yet still cosmically absolute. Which, if you read the comic, seems to be EXACTLY what is being played out. However, should I impose that analysis (and subjective viewpoint) onto the PH? It would have been as subjective and biased as inserting the "minor details" of the Howard University professor....that was my HUGE problem with it, and if I get banned for all my subsequent edits trying to stress that, then so be it, I'd do it all again if need be. Mobb One (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Quite a session. And I wanted to work on Bizarro! Oh well. Asgardian (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A human writer cannot "metaphysically reaffirm" genocide as "a rationale beyond human comprehension" in any way or form as long as he makes it into a sentient being rather than a non-sentient force, or a higher-dimensional entity so far above that it cannot hold conversation and isn't aware of its actions. Galactus on the other hand is not played as an earthquake, but as an individual, no matter how anyone wrinkles it. An in-comic validation cannot ever remove reader responsibility to not accept Benito Mussolini and Friedrich Nietzsche as the "One Great Truth Hallelujah" which is all that Byrne accomplished to do. He in a big way helped to turn even the higher context of the Marvel Universe into a hopeless and incoherent embodiment of nihilism. (Byrne himself is also known to make genocidal statements in a real world context, which along with the other quotes explain a lot of his story motivations.)
 * However, I've never inserted that personal opinion into the article, or (unlike Asgardian) tried to remove the references I would prefer to see had never infected humanity. I am however fully in the right to insert contradictive sources, and to succinctly state point by point how the story was structured(1) just as you have splattered endorsements everywhere you can. There was also a more recent 6-issue arc of Thanos, written by Jim Starlin(2), which made a similar argument about Galactus as a ruthless powerful and absolutely conceited individual with a "social contract" just like everyone else), and is just as valid as Byrne's but you somehow never allow to make an inclusion. I also really don't like when factual errors, or statements that have been repeatedly specifically retconned or are left ambiguous, or all of the above, are enforced.
 * (1) I.e: "The consequences of the storyline in Fantastic Four #242-244 (May-July 1982) were examined in Fantastic Four #262 (Jan. 1984), wherein the living sentience of the Marvel Universe was presented to make a, to the readers unworded, validation of the character's continuous feeding, whereas the victims were represented by a frothing Skrull prosecutor. This attracted controversy from Howard University Professor of Literature Marc Singer, who criticized writer-artist John Byrne for using the character as a means to "justify planetary-scale genocide." "
 * (2) Who elsewhere may have done more damage than Byrne himself, and admits to having a human skull to stare at on his workdesk; and then we have Walter Simonson who has stated that he thinks his creation Apocalypse (comics) was right; or Frank Miller who made a movie that might as well have been titled "In Defense of Hitler"; or Chris Claremont who ingrained confused dysfuntional alienated "us versus them" brooding into his readers; or Jim Shooter, who splattered his stories with god-complexes, misogynism, or persecution of the mentally ill; or Steve Ditko who is a Randian absolutist; or Stan Lee who is an utterly self-aggrandizing egomaniac who ran over his colleagues, and with an involvement in swindling Stan Lee Media stock owners... what a nice foundation for this world to stand on. Were Jack Kirby, Roy Thomas, and Roger Stern the only reasonably nice ones? (It's tough to grow up and discover that you've been filled with completely destructive crap, and it's not like most of today's crators are trying to make any breakthroughs on the positive front) Dave (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++

Honestly man, I don't give a damn about your analysis and criticism of Byrne, or any other creators, as it pertains to the PH. You want to construct an essay about it and invite different points of view instead of placing it on my talk page, where the only people who will read it are you and-briefly-myself (since it is on my talk page) go ahead. So long as you continue to impose a 3rd party critic's view onto the PH proper with "wherein the living sentience of the Marvel Universe was presented to make a, to the readers unworded, validation of the character's continuous feeding, whereas the victims were represented by a frothing Skrull prosecutor" other editors aside from myself will continue to find fault with it. You insist on painting yourself as an unjust victim of the editing community on this Galactus article and quite frankly that posture of yours gives you no credibility. You obviously agree with the critic's point of view. Good. You care that the critic's opinion on the subject is noted. It is. What you erroneously insist on doing is imposing the conclusions and analysis of the critic into the PH with "wherein the living sentience of the Marvel Universe was presented to make a, to the readers unworded, validation of the character's continuous feeding, whereas the victims were represented by a frothing Skrull prosecutor" which is rife with subjective analysis and criticism which belongs to, and was generated by, a 3rd party critic, along with rampant grammatical errors. Validation of Galactus' feedings is exactly what occurred in the comics.

