User talk:Spiderboy12

I noticed you make occasional edits to the Origin of Superman article. I've been working to improve it whenever I have time. If you have any feedback, I'd love to hear it :) Mookie89 (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

List of DC Publications.
Thanks for the help and the clean-up. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion of the changes we made here: Talk:List of Vertigo publications. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duggy. I'll try to take a look this weekend, and also look again at the main DC board. Not ignoring the lists--just busy! Chat at you soon! Spiderboy12 (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey that's OK, we all get busy at times. Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the recognition. I appreciate it, even if my thanks is a tad late! Spiderboy12 (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Spiderboy12! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

List of ... publications
I've began a major push to update, create and fix a number of these pages, and am currently working on List of Dark Horse Comics publications as well as a number of others discussed on the Comics Project page. As you've previously help with the DC page I thought this is something you may be interested in looking at - at the moment even little bits of clean-up and correction are welcome. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

2012 Election
It's not "misleading trivia." It's a fact. If you have other factual information to add, add it. Stop removing factual information, please. There's no need for an edit war. It's not a partisan statement. I voted for and donated to and campaigned for Obama. Also, I made parallel edits to all of the other relevant election pages (1812, 1832, 1892, 1916, 1940 and 1944) that same day, including individual anomalies and caveats. JCaesar (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's misleading because it makes the change in Obama's performance between 2008 and 2012 unique, when in fact it was duplicated rather more dramatically exactly 200 years ago. The EC was constantly expanding in size in the 19th century. Madison's opponent in 1812, DeWitt Clinton, got 89 EV--enough to WIN four years earlier. So Madison's 6 EV gain in 1812 was essentially meaningless. Hell, Madison got more popular votes (about 16,000) AND electoral votes in 1812 compared to 1808, but his PV% fell by 14% and his EV% fell by about 13%. Compare that to Obama falling <2% in PV% and about 5% in EV%.


 * I haven't seen the other pages. But my other issue here is also that it strikes me as unimportant trivia. I just don't see this fact as being particularly important, especially given what happened with Madison 200 years ago.


 * Consider, if turnout this year is down a bit, say 130 million compared to 131.3 million in 2008, Obama could have received a slightly higher shard of the PV, say 53.0% compared to 52.9% in 2008, carried exactly the same states and districts he received four years ago, and still been the first president to receive fewer PV and EV on reelection to a second term than on his initial election. Again, it would be statement that's technically true, but seriously, who'd give a damn except Karl Rove? Spiderboy12 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a perfectly reasonable caveat. I added a lot of caveats to the other pages. In 1812, most states didn't have a popular vote. In 1892, Cleveland was down in the popular vote not only from his electoral loss in 1888, but also his electoral win in 1884. And so forth and so on. The section is called "Analysis." That means it looks at general trends since the 1948 election (the "modern era" of elections), since 1876 (the last election in which any state did not have a popular vote), since 1860 (the first election with the Republican Party), since 1828 (first with Democrats), since 1796 (first with two candidates) and since 1788 (first ever).
 * Obama won a rare victory. He also took unprecedented losses. Were I to argue the reason, I'd say racism had a lot to do with it, but that's POV. The whole idea of Wikipedia and its POV rule is you can argue whatever you want, but facts are facts. Obama is the first president to win with fewer electoral and popular votes than he had previously. Why? That's another question.
 * But the one citation in that whole section is from a left-leaning opinion piece with which I happen to agree. So to suggest there's a partisan bias here is ludicrous. Obama won. Obama won by a lot. That said, even saying he lost two states and one district, and indeed about 4 million votes, is not, of itself, an opinion, because he did. JCaesar (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean, really, if you want to start parsing everything and saying, "This is unimportant trivia, because it wasn't mentioned in The Nation article," there's a lot more that can be brought up. For instance: Yes, as the first sentence of the section says, this is the first string of three presidents to win the election twice since Jefferson/Madison/Monroe, but three incumbents have won another term since then. Most recently, Truman/Eisenhower/Johnson - although Truman and Johnson hadn't run in the previous election, but their predecessors could not run on account of being inconveniently dead. It's not rare for an incumbent party to win consecutive popular votes. A minority of presidents have both sought and won re-election in the first place. And so forth and so on. Again, Obama's win is unusual. His losses are also unusual. Karl Rove can twist whatever he likes into anything. That doesn't make it factual, nor does it make the few things he occasionally says which are technically true any less true. JCaesar (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And by the way... any sentence which begins, "Obama did something only Madison and FDR did before him, and that is..." does not seem to me to be a terribly critical sentence. I mean, that's pretty good company, ne c'est pas? JCaesar (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No Error
Spiderboy12, I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. You didn't make an error, you corrected an error in 128.135.24.135, but I was referring to 128.135.24.135's error. I'll be clearer next time! --I am One of Many (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NASuperboy1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:NASuperboy1.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) 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)