Just thought Alternate Versions and Other Media would be the right heading. Rtkat3 ( talk) 4:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Spider-Man Work Group member. If it's ok I have an job that I think you can help me with. Just recently I created Template:Spider-Man Work Group and if you would have time you can place this template on any article or template while you (that's right you!) can rate the article/template on it's importance and quality scale. Also it would help if you could create an category on the importance scale if I haven't done it yet. Good luck and most importantly have fun. Thank you! Jhenderson777 ( talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, explain how I am misinformed about Richard and Mary Parker supposedly being SHIELD agents. The comics have repeatedly shown that SHIELD was only founded relatively recently, after the start of the "modern" era, by which time Peter Parker was already Spider-Man, long after Richard and Mary died. The only time they are referred to as SHIELD agents is the cover of Untold Tales Minus One; they aren't referred to as SHIELD agents in the story within. And here http://marvel.com/blogs//entry/631 is Tom Brevoort noting that cover is in error "And yes, that cover copy proclaiming Richard and Mary parker Agents of SHIELD was a mistake, and it was entirely made by me. I remembered that they had been secret agents, and I somehow misrecalled Stan saying that they had been working for SHIELD, even though he didn't. I really should have checked that." This is reaffirmed by the Parker's recent Handbook entries, which note them to be CIA and that SHIELD was founded a decade after they died, and by the SHIELD entry which does not list them as agents of the agency. 86.158.46.54 ( talk) 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You've got Tom Brevoort saying the cover image is a mistake, and that they weren't SHIELD agents. You've got Marvel's existing timeline making it impossible for them to have been SHIELD agents, since SHIELD wasn't founded until well after their deaths. You've got Marvel's official guides stating very recently that they were not SHIELD agents. In the unlikely event you can find issues that claim otherwise, then they are simply perpetuating the error that cover led you to make; Brevoort's statement (made in 2007) and the Handbook entries (made in 2009) confirm the official stance, and any references to the contrary are mistakes, not retcons. 86.151.45.54 ( talk) 05:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(1) Tom Brevoort was the editor in charge of the comic in question, and by his own admission the cover claim that the Parkers were SHIELD agents was made by him, and a mistake on his part. And now you presume you know better than Tom Brevoort as to whether he made a mistake or not? (2) It's the official stance for Marvel because the Handbooks have specifically noted that the Parkers are not SHIELD agents, and whether you like them or not, the entries within are all editorially approved. (3) You are very mistaken about how the Handbooks are put together. The Handbooks are not put together by interns. They are put together by writers picked for their knowledge of Marvel's characters. As part of the process of writing an entry they have to re-read every appearance of a given character, meaning they are not working from vague memory or partial info, and giving the lie to your claim that they have no real knowledge of the comics. Are the Handbooks mistake free? No. But I'd disagree with your widesweeping and unsupported analysis that there are "many" mistakes. Plus, show me a reference guide that doesn't have some errors. That doesn't invalidate the whole. (4) *IF* there are multiple issues that reference them as SHIELD agents. Big if. At the moment I've supplied specific references to back my side of the debate, while you've gone with vague and unsupported "other issues" and "approximate range of issues." (5) The history you linked to fails to take into account the sliding timescale Marvel subscribes to; SHIELD was created in the 1960s only in the comics that were written in the 1960s and early 1970s. SHIELD was created well after WWII, not immediately after it. Tony Stark had already become Iron Man by the time Nick Fury became its second director, at which time the agency was still very new; Fury's predecessor Rick Stoner only held the position for a short time and Fury had never heard of SHIELD prior to being recruited into it, despite being a high-level CIA agent and well-connected in the intelligence community. 86.164.85.111 ( talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to leave this debate alone for now, with one final comment re: my references since you've raised that issue - yes, one is a Blog, but it's a Blog on Marvel's official site by the senior editor who was in charge of the comic that is currently cited as the main evidence for the Parkers being SHIELD, and the other is at least two issues, as it is the Handbook entries for both the Parkers and SHIELD. My edits were always constructive - I provided reasons why I made the edits on the talk pages and asked other editors to refer there rather than simply reverting them. You chose to revert without discussion, simply dismissing my edits out of hand, without having any citeable evidence to back it up. You then chose to dismiss my citations with the flimmsiest of reasoning ("maybe Tom Brevoort is wrong about being wrong" and the demonstrably inaccurate claim about who puts the Handbooks together). As for registering, I have zero desire to do so. I can't help that my provider changes IP each time I log on. I always explain why I make the changes I do, and try as much as possible to cite references. I have also reported cases of registered users who have posted blantantly false information they made up wholesale. As such, I find it the assumption by some on Wikipedia that being registered somehow makes one more credible utterly falacious, and in fact have come to object to that assumption so much that now I will not register. And now I have that all off my chest, yes, let's rest this unless and until you can find citations to back your side of the discussion, and others can be brought in to arbitrate. 86.164.85.111 ( talk) 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand. We all have those moments.;) Jhenderson777 ( talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
A few things:
I hope that helps.
