User talk:Nightscream/Archive 1




 * Archive 1 (2005): March 5, 2005 - December 29, 2005
 * Archive 2 (2006): January 2, 2006 - January 18, 2007
 * Archive 3 (2007): January 18, 2007 - December 26, 2007
 * Archive 4 (2008): January 2, 2008 - December 31, 2008
 * Archive 5 (2009): January 2, 2009 - January 2, 2010
 * Archive 6 (2010): January 1, 2010 - December 29, 2010
 * Archive 7 (2011): January 2, 2011 - December 30, 2011
 * Archive 8 (2012): January 1, 2012 - December 31, 2012
 * Archive 9 (2013): January 2, 2013 - December 3, 2013
 * Archive 10 (2014): January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014
 * Archive 11 (2015): January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
 * Archive 12 (2016): January 12, 2016 - December 24, 2016
 * Archive 13 (2017): January 1, 2017 - December 30, 2017
 * Archive 14 (2018): January 11, 2018 - December 31, 2018
 * Archive 15 (2019): January 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019
 * Archive 16 (2020): March 25, 2020 - December 27, 2020
 * Archive 17 (2021): January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021
 * Archive 18 (2022): January 12, 2022 - December 31, 2022
 * Archive 19 (2023): January 1, 2023 - December 31, 2023

Wolverine: Stats
Meelar (talk) 05:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) Here we go again. First, there is no mention of super human strength to avoid a flame war. Second, your examples prove your own argument wrong. Those Marvel Universes published in 2004 that you mentioned list Wolverine at a level 4. If you look in the appendix of those issues (even X-MEN 2004) level 4 correllates with low superhuman strength. Why are you not able to read that? Also in the Marvel Universe Master Edition 4 Wolverine's strength is listed as enhanced. Why can't you just read it? I gave you a mountain of evidence which is still on my site and all you had to do was cut and paste the text into the field on your browser (you can't just click it doesn't allow hot linking, you have to CUT AND PASTE). Contact the editors of the Marvel website and review the entries there where he is yet again listed as level 4. http://www.marvel.com/about/contact_us/email.htm. Britney Spears 23:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did have this stuff available for you to actually look at on this site but since someone went and reported it I had to take it down.Britney Spears 23:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is a another image for you. Please look at the following entries from various comic books illustrating that the character has enhanced strength. They will save you much trouble or doing unnecessary revisions. The image bellow shows a feet of greater than the peak human range or Captain America, but less than the Superhuman Class 10 range of Spiderman. Spider man can lift a maximum of 10 tons (roughly 20,000 lbs.). He would snap these bonds easily. Captain America could not snap these bonds at all. Also in the old Marvel Universes in the 80's that said that Wolverine was a strong as any man of his hieght and wieght who engages in intense regular excersize, how many 150 year old men do you know of who can lift over 800 lbs? You see there were problems with those universes. There was no enhanced range at that time. Meaning that characters were not as strong as Spidey would sometimes (but not always) just get this "strong as any man of his hieght and wieght who engages in intense regular excersize" even if they could lift 2 tons. Another example was Sabretooth who was does definately have superhuman strength and in the marvel universe from 1986 it listed him as peak human. Yet in the new Wolverine2004 Universe it does put him at Level 4 and in the Master Edition Master Edition it lists him in the Enhanced Range. Britney Spears 22:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF1.JPG

Hi, got some info for you concerning Wolverine. http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF5.JPG

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF6.JPG

1) His strength is listed as ENHANCED. http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF1.JPG

2) There were two editions that listed of the Marvel Universe in 2004 that had profiles of Wolverine. Marvel Universe X-Men 2004 actually contradicts itself by stating that Wolverine's strength is Level 4 (enhanced human through superhuman class 25) and then it states in words (directly copied from the old volume from 1986) that he is merely in top physical shape. Marvel Universe X-Men 2004 had a LOT of errors in it (such as reprinting a portion of the Deluxe Edition no. 14 from 1986 in describing his strength, and that edition listed a lot of characters with superhuman strength as merely being in peak physical condition). If you then look at the appendix it shows that level four includes strength anywhere from 800 lb to 25 tons (encapsulating 3 categories, enhanced human, superhuman class 10 and superhuman class 25). Level 3 is peak human. Captain America can only lift 800 lb under optimal conditions, and even then it is a great strain. Wolverine, with his metahuman stamina could pick up 800 lb and run the Boston Marathon with it, without getting tired. That is why he is considered enhanced. He has also demonstrated that he can lift more than 800 lbs. (completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF2.JPG 3) In the Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004 and on the Marvel Website, Wolverine is again listed as level 4. Level 4 covers enhanced humans (beings able to lift from the 800 lb to 2 ton range), Superhuman class 10 (beings able to lift from 2 tons to a max of 10 tons), and Superhuman class 25 (beings able to lift wieghts between 10 and 25 tons). So Wolverine is at the very bottom of level 4 (an enhanced human). In the comics there are several places that this is explained explicitly and I will scan those entries and show them to you if necessary. (completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF3.JPG

