User talk:ScifiterX/Archive 2

Re: Blizzard

 * What's the deal with the Blizzard entry? Why does it have /Temp next to it? When I tried to remove that it said something about a copyright problem so I simply renamed it Blizzard II. The copyright problem seemed to be a glitch. Mind explaing why you changed it back to Blizzard (comics)/Temp?

Well, Gtrmp beat me to it on the full reversion.

Read the copyvio notice. When a page is IDed as being a copyvio, you create a new, non-copyvio (i.e. original to wikipedia, rather copied directly from another site, a Handbook, etc) page on the /Temp subpage. When the copyvio is deleted (if it is), you move the /Temp page to the main page. If it's realised that the original wasn't a copyvio (most commonly, when the other site has copied it from wikipedia, rather than the other way around), you merge the two as appropriate. - SoM 4 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. ScifiterX 4 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Re: Selene.
Don't save a half-written page to the server then. If you need to take a break, save it in Notepad and come back to it.

And strength levels = dubious at best. Most writers don't bother with them in my experience, which leads to such wildly varying displays that they're useless for relative comparitors, the qualifying "under optimal conditions" means "never gonna happen" and they boggle the reader since throwing random numbers around doesn't actually mean anything (can you name something that weights 5 tons without checking? And is that metric tons, imperial tons, US tons...). To quote something by Peter David I recently read on the matter:


 * In US Tons a typical SUV wieghs about 2 to 3 tons. I knew that right off of the top of my head. A fully armored SUV (like what they have in Iraq, where my father is) wieghs about 3 to 5 tons depending on armament and other factors. My father is an engineer and when you are designing structures its necessary to know these things so that bridges and garages don't collapse on people and kill them.ScifiterX 5 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)


 * My Geo Metro (rest in peace) wieghed about 1 and a half tons. I know this because when I had a wreck, me and several friends had to lift it to get it off of the road.ScifiterX 5 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)

''I never really think about "power levels" all that much. I can't wrap myself around it. "Can Buffman lift five tons? How about ten tons? I read that the Astounding Bulge can press sixteen tons. Could he beat the Stupendous Throb who can press seventeen tons, or would the Bulge, in pressing sixteen tons, only get another day older and deeper in debt? " It's all nonsense. Ajax and the Hulk, respectively, had exactly as much power--no more, no less--than was required for the story. Beyond that, I didn't worry about it.'' (from )

Best to just follow Occam's Razor at all times. SoM 5 July 2005 03:53 (UTC) RESPONSE:
 * '''I am far more familiar with Occam's Razor than you give me credit for. It means that if you have two explanations both being able to explain the phenomena equally, you choose the simplist one. It does not mean to sacrifice accuracy and continuity in a work of fiction.


 * If you stop underestimating people you may find that you have more in common with them than you assumed.


 * You are missing Peter David's point. He is talking about fans getting overly technical over irrelevant details of fictional characters that don't exist. His example isn't very good for his argument, and it actually doesn't sound much like he actually said that. All I try to do is state the characters strength levels vaguely so that its accurate but there is room for a little play.


 * A comic book character's powers are what the spirit of the creaters intended for them to be, there is a little plasticity there, but there is also necessarilly definition. Over time there can be change, but it ruins the story for there to be no reason for that change. Its all part of the fun.


 * The fact is that even in serial fiction, in order to have good writing, you need to have some continuity and some established principles. In comic books those rules have to be very vague and somewhat elastic, but unmistakeabley, they are there.


 * In any case, that is Peter David's opinion. It is not the opinion of every comic book writer. I know this because I have corresponded with some in the past. In fact alot of them used to come down to the comic store here in town and sign autographs to help business. Mostly the guys from Image and the independent comics but some people who have written for Marvel too. Over 10 years I wouldn't be surprised if PD was one of them. 


 * Personally, though I think Peter David is a talented writer, I have my own opinion and his beliefs have no baring on it. I try to be vague when describing strength levels but there are certain principles that do hold true in the stories. Spiderman can lift cars, but not planes. The Hulk can lift planes, and if he gets angry, a mountain. Batman can lift several hundred pounds but he isn't going to be flipping over dump trucks. That is why you are never going to see Batman throw a truck 70 feet through the air. You are never going to see Spider-man shoot death beams out of his fingers (without an adequate explanation).