- J Greb ( talk) 03:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's been a while. Would you be interested in rejoining the argument on Brittny Gastineau to include the necessary information about her part in the Bruno movie? Dayewalker and Onorem Dil are still being very combative, but recently Reswobslc joined the argument in agreement with us. If you rejoined it would now be three people to our side. Maybe we could win it this time!!! 128.104.truth ( talk) 19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry you're having to deal with Off2riorob's bu!!$hit. 128.104.truth ( talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Your reference here to other users as assholes is uncivil and not the way to edit here, please don't comment about good faith editors in such ways. Also, you clearly understand that there is no consensus to replace this disputed content and yet you replaced it, please don't reinsert it again without support at the WP:BLPN Off2riorob ( talk) 01:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You have had your note , you are welcome to ignore it or whatever. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
His note to me about being civil was also written in a very uncivil manner!! 128.104.truth ( talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You have repeated your insertion of the discussed content, please be aware if you reinsert it again I will report you to an administrator. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. While I personally think that rules should be changed that forbid a user from blanking his/her talk page in most instances and require an accurate archiving, I'm not sure if restoring it against his/her wishes is within policy, even if he or she is banned. Just so you know, Asgardian has been blanking his talk page for his entire three-year tenure here, so I'm not sure what the point is of just restoring that relatively small portion that you did. Nightscream ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'm trying to meet your standards here. Rtkat3 ( talk) 12:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You know that canvassing editors you know will vote 'keep' in an AFD is a blockable action? I suggest you pack it in. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 18:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi - check out WP:CANVAS, the message you left on the comic project was fine as it was simply noting that an AFD was running, it's the bit where you ask other editors to vote keep which is a problem... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you do want this article to stay I do recommend some more sources because there is an few places that needs citations (The Clone Saga section for example). If there is one of these citation needed please try to fix that. The main article for an certain section is an good place to search for one. Thank you. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Spidey104. Just a friendly request that you add an edit summary to all edits. Helps the rest of us know what each of our collaborators is doing! With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 03:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Spidey104, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Character Assassination (comics), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Assassination (comics). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandor Clegane ( talk) 03:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
From wikipedia's Talk page guidelines, specifically the part about a user's own talk page, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred". There was no reason I felt the need to archive messages on my own talk page. I am perfectly within my rights to remove them. Caidh ( talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Y'know, I had a feeling I did that wrong! I'm on deadline, writing an article about photography, doing a little research, saw that blatant copying from an outside wiki and just dashed things off. Thanks for helping out. It was a funny and welcome sight to see see a fellow WikiComics Project hand over on that page!
