Talk:Negasonic Teenage Warhead

Nagasonic or Negasonic

I moved the page to Nagasonic since it was spelled that way in Astonishing X-Men #14. Did Marvel Editor Mike Marts leave in a spelling error or what is supposed to be the correct spelling? Is "Negasonic Teenage Warhead" also the name of a song?

Here is some related stuff I found on [Google]: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]

The correct codename is Negasonic not Nagasonic--Gonzalo84 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is your proof? "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable." Astonshing X-Men #14 pg. 2 clearly says NAGASONIC. Facto 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

New X-Men #116 (or whatever issue Emma mentions her codename) as well as the link I posted.--Gonzalo84 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That link is a secondary source while NXM 115-116 and AXM 14 are primary sources that seem to contradict each other. I guess we can wait for AXM 15 to see what spelling it has. Facto 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

AXM 15 also spells her name as Nagasonic Teenage Warhead.--Perceive 03:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Negasonic Teenage Warhead is also the name of a song by the group Monster Magnet.

The 1995 Dopes to Infinity album by Monster Magnet contains a song called "Negasonic Teenage Warhead", presumably the source of her name. Presumably? How many instances of the phrase/title Negasonic Teenage Warhead do you see in language anywhere? I'd say it's DEFINITELY from that, but that's just my insignificant opinion. I guess you would have to source the character creator, but really, come on.

Though Nagasonic does appear to be initially correct, they appear to have retroactively "fixed" this as Negasonic. However, there is an mutually beneficial explanation for the name's existence. The Monster Magnet album Dopes to Infinity does feature the song "Negasonic Teenage Warhead", which was a source of inspiration for her name. Furthermore, the album itself also features a song called "Ego, the Living Planet", which itself is an obvious reference to the Marvel entity of the same name, turning inspiration full circle. Coincidentally (sidebar), this makes the deal regarding NTW's powers (Deadpool, 2016) for the 20th Century Fox character exchange (obtaining Ego) kinda freaky, perhaps a trivia fact that could be added to the article at some point in time. Blast Vortex (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

O. R.

Removed speculation:

NTW's precognition may have been limited to only foreseeing disasters and this may help explain her depressed and angst-ridden personality.

Removed personal opinion:

On the cover of Astonishing X-Men #15, Ellie looks strikingly similar to Sarah Michelle Gellar, the star of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a show created by writer Joss Whedon.

Noclevername 13:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Negasonic.jpg

Image:Negasonic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Negasonic.jpg

Image:Negasonic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits due to characters appearance in Deadpool (Film)

Powers depicted in the film Deadpool should only be listed under 'In other media'. Listing it under In-story information, mixes with the original source material and a different version of the character. It is messy and inconsistent with other Marvel wiki entries and can be considered confusing with those unfamiliar with the character. Just keep it simple.

Callisto (Marvel) is a good example. Like Negasonic Teenage Warhead, her powers were depicted differently in X-Men: The Last Stand compared to her comic counterpart. They are listed as a part of that version of the character, under 'In other media', subheading film 'Film'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.114.222 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

American or Scottish?

The intro paragraph makes a big fuss about the character being from "American" comic books, then states the character was created by two writers who, when you click through to their pages, both turn out to be Scottish. So "American" is rather misleading here. Andrew Oakley (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The creators are Scottish but they are still comics published by an American company. Ausir (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Edit warring isn't okay. It's time to discuss the disagreement and try to work things out. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1222376526 is objectively terrible and unencyclopedic writing and editors using antivandalism tools should evaluate the content they're restoring and page history rather than blindly reverting removal of content edits. Yes, editors removing the content should also be using edit summaries to explain why.

As best as I can tell, it looks like this passage has been continually re-added by a sock (e.g. 84.220.219.37 who is CU blocked by Ponyo at time of writing); see: Special:Diff/1173343919. So I think this is less of a case of an actual content dispute but rather a sockpuppet trolling, IP editors trying to fix the issue, and established editors who should know better misusing antivandalism tools. Special:Diff/1213693221 is by the same user who is either trolling or there are behavioral and WP:CIR issues with how they keep restoring this content to the page over the past nine months despite, I think, clear consensus for it to not remain based on the number of times it's been reverted (not counting antivandalism patrollers restoring it after removal by IPs who didn't provide edit summaries). This trouble from the past week started when another IP of this sock, 151.44.74.172, re-added this passage. Special:Diff/1170536162 is, as best as I can tell, the first time this text was added.

Here's the list of the problem IPs:

• 151.44.48.113
• 84.220.219.37
• 151.68.110.150
• 151.18.118.99
• 151.36.121.215
• 151.34.27.47
• 151.46.80.233
• 151.34.93.147
• 151.36.127.39
• 151.44.74.172

@Ponyo: Is there a case page for 84.220.219.37? As all the above IPs are clearly related. Uhai (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Uhai: Any Italian IPs editing the article to restore the content can be reverted on sight per WP:BANREVERT (WP:BMB is even more accurate as the master account, which I can't name per WP:PRIVACY, is banned). @Daniel Quinlan: as well. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the number of good faith accounts that also restored the text and the absence of discussion prior to now, it would be better to have more people involved in an actual discussion regarding the text on the character's personality. Readded, removed, rewritten, replaced, whatever. Have a discussion. Once there's consensus, I can remove full protection. Semi-protection may be a good idea given the block evasion. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Further discussion would be great but, again, I'd argue there is consensus for removal—or at least a lack of consensus for retention, which means it should still be removed per WP:BANREVERT—given the restorations of the material (by good faith accounts) were done with antivandalism tools, with either an "unexplained removal of content" summary or no summary. One such account is currently blocked for a month for misuse of said tools. I think with semi-protection and WP:RBI of the LTA if it appears again, this article won't see further issues.

Here's the restorations, excluding the back-and-forths:

• Special:Diff/1213320908
• Special:Diff/1213350989 (especially bad since there was an explanation provided)
• Special:Diff/1213444166
• Special:Diff/1213444487
• Special:Diff/1221857219
• Special:Diff/1222329453 (user blocked)

No user except the LTA has justified retention of the material except for the prior edit being an "unexplained removal of content" by an IP user.

Here's the removals that have summaries:

• Special:Diff/1195783809
• Special:Diff/1213342680 (likely same user as previous)
• Special:Diff/1213448927
• Special:Diff/1213697654

All of the IPv6s editing I'm assuming are the same person, and this person strongly objects to the retention of the material to the extent of edit warring with the LTA and with antivandalism patrollers. This isn't right, but as the same time this user has been reverted even after providing an edit summary. Uhai (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)