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF4.JPG

4) Although Wolverine has had his adamantium back for several years now, if you look at the X-Men 2004 edition it mistakenly puts that he still has the bone claws. This was corrected in Wolverine 2004. This is another example of an error in that issue. Just because it says in that issue that he did not have adamantium does not mean he didn't have it. It means that the issue was rushed to be printed and not edited well.  This was somewhat corrected in Wolverine 2004.

So essentially Wolverine is at the enhanced human level, which is equivelent to very low superhuman strength. He can lift around 800 lb to 1500 lb. That is the position of Marvel. The writers don't make a big deal out of it because he is in a class below Spiderman.

(completely cut and paste this into your browser or it won't work)http://ocean-landings.tripod.com/PROOF7.JPG

5) Finally, this is from Marvel's website. Wolverine is on Level 4. Level 4 covers characters in the range of being able to lift 800 lb to 25 tons. That is 3 categories.  Enhanced Human, Superhuman Class 10, and Superhuman Class 25. Wolverine is in the lowest category of the 3 being enhanced human.  As you can see the statistics from the Master Edition still stand.

Britney Spears 04:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have shown you specific marvel universe entries and panels explaining it this point. The character is described as enhanced, which in an intermediate level between superhuman and peak human. The first two volumes of the Universe stated that he was merely in peak physical condition, because the writers had not worked out an enhanced (intermediate) category yet. Britney Spears 05:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have just proven that it states in the Marvel Universe that he has enhanced strength, agility, and reflexes. I showed you the page where it says it. Then I showed you examples. You keep stating that there Marvel has always maintained that his strength is merely peak human. That is called a lie. You need to stop now. Myself and several others agree that what you are doing is vandalism. Britney Spears 18:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is why over-extending the "Superhuman Powers" sections is stupid. All it EVER does is lead to flame wars over tiny little insignificant details that NEVER get kept to in the comics. EVER. And that's not even COUNTING cross-media stuff.

And I think many of those pics above are imagevios, possibly all the text ones. I'll tag them tomorrow and see what everyone else thinks... SoM 22:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I reduced the amount of text in the entry. And what does "imagevios" mean? If you are suggesting they are fake you are definately wrong. You should check things out before you acuse people. Saves you trouble.Britney Spears 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way these images were only posted on here for Nightscream. They aren't part of entries anywhere else and after he had the chance to read them I was planning on deleting them or allowing them to be deleted. I only added one small picture to the Wolverine entry. I am clearly in the right here and I have the documentation to prove it so you might want to avoid wasting your time. Britney Spears 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, remember that some people using this site are Christians and do not appreciate it when you take the Lord's name in vain. It is extremely disrespectful. Britney Spears 23:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Britney.

Let’s see if we can take this in order. First of all, the notion that there is no mention of superhuman strength in my version is false, an indication that you obviously didn’t read carefully. It’s archived, so look for the paragraph that begins with “Additionally, some readers believe that Wolverine's strength, agility, and reflexes are enhanced…” If you read that paragraph, you’ll see that I mentioned the very examples that were mentioned as possibly indicating superhuman strength on Wolvie’s part. So what if I didn’t mention every single detail, like those Stat Gauges? The point is, I addressed the debate by mentioning material that both sides point to. If you felt that the Stat Gauges were too important to be omitted, why not simply add that in? Isn’t that the whole point of Wikipedia? That each person contributes a little bit, so that the entry presents a more and more detailed picture? Instead, you simply go back and revert to the old version, which doesn’t contain any of the material on that issue. I have restored my version, and have added the points about the Stat Gauges.