Explain to me your logic of insisting that "wherein the living sentience of the Marvel Universe was presented to make a, to the readers unworded, validation of the character's continuous feeding, whereas the victims were represented by a frothing Skrull prosecutor" and how that is in anyway more objective, factual, and true than a Marvel editor's comments that the trial allows Byrne to reaffirm Galactus' role while maintaining its understanding beyond human ken? You can't, because they are two different points of view and analysis. Do you understand why I am opposing your edit? Why I oppose your injecting 3rd party analysis into a Publication History, thus inserting elements of an essay/critical literature piece on a section about the history of the published works in which a fictional character appear? For the purposes of the PH, it doesn't matter how the truth was revealed, only that it WAS. There's a sentence that provides for a critique of the manner in which Byrne reveals the truth, which is fine and improves the article. ''But you cannot say "faith-based" because that is a specific argument and analysis of a 3rd party that critiques and analyzes the manner in which Reed Richards comes to his conclusion that Galactus is a necessary force.

In fact, if you actually have the comic in front of you, you would realize that Reed comes to this conclusion BEFORE Eternity appears and reveals the truth as a "deus ex machina." You can criticize Reed and the use of Eternity all you want but for the purposes of the PH, the only thing that matters is a brief indication that Galactus' actions were validated in Fantastic Four #262. That's it. No analysis, no critical conclusions, no discussion about Reed Richards coming to his personal conclusion based on faith, no mentioning of Eternity using an "unworded" validation of Galactus...NONE. That belongs in a critical review of the issue, a response to the author/writer, an essay, a literary analysis piece, etc. etc. It does not belong in an ENCYCLOPEDIA whose aim in the PH is to highlight key dates of publication in which the character evolved or was interpreted by the writers, not how critics interpret those same writers in turn. The critical analysis can and should be mentioned, but the analysis itself should not be superimposed as the actual factual happenings of the issue in question, which is what you insist on doing. "Validation of Galactus' feedings" is factual, it is objective, it is encyclopedic. "Unworded faith-based validation" is an analytical interpretation of the manner in which Galactus' feedings were validated in FF #262. This doesn't even address the fact that "unworded faith-based validation" of Galactus pertains almost exclusively to Reed Richards' conclusion that Galactus is essential, and NOT to the fact that Eternity reveals the "real truth." Again, if you had the comic in front of you when you made the initial edit you would have realized that. For the purposes of the PH, we are not interested in how Reed Richards reaffirmed to himself the necessity of Galactus, we are interested that, in terms of character development, the existence of Galactus and the necessity of his actions were validated for the first time in the character's publication history and it even doesn't matter that it was done by Eternity. Again, for the purposes of the PH, we are interested in things that pertain to character of Galactus, NOT Reed Richards, whose conclusions and decisions the critic is responding to, and by proxy, Byrne.

I strongly advise you that in the future, you should have the actual comic book physically in front of you when making edits. I have every single appearance of Galactus in my possession. I access them readily whenever I make edits, as I know I have told you before. I also know I have told you that you make edits without confirming them in the actual comics in question, and I exhibited your deletion of my edit of Galactus reforming in Infinity War, which you absurdly dismissed since you "didn't remember that happening." 1. Singer's "unworded, faith-based validation" (phrases/terms which you obviously took from his blog in his critical response) pertains to Reed Richards' conclusion that Galactus is essential because he has arrived to that conclusion by his deductive reasoning and faith, which simply doesn't have any place in the PH, from a factual perspective. It's irrelevant how Reed comes to the conclusion that Galactus is essential, as the main vehicle used in the story to reveal the truth was Eternity. Which is where your "unworded"-which itself is not a word-comes into play. You've essentially conflated Eternity's "unworded" validation of Galactus in the story, and thus, to the reader, with Reed's rationalization to himself and to Lilandra that Galactus is essential, which he achieved through a "faith-based" logical reasoning. So when I say "the feedings were validated" they were validated by Eternity, which is factual. How Reed validates Galactus to himself is irrelevant, yet the analysis of "unworded, faith-based validation" pertains to a conflated and confused analytical summary of Reed reasoning to himself in a "faith-based" manner that Galactus is essential which he, somehow, arrived at by an "unworded" validation by Eternity? Read the comic man, 1. Reed reasons to himself first, 2. then Eternity validates Galactus to the court, to Reed, to the story, to the reader. For the purposes of the PH, we don't care how Reed validates Galactus to himself, as that is not the way Galactus is validated to the reader, nor the main structure used in the story. That specific falls to Eternity, who does NOT validate Galactus by a "faith-based" manner.

2. Strange delayed Death in death's realm. It was not his power that reformed himself, and explicitly mentions it was Galactus' will that would reconstitute himself, strange, surfer, nova, and his craft, not strange's power. Yet somehow since strange played a part in the feat, you want to remove it entirely without making any attempt whatsoever on your part to edit it? Terrible editing. The fact that strange played a part does not take away from Galactus' performing the deed on his own power. You continue to show editing habits that garner more opposition than support. This is one of them and I point it out to you know, in addition to you deleting edits without checking the validity of the content, which I have exposed you to do on habit.