 * Personally, found the Marvel Universe Handbooks entertaining but not very accurate and I think its silly that all of these fans consider them the absolute official "truth" when you consider they were written by one editor and his assistant at Burger King and Taco Bell over the course of a few weekends. ScifiterX 5 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)

Wolverine.
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 makes no sense. In what way does my version, which presents both sides of the issue, not allow readers to do this? You're seriously arguing that your version allows readers to do this, even though it doesn't even mention the issue? How do you figure this? 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 a 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 not my version. It is not incomplete. Your version is not NPOV. Bye. ScifiterX 8 July 2005 16:19 (UTC)

I think you mean NOT NPOV.


 * What can we do about Nightscream? He seems to revert the version that makes sense to a version that is extremely long and states what he believes the opinions of readers are concerning Wolverine's powers. I know I'm not alone on this one.

Oh, I've been revert-warring with him for months on this, often aided & abetted by others, as you'll see from the Page History (the current non-NS version originates from a draft by me which was a slightly-longer-than-I'd-like-compromise in and of itself). He's not going to stop - this is going to end up at arbitration, in the end - SoM 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

In the first place, how exactly are "making sense" and "extremely long" mutually exclusive? An entry doesn't make sense if it's longer? How do you figure this? It is precisely this sort of word manipulation by which it is clear that your position is based more on emotion than reason or logic, and which I have difficulty taking seriously as part of a civil discussion. The issue of Wolverine's strength is evidently disputed by some people, so I merely addressed it by citing the evidence that each side presented, which is a little less simplistic than "states what he believes the opinions" of others are. Nightscream 7.8.05. 9:47pm EST.

You have trouble taking my logic seriously? Right..... Okay there, Mensa president. I call it like I see it. You are doing exactly what I said you were doing. ScifiterX 9 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)

"Call it like I see it" does not constitute reasoning, or a cogent argument. I have responded to your accusations and other statements by explaining why they don't hold up, pointing out your manipulation and distortion of words and their meanings, your unnecessary insults, and so forth. What you refer to as your logic is actually paralogia, and merely asserting that it is sound, or that I have done what you accused me of doesn't make it true. I have refuted your statements by showing why they are false, and you have been unable or wiling to do the same, preferring to respond only with rhetoric. I have pointed out that you have not provided reasoing or examples to support your accusations, which is simply true. Your statement that I have been doing what you said I did is a prime example. I made a statement about how an article being long has nothing to do with whether it makes sense. This is a reasonable statement. Yet you reply with a non-sequitur about what I've done. What exactly is that? You never elaborate on these comments, which makes them nothing more than rhetorical. Rhetoric and Argument by Fiat is veridically invalid, and does not validate your position. Nightscream 7.12.05. 7.12.05. 1:46am EST.

Wow, somebody's been busy with thier dictionary tonight. You have no idea how silly and pretentious you sound. I just read your post to three friends and we were rolling on the floor laughing. I never insulted you, but now that you mention it you are being a nuisance. I have half a dozen Wikipedian's backing me up on the issue and no one is backing you up. Do you wonder why that is? ScifiterX 07:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

First, the idea that one would need a dictionary to employ any of the words in my prior post (as if there's anything particularly difficult or obscure about those words) is indeed funny. If you feel that having a vocabulary is pretentious, well, to each his own. Your statement that you never insulted, however, is clearly false, as anyone who reads your statements to me can see. Lastly, the fact that you have some friends backing you up is irrelevant, since the reasoning you have all employed doesn't hold up, as I've pointed out previously. When you can come up with something that doesn't involve Straw Men and other logical fallacies, let me know. Until then, what you have is half a dozen people who are wrong. Nightscream Tue 7.12.05. 4:47am EST.