On an unrelated thank you, that was good thinking putting the old fictional history lead into the sandbox; I integrated what I could of it. As soon as I figure out the right way to handle the tenses, I'll put it up for discussion on the main Spider-Man page and the fictional history page. It's been a good collaboration -- a great example of how Wiki is supposed to work. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I've seen that you're an enthusiastic reader of comic books, so I think you have an acute vision of what is right or wrong and know that with (great) power comes (great) responsibiliry. My name is Claudi Balaguer and I've come here asking you to help a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. The X-Men, Spider-man and the Fantastic Four would support our cause if they could, actually the only ones who wouldn't are the Green Goblin and Galactus. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot ( talk) 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Following three attempts at having this page deleted, a number of editors collaborated on bringing this multiply-tagged article up to to policy and guideline standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Comments were solicited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite since May 26, and a final draft, created over a month of editorial input, was completed and put up for final comment at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement on June 25. On June 30, this consensus version, which confirms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), will replace the current page Fictional history of Spider-Man. As you have contributed to that page, we wanted to alert you to the opportunity for final comments. Thanks, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just trying to fix the template after it had been screwed up. I didn't know who did what. Once I figured out that your edit was okay I undid mine. It was the editor after you who caused the template to become screwy. You can check the edit history to see what that editor did. -5- ( talk) 17:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Just fixed spelling error on your last addition (Marcel Comics to Marvel Comics). Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, go read the MOS of style - don't write about fictional events as if they are real, don't get into trivial in-universe detail, don't rely on primary sources etc etc. This isn't a fanboy wiki, we are trying to create an encyclopaedia. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Your response to me suggests that you aren't interesting in writing according to the MOS - I'll be reviewing your edits carefully on that basis. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 16:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I got a few things to say since I will leave it you editing the article. One that comic book issues, aren't really reliable. And issues are better to say in the article because they make it more in universe. As for plot summaries, I don't know about comics, but for films, they don't need sources. They just need to be in good size. So trimming is key in this article too. Jhenderson 777 20:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The citation down below is an example of a good comic book citation. Telling who the writer and publisher is makes it less in universe. See Template:Cite comic for more details. Good luck! ;) Jhenderson 777 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Mark Waid ( w). Amazing Spider-Man #8 (November 2009). Marvel Comics.
Actually, Spidey104, thank you for the invitationto help, but I am not good at doing tag edits. In fact I will withdraw from this group and wish you and the others the very best, as I do not have the wiki editing skills that you seek. Again, best wishes. Jonathan Levey ( talk) 00:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I can help much now. I've only been on Wikipedia sporadically because of work busyness, and I'm still committed to helping bring Fictional history of Green Goblin up to WP:WAF standard. But I support your efforts, and if I can help in small ways, I will. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I heard that you had redirected the "Origin of the Species" to Menace til further notice. I had to go to some of the pages of some of the Spider-Man villains to list who is taken part in an assignment by a mysterious person which one of them involved the capture of Menace's baby. I hope we can get a page for this up soon before the next issue comes out. Rtkat3 ( talk) 2:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to hear your opinion about this. − Jhenderson 777 18:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to
The Boy Who Knew Too Much. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Theleftorium
(talk)
15:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
The Boy Who Knew Too Much, you will be
blocked from editing.
Theleftorium
(talk)
12:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you about including that information, but I don't have the time and I don't care enough to bother fighting you on it anymore. But on a side note, maybe this should be motivation to transform The Girl Who Slept Too Little into one of your Good Article achievements. Spidey 104 contribs 15:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind suggestions. I'll be sure ask you if I have any problems. Also, let me know if I make any other mistakes in the future. Kurt Parker ( talk) 13:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. :-) I like your
X-Men: Die By The Sword article by the way. I've used it myself in the past.
Quick question. Should I have replied to you here or my end? I've seen people do both and not sure which is preferred?
Mutant Raccoon (
talk)
20:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Just drop by to wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving! − Jhenderson 777 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed you for a long time, making useful little gnomish contributions here and there, but I only just now realized that you used to be Freak104 - so, here is a long-belated welcome back! :) BOZ ( talk) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Spidey104!
I am new to wikipedia and wondered how you got the colored badges that are on the left hand side of your talk page. I'm trying to build up my profile and thought that those would be an excellent addition.