Second, you claim that the lack of such a mention, if true, would cause a “flame war”. How do figure this? If two contributors disagree on the content of an entry, they should ‘’discuss’’ it, not engage in a flame war. Simply because you respond to any disagreement with accusations of "lying," vandalism, and intending to "antagonize" people—as if you somehow have been able to divine my intentions, exclude less nefarious motives on my part (like perhaps a sincere belief on my part that my contributions are valid)—while simultaneously admonishing others to be more careful with their language—does not mean that others are so cynical, and that they possess the intentions you ascribe to them. If the only response you see to such a disagreement is pejorative language, accusations, and flame wars, then that says far more about your own character and temperment than it does about the content of my contributions.


 * First step is to move this discussion to the article's discussion page. If this is about content then it should be on the article discussion page where it belongs. It will also keep the things from being fragmented. Then progress might be made. - RoyBoy 800 07:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And make sure to sign your name on every discussion entry. - RoyBoy 800 08:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The entry is better the way it is because it doesn't say anything about him having enhanced or superhuman strength it merely states a few facts which are also stated in the Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004 and lets the reader draw thier own conclusion. Your entry has a ton of unnecessary information and is not NPOV. There is no need for you to explain to us what you think the opinions of some readers are regarding a comicbook characters powers. How do you know? Which readers? Did you conduct a statistical survey? Where can I look at the data? Seriously, this has gone on long enough and you need to find something more productive to do with your time. ScifiterX 8 July 2005 09:48 (UTC)

The fact that the version you favor entry does not mention the issue over his strength is precisely why it is incomplete. Reference sources like Wikipedia should address such discrepancies. It is for this reason that I feel it may be useful to present the contradictory bits of evidence cited by different people when discussing whether he does or doesn't have enhanced strength, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Your statement that your version somehow allows readers to do this, even though it doesn't even mention the issue at all, makes no sense. You also provide no evidence or elaboration on how my version is not NPOV. How exactly is it not NPOV to incorporate evidence that both sides present on the matter? My version does not slant the information toward either side, which is exactly what an NPOV is. Moreover, my version also has other information regarding his superhuman powers that has nothing to do with the strength issue, and it is not your place to decide for others whether it is "necessary" or not. That's for readers to decide, depending on their curiosity and their needs. Lastly, which readers advocate which position on the strength issue is unimportant. The only important thing is that I incorporated the information they pointed to in support of their position, for which a statistical survey is neither necessary nor relevant. The only important data are the sources that I cited, which you can most certainly look up. Nightscream 7.8.05. 9:49am EST.

Its NPOV because you are telling us what the opinions of readers are and implying which opinions are correct. Its a fictional comic book character it isn't necessary to site sources for the character's powers. My comment about a statistical survey was a play on words, which apparently went over your head. Several people have been reverting your editing. I am not alone on this one. ScifiterX 8 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

Nowhere in my version do I imply which opinions are "correct." I merely present both sides of the issue, and cite the arguments by each side. Nowhere do I indicate that one is correct and one is incorrect. Your comment about a statistical survey was not a play on words; it was a manipulation. Statistics are usually used in regards to quantitative issues (that is, how many people believe this or that), when in fact, nowhere in my version do I ever allude to the percentage of people who subscribe to one explanation or the other. Bringing the issue of statistics up, therefore, was irrelevant, and referring to it as a "play on words" is at best, demonstrative that you do not understand yourself what that phrase means, and at worst, disengenous on your part. Shocking as it may be to you, I know that others have been reverting the entry. So what? Most of them employ the same sort of Straw Men, word manipulation and other fallacies that you do, as well as irrelevant insults and name-calling, none of which I tend to take very seriously. If you want to engage in a civil discussion in which I might see your point of view, you might consider abandoning those tactics, since they do nothing to lend credence to your position, much less convince me Nightscream 7.8.05. 9:37pm EST.