3. Again, read the comic. Galactus absorbed Taa II (or attempted to...the power went to Doom) and did NOT destroy it. Where on Earth did you get that conclusion from? I really want to know because that is a factual error. I suppose that you were probably unaware that your whole edit about the inaccurate "destruction" of Taa II is rendered irrelevant as well since Taa II has been seen as recent as comics published during the summer of 2008. Editing failure once again.

4. You obviously have viewpoints on the creators and their characters. Go and find an outlet for your critical energy and direct it there. This is an encyclopedia. Facts are supreme. Facts such as Galactus' actions were validated in FF #262. Galactus' feedings revealed as not only valid, but necessary, in FF Annual with the onset of the Abraxas arc. Facts facts facts....analytical responses to those facts belong somewhere else, not a factual PH.

I suggest you think this all this through and digest it before you respond, if you respond at all. Mobb One (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration
Hello,

I am informing you that the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎ has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SilverSurfer012.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SilverSurfer012.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
David A and TheBalance have agreed to mediation, so I have filed Requests for mediation/Galactus. If you feel you should be a party to this case, you may add yourself to the mediation, or I can do it for you; I believe that non-parties are not allowed to comment on active cases, so please take that into consideration as you decide. Also, please keep in mind that inactive contributors can cause a stall in the case, so if you may have trouble in continued participating then you should not add yourself. If you are added, make sure to sign the agreement – mediation cannot proceed until all parties have agreed.

If you do join the case, you may consider adding your own statement under the "Additional issues" header (please wait for David A and TheBalance to add statements first). This should be brief and discuss succinctly the issues between the two of them regarding article content, as you see it, not how you feel about the editors' conduct. For example, you would want to say "I feel the article should include X, but he removes it; I feel the article should not include X, but he restores it; I try to rewrite parts to fix them in a particular style but he reverts it", and describe, in brief, why you feel these edits are appropriate. Brevity is the key here; assuming the case is accepted, you should have ample opportunity to explain your feelings later. Remember that Mediation is about trying to resolve differences, not about proving who is right or wrong, or getting the editors in trouble. It is not about providing evidence of wrongdoing on an editor's part, because this is not an Arbitration case. The idea is not to discuss how you feel about an editor's conduct, or what kind of person they are, or focus on the negatives – this is an attempt for these editors to try to see the positives in the other person's point of view and find a middle ground.

Also, if you feel that I have included any articles in the case which should not be included, or that I failed to include any articles which should be included, please let me know as I can change that before the case begins.BOZ (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Please, could you possibly be willing to add your input on the One-Above-All deletion discussion? A user, by the name of MBelgrano, is trying to delete the article, and now its image, apparently mainly because he is upset that no one supported his proposal to merge the article with Fictional portrayals of God. I have myself made many points on the article, such as comparing it with other comic portrayal of a Supreme Being, but Belgrano avoids addressing many points I have made, ignores my direct pleas for him to possibly consider or at least compromise, compares the One-Above-All with Batman and the Ultimate version of George W. Bush, and mentions irrelevant issues to the article, such as atheism.
 * This user seems to have nominated many articles for deletion in the past, and what bothers me the most is that, from his own comments, he plans on removing the article now because he feels personally slighted that other users restored much of the content he removed some time ago, and that some apparently disagreed with his choice to have the article merged. Thus, while the article may indeed contain some original research, he is using that as more of an excuse to attempt to justify this than as an actual reason. He does it more to satisfy himself rather than as an effort to help improve Wikipedia.
 * The article was made in 2006, and has lasted to this day, with overall hundreds of users having edited it. And now, because of a single user's tag, it is about to be permanently deleted. Not a single other person has chosen to have this article deleted and every day, according to the logs, hundreds still view it. And, what is more, many articles and templates link to it; even other language Wikipedias have this article. Please at least consider offering your own input on this, my friend. Aidoflight (talk) 02:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just logged in for the first time today and saw this issue. It's a shame it has been deleted already. Wikipedia was how I learned of the character in the first place. Mobb One (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed sad, and yet, it is possible for the article to be undeleted, though the process may be somewhat complicated, and I will need time preparing further arguments for its restoration. Nevertheless, deleting an article cannot remove it from Marvel canon itself, no matter what the deleting administrator may think. As I myself did contribute to the page many times in the past, I, too, am not exactly thrilled that it is gone now. Seriously, like, at least three hundred people viewed it every day according to the stats meter...and the administrator who deleted it did not even participate in the discussion or give a chance for a defense to be made to his own points, he simply deleted it. What is more, the last argument given in the discussion, which you can go see yourself, was to me far from valid, and two other administrators did not support its deletion in the discussion. Please, what do you think is the best option for us right now? Aidoflight (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fantastic Four No. 74.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fantastic Four No. 74.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Aegis1.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Aegis1.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)