Hathornt ( talk) 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This is regarding your last edit on the template, all the characters that were inside the brackets were Spider-Women so why did you change it the way you did? I am just curious to know. :] − Jhenderson 777 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Just thought Alternate Versions and Other Media would be the right heading. Rtkat3 ( talk) 4:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello Spider-Man Work Group member. If it's ok I have an job that I think you can help me with. Just recently I created Template:Spider-Man Work Group and if you would have time you can place this template on any article or template while you (that's right you!) can rate the article/template on it's importance and quality scale. Also it would help if you could create an category on the importance scale if I haven't done it yet. Good luck and most importantly have fun. Thank you! Jhenderson777 ( talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, explain how I am misinformed about Richard and Mary Parker supposedly being SHIELD agents. The comics have repeatedly shown that SHIELD was only founded relatively recently, after the start of the "modern" era, by which time Peter Parker was already Spider-Man, long after Richard and Mary died. The only time they are referred to as SHIELD agents is the cover of Untold Tales Minus One; they aren't referred to as SHIELD agents in the story within. And here http://marvel.com/blogs//entry/631 is Tom Brevoort noting that cover is in error "And yes, that cover copy proclaiming Richard and Mary parker Agents of SHIELD was a mistake, and it was entirely made by me. I remembered that they had been secret agents, and I somehow misrecalled Stan saying that they had been working for SHIELD, even though he didn't. I really should have checked that." This is reaffirmed by the Parker's recent Handbook entries, which note them to be CIA and that SHIELD was founded a decade after they died, and by the SHIELD entry which does not list them as agents of the agency. 86.158.46.54 ( talk) 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You've got Tom Brevoort saying the cover image is a mistake, and that they weren't SHIELD agents. You've got Marvel's existing timeline making it impossible for them to have been SHIELD agents, since SHIELD wasn't founded until well after their deaths. You've got Marvel's official guides stating very recently that they were not SHIELD agents. In the unlikely event you can find issues that claim otherwise, then they are simply perpetuating the error that cover led you to make; Brevoort's statement (made in 2007) and the Handbook entries (made in 2009) confirm the official stance, and any references to the contrary are mistakes, not retcons. 86.151.45.54 ( talk) 05:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(1) Tom Brevoort was the editor in charge of the comic in question, and by his own admission the cover claim that the Parkers were SHIELD agents was made by him, and a mistake on his part. And now you presume you know better than Tom Brevoort as to whether he made a mistake or not? (2) It's the official stance for Marvel because the Handbooks have specifically noted that the Parkers are not SHIELD agents, and whether you like them or not, the entries within are all editorially approved. (3) You are very mistaken about how the Handbooks are put together. The Handbooks are not put together by interns. They are put together by writers picked for their knowledge of Marvel's characters. As part of the process of writing an entry they have to re-read every appearance of a given character, meaning they are not working from vague memory or partial info, and giving the lie to your claim that they have no real knowledge of the comics. Are the Handbooks mistake free? No. But I'd disagree with your widesweeping and unsupported analysis that there are "many" mistakes. Plus, show me a reference guide that doesn't have some errors. That doesn't invalidate the whole. (4) *IF* there are multiple issues that reference them as SHIELD agents. Big if. At the moment I've supplied specific references to back my side of the debate, while you've gone with vague and unsupported "other issues" and "approximate range of issues." (5) The history you linked to fails to take into account the sliding timescale Marvel subscribes to; SHIELD was created in the 1960s only in the comics that were written in the 1960s and early 1970s. SHIELD was created well after WWII, not immediately after it. Tony Stark had already become Iron Man by the time Nick Fury became its second director, at which time the agency was still very new; Fury's predecessor Rick Stoner only held the position for a short time and Fury had never heard of SHIELD prior to being recruited into it, despite being a high-level CIA agent and well-connected in the intelligence community. 86.164.85.111 ( talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to leave this debate alone for now, with one final comment re: my references since you've raised that issue - yes, one is a Blog, but it's a Blog on Marvel's official site by the senior editor who was in charge of the comic that is currently cited as the main evidence for the Parkers being SHIELD, and the other is at least two issues, as it is the Handbook entries for both the Parkers and SHIELD. My edits were always constructive - I provided reasons why I made the edits on the talk pages and asked other editors to refer there rather than simply reverting them. You chose to revert without discussion, simply dismissing my edits out of hand, without having any citeable evidence to back it up. You then chose to dismiss my citations with the flimmsiest of reasoning ("maybe Tom Brevoort is wrong about being wrong" and the demonstrably inaccurate claim about who puts the Handbooks together). As for registering, I have zero desire to do so. I can't help that my provider changes IP each time I log on. I always explain why I make the changes I do, and try as much as possible to cite references. I have also reported cases of registered users who have posted blantantly false information they made up wholesale. As such, I find it the assumption by some on Wikipedia that being registered somehow makes one more credible utterly falacious, and in fact have come to object to that assumption so much that now I will not register. And now I have that all off my chest, yes, let's rest this unless and until you can find citations to back your side of the discussion, and others can be brought in to arbitrate. 86.164.85.111 ( talk) 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand. We all have those moments.;) Jhenderson777 ( talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
A few things:
I hope that helps.