Ummm... My point wasn't that a person would need a dictionary to employ the words, its that only a person who is trying desperately to sound intelligent would use that many 10 dollar words in a sentence to describe something so mundane. Its really pathetic.ScifiterX 10:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are being very rude and immature.ScifiterX 08:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hyperion
About your continuing reversals of my changes to the Hyperion page. First, on such a large article, you should actually check to see what specific changes you make before reverting everything back. Second, I'm willing to accept the "numbering" of the Hyperions (unnecessary, really, since their appearances make it clear which ones we are talking about), but not if you're just going to have them out of order. Why have 2-1-4-3, like you did, instead of 1-2-3-4? Furthermore, there's no need to keep the "see below" remarks - they don't "sound" right in an enyclopedic text, making it rather amateurish. Next, your reversals kept putting the incorrect statement about Roy Thomas and impressed DC editors back in the text. I've removed it again. Finally, if you can refer to something by different names, do it - the Hyperion I section has too many "Hyperion (I) did this, but Hyperion (II) did that, so Hyperion (I) was". Please use synonims or adjectives. Finally, Hyperion IV has a different costume, not a "trendish" appearance - this is not Neutral Point Of View (NPOV), I actually think the "trendish" appearance is quite ugly and unfashionable. I've also removed the last paragraph in the "Powers and Abilities" section, since it doesn't apply to the Squadron Sinister and Supreme Power incarnations (neither of them are brilliant strategists, team leaders, technologists and artists) and the Squadron Supreme version's leadership abilities have proven to be rather limited, as we could see by the way the Squadron dealt with the Overmind and the many mistakes they made with the Utopia Project in the limited series. --Pc13 21:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wolverine
I think it's best if you stick to the issue at hand rather than criticise Nightscream and make personal attacks, that's frowned upon on wikipedia and could lead to you getting in trouble or something. Steve block 12:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I explained that I wasn't attacking Nightscream. I just refuted some statements that he made. I do not appreciate being threatened for advocating my own opinion. It almost sounds like I have to obey rules but for some reason he doesn't have to. As far as sticking to the issue at hand, I have been. Did you miss what I wrote in the discussion? I was one of the only persons even participating. I think you have overlooked the spirit of my dialogue entirely. ScifiterX 07:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

However, if you were just trying to be cool and look out for me I appreciate it.ScifiterX 07:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wolverine compromise area
I've set up a section on Talk:Wolverine (comics) and would appreciate your input. Steve block 13:27, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Conflict
I apologise if you took my words above on your talk page as being threatening, I can assure you that was not my intent, I meant it as a friendly warning given that Nightscream has requested an outsider look at the situation. I am merely seeking to calm the situation between yourself and Nightscream, since the debate isn't about who is saying what but about getting the Wolverine page to a point where it is no longer being reverted. Trying to achieve that means we have to reach a compromise where Nightscream agrees, or hope he gets so bored he gives up. If you feel you have been attacked, either by myself or by Nightscream, your best bet is to go to Requests for comment and place a summary there. Also, if you believe any comments regarding Personal attacks and staying calm on the wolverine page were directed solely at you, please be assured I was directing them at everyone involved in the debate, in the hope we could all concentrate our minds on breaking the deadlock. Steve block 07:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I do feel that Nightscream was harassing me on my talk page, although he was approaching it like a weasel. But, it really doesn't get to me. He is actually pretty funny, even if he doesn't intend to be. I never said you had attacked me I just said you ought to look a little closer at what was said (to put it concisely).ScifiterX 08:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, I can only apologise. And thank you for your kind words.  Steve block 08:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Nightscream
I've listed Nightscream at Requests for comment/Nightscream as well, so if you can and a comment on how you have tried to reach a compromise with Nightscream, and the problems we're having with him at Wolverine, that's another stab at getting him blocked. Steve block 14:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

RFC on Nightscream
Hello! From Requests for comment/Nightscream, I do not quite understand what the problem is or what you propose to do about it. If this is a serious request for comment, might I suggest that you start anew from the template, Requests_for_comment/Example_user because that should help explaining? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've done this. THe response I've had so far is that we politely (and if necessary repeatedly) tell Nightscream to not go against consensus (as you've done, but maybe try citing policy such as WP:3RR and Wikipedia:Consensus at him). .  Wow. Steve block 13:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Nightscream blocked
Sorry to keep on, but I just noticed User:Thryduulf has responded to my request for page blocking as follows: ''The user is blocked for a 3RR violation at the moment, and an RfC has been launched against him. If he continues when he returns I will protect the page then. Leave a note here and on my talk page. Thryduulf 00:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)''. Steve block | Talk 13:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ScifiterX 07:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