Several Wikipedians agree that your edit is innapropriate for the entry. I have explained to you in very explicit and civil terms why we have come to this conclusion. I have never insulted you, but you have been quite rude in your correspondence with me, which so far I have generously overlooked. As I said before I welcome any appropriate contribution you can make to that or any other article. People don't always agree with each other. Let's all try to be a little more mature about this matter as it is rather insignificant compared to the other activities in our lives.ScifiterX 07:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement that you have never insulted me, and that it is somehow I who has been rude to you, is clearly false to anyone who reads our exchanges. To date, you and others have accused me of deliberately trying to antagonize you, you have presumed to know what my motives are behing my actions and my position, you have distorted my words and made manipulative use of words to do this. The idea that I have somehow been rude to you is just flat-out untrue, as is the notion that it is somehow you who has been "civil." You seem to think that merely stating an idea or an accusation somehow lends credence to it. It doesn't. In order for any idea to hold up, you have to provide evidence/reasoning for it. You have not done this. You say I've been rude to you. Fine. Please point to where I have done this. You say that my version of the section does not show a NPOV because it implies which side of the dispute over Wolverine's strength is correct, and that I have omitted and distorted information for the other. Fine. Please point to where I have done this. I challenged you on this a short while ago, and you again stonewalled on the matter by refusing to respond. By contrast, I can point to information that reflects my statements regarding your behavior and mine. You allude to what I am supposedly thinking, you assert that I somehow need a dictionary in order to use the words I used in my recent post to you (as if there are any words in that post that one cannot know by heart), and so forth. You're saying those are not insults? How so? For your part, the only things to which you can point as supposed insults on my part are when I point out the logical fallacies you employ, which is clearly not an insult, but a reasonable description of your arguments. As far as the explanations you have given on why my edit is inappropriate, I respectfully disagree with them, and have explained why, and in detail. It should be left to the readers looking for information to decide how much information or detail they need/want. Not the aesthetics of individual posters. I don't myself don't care for the recent addition of the section Wolvie's costumes, as his costume has never been a signature trait of the character. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to unilaterally decide to delete it. Moreover, only one portion of my edit refers to the dispute over his strength. The rest covers other information that the version you favor does not, such as the limits of his healing factor, the fact that his hair also grow back, and greater detail on his senses and claws. Your only response is to argue that length of a section equates with whether it makes sense and other fallacies, and to attack me and my motives. Nightscream Tue 7.12.05. 4:42am EST.

I've set up a section on Talk:Wolverine (comics) and would appreciate your input. Steve block 13:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion has moved on a bit, please have a look and share your thoughts, cheers. Steve block 22:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please check Three-revert rule before further editing Wolverine (comics) for the next 24 hours. You are allowed only 3 reverts within 24 hours, otherwise you may be blocked from editing -- Chris 73 Talk 14:32, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Since you have ignored attempts to reach a compromise, and insist on editing warring at Wolverine (comics), I am citing you on Requests for comment/Nightscream. Steve block 14:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Wolverine (comics). Please engage in dialogue with other editors and try to reach or accept a consensus view. --khaosworks 01:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

No problemo
Your welcome, I see spacing issues everyday... so its not just you :-). For future reference send communications/comments to users on their User talk page (their discussion tab). I've moved your message there and my talk page is directly liked by Boy in my signature. Have a better one, and keep up the good work. - RoyBoy 800 14:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pillock
I noticed your comments on Thrydulf's page. I just wanted to point out that a pillock can also be an objectionable person, used to describe someone you are in disagreement with. I would also like to extend to you an apology. It seems I did not acquaint myself fully with the situation. I have asked Thrydulf to protect the page and I have also asked Netaholic if he will keep an eye on the page. I'm not sure how to solve the impasse, but it needs to be somehow. Steve block talk 08:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that never once have I reverted the page. Steve block talk 08:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I referenced Dictionary.com for the word, and they did not provide that other meaning. Sorry if my reference to it was not as accurate as it could've been. Nightscream 7.20.05. 10:38am EST

Please stop using my user page to reply to other people.
Seriously, I have several messages on my user page from you, and none of them are directed at me. - SoM 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Step 3
Nightscream, would you now please take another look at Wolverine (comics)/Temp, and please incorporate the suggestions which SoM, ScifiterX, and myself have given. Let us know on Talk:Wolverine (comics) when you're satisfied with it. -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson article
Hi, I noticed that you made some drastic changes to the aforementioned article. However, by the looks of things, the work was only half done. You deleted a lot of information including his discography, filmography, categories, external links, fansites and references; all of which are important. I understand that the article was a bit long, but the proper thing to do was to make seperate pages and provide links from the main articles to these pages. Ive reverted most of your changes and have made new ones. Journalist 05:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I have no idea how to revert changes. However, I go to the history and find the article in its previous state. I then copy everything from there and then delete the current article and paste it there. I dont know if its the right thing to do (or the easiest), but hey, it works. Im just currently working on the Michael Jackson article. I havent saved everything yet, though. Its giving me hell so I might leave some work for tomorrow, cause Im sleepy. By the way if I seemed bossy or harsh, I apologise. Journalist 05:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything alright? I looked at the article and seems to have worked out. In order to revert to an earlier version, what you do is click on the version you want from the history list... then edit that page and save with a comment explaining the reason for the revert and that version will become the article. - RoyBoy 800 14:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine
I would advise you to let it go for a while. You had the best intentions and were being bold in editing an article; but your insistance on additions despite reverts from multiple editors will not look good in arbitration. That is entirely seperate from wether your additions are notable or not. Give yourself some more time to get a feeling for editing; and that might help you create a Wolverine proposal later on which can get more support. - RoyBoy 800 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * At least a few weeks... maybe till September sometime. Yeah in the meantime work around Wikipedia, and I'd suggest look at other Comic articles to see how they deal with inconsistent portrayals of abilities. Talk to users who have written comic articles (without mentioning Wolvering for a bit) and find out how they deal with inconsistency, and if they think its notable. To be honest its not notable to me, however I can see it as notable to someone interested in Comics, so a possible compromise is creating a sub-article on that. (For example on the Blade Runner article I created a lot of information on Themes in the film. Some people pointed out it was too much, and a little too interpretive, so I split it into Themes in Blade Runner and they can evolve on their own.)