- J Greb ( talk) 03:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's been a while. Would you be interested in rejoining the argument on Brittny Gastineau to include the necessary information about her part in the Bruno movie? Dayewalker and Onorem Dil are still being very combative, but recently Reswobslc joined the argument in agreement with us. If you rejoined it would now be three people to our side. Maybe we could win it this time!!! 128.104.truth ( talk) 19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry you're having to deal with Off2riorob's bu!!$hit. 128.104.truth ( talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Your reference here to other users as assholes is uncivil and not the way to edit here, please don't comment about good faith editors in such ways. Also, you clearly understand that there is no consensus to replace this disputed content and yet you replaced it, please don't reinsert it again without support at the WP:BLPN Off2riorob ( talk) 01:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You have had your note , you are welcome to ignore it or whatever. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
His note to me about being civil was also written in a very uncivil manner!! 128.104.truth ( talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You have repeated your insertion of the discussed content, please be aware if you reinsert it again I will report you to an administrator. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. While I personally think that rules should be changed that forbid a user from blanking his/her talk page in most instances and require an accurate archiving, I'm not sure if restoring it against his/her wishes is within policy, even if he or she is banned. Just so you know, Asgardian has been blanking his talk page for his entire three-year tenure here, so I'm not sure what the point is of just restoring that relatively small portion that you did. Nightscream ( talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I'm trying to meet your standards here. Rtkat3 ( talk) 12:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You know that canvassing editors you know will vote 'keep' in an AFD is a blockable action? I suggest you pack it in. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 18:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi - check out WP:CANVAS, the message you left on the comic project was fine as it was simply noting that an AFD was running, it's the bit where you ask other editors to vote keep which is a problem... -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If you do want this article to stay I do recommend some more sources because there is an few places that needs citations (The Clone Saga section for example). If there is one of these citation needed please try to fix that. The main article for an certain section is an good place to search for one. Thank you. Jhenderson777 ( talk) 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Spidey104. Just a friendly request that you add an edit summary to all edits. Helps the rest of us know what each of our collaborators is doing! With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 03:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Spidey104, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Character Assassination (comics), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Assassination (comics). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandor Clegane ( talk) 03:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
From wikipedia's Talk page guidelines, specifically the part about a user's own talk page, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred". There was no reason I felt the need to archive messages on my own talk page. I am perfectly within my rights to remove them. Caidh ( talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Y'know, I had a feeling I did that wrong! I'm on deadline, writing an article about photography, doing a little research, saw that blatant copying from an outside wiki and just dashed things off. Thanks for helping out. It was a funny and welcome sight to see see a fellow WikiComics Project hand over on that page!