stop talking about the past
Re: your last post on Talk:Wolverine (comics). Please stop talking about Nightscream, and stop talking about "who did what" in the past. None of that matters, blame doesn't matter. We have an encyclopedia article which is protected from editing because of this sort of attitude. Today is day one. -- Netoholic @ 14:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That was rude. You don't have the right to tell me what to say or when to say it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt at first but now you are clearly attempting compromise my right to express myself. Your request doesn't even make sense. If the discussion is over a dispute, naturally people are going to have to discuss what the dispute was about. It makes no sense to COMMAND ME not talk about what you don't want to hear. It doesn't work that way in real life and it doesn't work that way here. ScifiterX 19:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That sort of talk is going to get you blocked. If you really don't want The Screed on the Wolverine page to stay, focus on the many, many things wrong with the edit and ignore the editor. - SoM 19:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I did SoM. Just look at the discussion page. I had been doing that before you even posted this. But my cooperation just goes totally ignored. ScifiterX 04:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

DUDE - he posted that message days ago, BEFORE I told you all to grow up and stop digging up the past. Had he posted anything like that today, it would be his talk page that I'd be posting on, not yours. You don't seem to realize how damaging your incivility has been, and continues to be. -- Netoholic @ 02:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that however I NEVER saw that block of text before. ScifiterX 02:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Today I did a cleanup and archive of a lot of old chatter, but that text was always there. Maybe it was just more visible now that the page is shorter.  Apology accepted. -- Netoholic @ 03:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Squadron Supreme/Supreme Power
Either use character "importance" for the Squadron members or put them in order of chronological appearance. It's rather silly to have the character order be 2-1-3 instead of 1-2-3. Since 2 actually predated 1, it's better to not have any number at all, and start from the Squadron Sinister versions, but if you want to list them in order of "importance", put the #1 first. Also, the Supreme Power versions don't count on the number issues because they're not part of the Marvel Universe. And personalities don't factor into it. They're supposed to have different personalities independently from "numbers". And the Nighthawk version of the mainstream Marvel Universe is the number 1 because it had a much bigger career than the equivalent Hyperion and Dr. Spectrum. FWIW, there were about three or four different Spectrums in the mainstream Earth-616, including Rev. William Roberts and Dr. Kinji Obatu. --Pc13 16:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

According to Marvel Nighthawk II is the one I said it was. Look it up. ScifiterX 19:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * According to who at Marvel? Stop adding numbers to the characters. You want to me put the characters in order? They are in order, in chronological order, you're the one who's confusing other readers with your random 2-1-4-3 placements. Separating them into Squadron Sinister / Squadron Supreme / Supreme Power is already enough to make people understand they're different. Numbering is not, and placing them according to numbering would force to an explanation on how the first character to appear is actually a copy of another that didn't debut for another two years. In addition, the Supreme Power versions should not be numbered because they're not part of the MU. They're in an unconnected, alternate reality. --Pc13 21:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Numbering is not a safe way to identify comics characters, as there were characters named Hulk, Dr. Strange and Colossus in Marvel Comics before their more successful namesakes debuted. And then there's the case of retcon heroes, such as the 1940s American Eagle (admittedly very minor) or, in the DCU, the 1950s Starman, to muddy things even more. A one-sentence description of their particularities as the section title would be more helpful. --Pc13 21:58, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Pc13, I do not appreciate your coming on to my talk page and commanding me to edit entries only as you see fit based on authority you don't have and principles that make no sense. Be a little more mature and find something more constructive to do with your time.ScifiterX 23:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess that was a little harsh. Look, my point is that you can do what ever you want to the entries. I won't try to stop you. You don't need to come here and b**ch at me on my talk page to change the order of superhero names. If you want a discussion ask for one on the page corresponding to the entry. Then on your next edit put "see discussion" if you feel there might be some controversy concerning your edit. You get bent out of shape by all this little stuff man, you're gonna have a stroke. So relax. ScifiterX 01:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you plan to add info on Doctor Spectrum. I add info before but Pc13 deleted it ? --Brown Shoes22 06:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Nah. G'head. ThanxScifiterX 07:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

i