 * As to "ScifiterX's slanderous attacks"... I try to look at things from the other persons perspective. Maybe he is a little defensive about the article, but it does seem clear he and others think you are dead wrong, and when you kept trying to put in your additions that pissed them off. So I actually blame you for their anger :"D, but as I said you were trying to improve the article, and that doesn't excuse their behavior. I'd say keep notes about the important stuff (especially Steve block being mislead) if you have to go to arbitration against ScifiterX. But keep in mind he got angry for a reason.


 * Hopefully the next time you will be more tactful (not pushing your edits on the article right away), and will have a solid argument for inclusion (or splitting) of some details based on comparisons to other Comic articles. Ultimately that's what I see making or breaking your edits, if other articles don't have this information, then neither should this one. - RoyBoy 800 16:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek Pages
Just letting you know that there is a standard format that the trek pages have been organized into. When you add things please see how they are set up before making changes. As a rule: the "Quick Overview" line is a quick one sentence description of the episode (not a paragraph for the whole plot). Anything like credits, tidbits of info, and such are put under the "Trivia" section. Thanks. Cyberia23 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess not, when I saw it it was bigger in size like (Star Trek pages) above. I reduced it to the smaller size. Cyberia23 08:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * yeah thats cool. Cyberia23 10:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

User categorization
You were listed on the Wikipedians/New Jersey page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey for instructions. Al 15:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Stack (politican)
You didn't actually have to do an Afd on your duplicate article. You could have used a redirect instead to point your article to the duplicate one instead. Redirects can be done by anyone and sense you were the author, no one would have objected. Just thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware. -- JLaTondre 00:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mariah Carey
I removed the following sentence that you added to the Mariah Carey article: "(In fact, she merely removed a loose-fitting sweater to reveal tight shorts and a top underneath.)" This may be what happened (I wouldn't know), but this statement may be a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. All the references that I added to the article regarding this incident referred to it as a "strip tease", so the article should reflect this. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 15:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sivana & the F4
Taken care of. Thanks for the expansion. --FuriousFreddy 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Date links
This is regarding the article Joe Madureira. Please note that according to Wikipedia's guidelinies regarding date formatting, "simple months, years, decades and centuries should only be linked if there is a strong reason for doing so." These should only be linked if they're part of a full date with day & month, as in December 28 2005. If they occure alone, just December or just 2005 or just December 2005, they shouldn't be linked. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1, Usually, neither the month nor years are really relevant to the article. The article about a specific month or year will usually not provide any information relevant to, say Battle Chasers. Full dates with day, month & year are linked so that user's individual date preferences (under my preferences) work.
 * 2, I think the best way to handle this right now is to contact the user friendly on his talk page, and explain that information on Wikipedia should be sourced and all the other explainations from the article's talk page (I guess he/she just didn't read that). If that doesn't help, you can add warnings to his talk page and finally if all else fails use administrator intervention against vandalism.
 * Hope that helps. Let me know if you need any other help. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1, I think the difference is that people reading the BC article might not know what Wizard is, therefor the link can be helpful. It's fair to assume everybody knows what May or December or 2005 is. ;-)
 * 2, even IPs have talk pages. For the one who keeps editing the article that's User talk:68.46.36.1. And everybody who isn't an IP is a registered user, redlinks only indicate that they haven't written anything on their userpage, yet. (The user you where talking about is Inmytown, right? His talk page is User talk:Inmytown and that's only a redlink because nobody has written him anything, yet.) So you can just go ahead and write on either of the two pages I linked here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)