On an unrelated thank you, that was good thinking putting the old fictional history lead into the sandbox; I integrated what I could of it. As soon as I figure out the right way to handle the tenses, I'll put it up for discussion on the main Spider-Man page and the fictional history page. It's been a good collaboration -- a great example of how Wiki is supposed to work. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I've seen that you're an enthusiastic reader of comic books, so I think you have an acute vision of what is right or wrong and know that with (great) power comes (great) responsibiliry. My name is Claudi Balaguer and I've come here asking you to help a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. The X-Men, Spider-man and the Fantastic Four would support our cause if they could, actually the only ones who wouldn't are the Green Goblin and Galactus. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot ( talk) 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Following three attempts at having this page deleted, a number of editors collaborated on bringing this multiply-tagged article up to to policy and guideline standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Comments were solicited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite since May 26, and a final draft, created over a month of editorial input, was completed and put up for final comment at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement on June 25. On June 30, this consensus version, which confirms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), will replace the current page Fictional history of Spider-Man. As you have contributed to that page, we wanted to alert you to the opportunity for final comments. Thanks, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I was just trying to fix the template after it had been screwed up. I didn't know who did what. Once I figured out that your edit was okay I undid mine. It was the editor after you who caused the template to become screwy. You can check the edit history to see what that editor did. -5- ( talk) 17:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Just fixed spelling error on your last addition (Marcel Comics to Marvel Comics). Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, go read the MOS of style - don't write about fictional events as if they are real, don't get into trivial in-universe detail, don't rely on primary sources etc etc. This isn't a fanboy wiki, we are trying to create an encyclopaedia. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Your response to me suggests that you aren't interesting in writing according to the MOS - I'll be reviewing your edits carefully on that basis. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 16:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I got a few things to say since I will leave it you editing the article. One that comic book issues, aren't really reliable. And issues are better to say in the article because they make it more in universe. As for plot summaries, I don't know about comics, but for films, they don't need sources. They just need to be in good size. So trimming is key in this article too. Jhenderson 777 20:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The citation down below is an example of a good comic book citation. Telling who the writer and publisher is makes it less in universe. See Template:Cite comic for more details. Good luck! ;) Jhenderson 777 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Mark Waid ( w). Amazing Spider-Man #8 (November 2009). Marvel Comics.
Actually, Spidey104, thank you for the invitationto help, but I am not good at doing tag edits. In fact I will withdraw from this group and wish you and the others the very best, as I do not have the wiki editing skills that you seek. Again, best wishes. Jonathan Levey ( talk) 00:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I can help much now. I've only been on Wikipedia sporadically because of work busyness, and I'm still committed to helping bring Fictional history of Green Goblin up to WP:WAF standard. But I support your efforts, and if I can help in small ways, I will. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I heard that you had redirected the "Origin of the Species" to Menace til further notice. I had to go to some of the pages of some of the Spider-Man villains to list who is taken part in an assignment by a mysterious person which one of them involved the capture of Menace's baby. I hope we can get a page for this up soon before the next issue comes out. Rtkat3 ( talk) 2:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to hear your opinion about this. − Jhenderson 777 18:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to
The Boy Who Knew Too Much. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Theleftorium
(talk)
15:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
The Boy Who Knew Too Much, you will be
blocked from editing.
Theleftorium
(talk)
12:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you about including that information, but I don't have the time and I don't care enough to bother fighting you on it anymore. But on a side note, maybe this should be motivation to transform The Girl Who Slept Too Little into one of your Good Article achievements. Spidey 104 contribs 15:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind suggestions. I'll be sure ask you if I have any problems. Also, let me know if I make any other mistakes in the future. Kurt Parker ( talk) 13:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. :-) I like your
X-Men: Die By The Sword article by the way. I've used it myself in the past.
Quick question. Should I have replied to you here or my end? I've seen people do both and not sure which is preferred?
Mutant Raccoon (
talk)
20:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Just drop by to wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving! − Jhenderson 777 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed you for a long time, making useful little gnomish contributions here and there, but I only just now realized that you used to be Freak104 - so, here is a long-belated welcome back! :) BOZ ( talk) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey Spidey104!
I am new to wikipedia and wondered how you got the colored badges that are on the left hand side of your talk page. I'm trying to build up my profile and thought that those would be an excellent addition.
Hathornt ( talk) 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This is regarding your last edit on the template, all the characters that were inside the brackets were Spider-Women so why did you change it the way you did? I am just curious to know. :] − Jhenderson 777 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)