User talk:David A/Archive 2010

Asgardian RFC/U

Hi there,

Because you stated your intent to certify the Asgardian RFC/U, I am letting you know that it has begun. If you still wish to certify, you may do so now.

Also, you made statements on the RFC draft talk page pertaining to the case, and I tried to reflect all the major points in my summary. If you feel there is something you wanted to be said that I did not cover sufficiently (or accurately enough to reflect your viewpoint), you may post an "Involved user view" below Asgardian's response section to elaborate. You may wish to copy, whole or in part, any previous statements you have made (with or without diffs or links) into such a new section as you desire. I have included a link to the draft talk page, so that interested parties may view the statements gathered there, if you do not wish to repost them.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you truly have included all the references I mentioned, I don't see that I have much to add as such, but I will read through the page (not right now, as I'm short on time). Dave (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't include everything you mentioned; I got a lot of input from several other people as well, so I had to summarize a lot because I was trying to be succinct.  :) Like I said, if you think more needs to be said, you can post to the RFC talk page and/or start a section called "Involved view by David A" under the section for Asgardian's response. I had forgotten that I was going to include the current edit war at Dormammu so I'm going to go ahead and add that now as well. BOZ (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The main problem as I see it is that you do not sufficiently underline that various editors have noticed him to be blatantly dishonest, which to me is the most important aspect, as it shows him to be very untrustworthy/hard to cut any lasting deals with, willing to regularly use dirty tactics, and apparently to censor or distort certain information. I linked to some of the instances where this has been pointed out.

I find the civility issue as a rather silly inclusion, as he tends to go to extremes to rather overdo hint-hint nudge-nudge layered condescending really blatantly manipulative sarcasm without anything overtly uncivil word usage. His favourite tactic is to do this in combination with constant dichotomy between his words and actions to really get on the other user's nerves, which almost always succeeds if said user is honest by nature. Of course, he has called me "shrieking, unbalanced, and unhinged" too, but I don't care so much about that kind of thing. At least it's more honest than the alternative.

I also suspect that he may be a part-time troll, who is trying to find, exploit and thereby satirise blatant weaknesses in the system, which I would prefer if he simply made honest cases for instead, but that's just speculation based on some of his stray statements and how many trolls tend to think. Dave (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Now Dave, Asgardian's history of reverting your more questionable edits has forced you to make reasonable edits on numerous occasions. The latest example can be seen on the Living Tribunal page. I think it's ludicrous to involve DavidA in Asgardian's RFC, when his history of behavior has, IMO, been much worse. TheBalance (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This coming from an editor who just got a couple of bans from his own behaviour, whose entire line of content with me is my ongoing pet peeve, i.e. no inaccurate information, regardless of personal extreme bias for certain "cosmic" characters, including the misleading text within the edit in question, and which I personally tried (and apparently found) a workable compromise for (which Asgardian usually rejects, with Dormammu being the latest example of multiple version being tried, and he still reverted the same one, until he got too much attention, and then he lies low, and then he tries again etc... It's not hard to guess what he'll do again in a few weeks?), I have been much more willing to compromise than Asgardian in most cases (even to the point of wiping out entire Wikipedia entries that I wrote most of myself), who has a very vested interest in keeping Asgardian around, as they have helped each other to maintain blatantly inaccurate information (as in pointed out in posted pictures and they still keep it out of sheer bias), and none of which has any validity to the long list of links provided for Asgardian's manipulative behaviour. I.e. by that kind of reasoning there is a much better case for this attributing to yourself. The difference between the two of you is that I don't believe that you are a deliberate manipulator, but rather extremely blindsided about a few key issues. Dave (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had two bans since I've been been on Wikipedia, almost 4 years now. Both bans were based on what administrators [mis]interpreted to be "page ownership", which was incorrect. I was dealing with yet another "agenda driven" editor that has unsurprisingly disappeared. The problem with you Dave, is that you continually make edits without an encyclopedic feel, and you continually misconstrue what is contained in the comics. The Living Tribunal is just the latest example in a long history of your bad edits, and there Asgardian forced you to make a proper edit. You've numerous times inserted "facts" and misquotes based off of your poor memory, and then reverted corrections and deletions all the while believing yourself to be correct, only several days later to find that you were indeed wrong. You've never been able to factually correct an edit made by myself, Asgardian, or Mobb One because we either remembered the instance correctly in the first place, or took the time to research it properly before editing. This is expected of all Wikipedia editors, but you apparently feel you are above it. Your history of incivility towards fellow editors, and history of bad, POV, or biased edits remains the worst of any long term editor I have seen. I am still dumbfounded by your compulsion to insert "tell the story" details into comic articles, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to realize that is not the goal here. I'm not convinced you will ever learn how to make proper edits that are in keeping with Wikipedia's objectives. Your claims of being "matter of fact", "obsessed with details", and "unable to lie" are laughable, and exposed for fallacy by your edit history. TheBalance (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself in claiming that I am a deliberate liar and also consistently correct myself when I find out that I am wrong, the latter of which is correct. I don't claim to always be right, and check for verification, whereupon if I find out that I remember wrong, I correct it, but I do try to get it right from the start. I do not always succeed, and neither do you or almost any other editor. My edit history also shows a clear obsession with accuracy for anyone who genuinely pays attention. Supposed superior terms such as "laughable" notwithstanding, I reallly genuinely almost can't lie given my lack of filters. This is not made up, I really do have this diagnosis, and it is not something I am somehow proud of, just not something I'm trying to hide either. It is very hard to even tone down what I what I believe to be the truth. That said, there have been quite a lot of theories over the years. I do however apparently have Aspergers, ADD, OCD, and at least some tourettes and mood disorder, but if it makes you feel better these things do tend to not fit specifically and to glide into each other. What I really have is brain damage at birth, with the rest being terms doctors have used in attempts to quantify the consequences. As for "never" being able to fact-check you MobbOne or Asgardian, just from the top of my head I just did so repeatedly for Asgardian in several pages, for yourself and Mobb in Power Cosmic, and I did find plenty of sourced, and quoted contradictions to your statements that Galactus contains the sentience of the previous Universe, and moved a galaxy on a whim, that you nonetheless choose to ignore them and that I have a definite limit to my patience and attention span to focus on a pointless endeavour in repeating myself is another matter entirely. Also, just f.y.i. regarding your false claims of how horrible I am supposed to be compared to Asgardian, and that you have ony received two of them. I have received no bans whatsoever. Dave (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I have personally witnessed you violate the 3RR many times, this is grounds for a temp ban. You're lucky that those you typically deal with are the type to handle situations themselves instead of running to administrators. Just because you have managed to avoid bans in your 3 years here says nothing about your conduct on Wikipedia. Your edits are consistently at a lower standard than those made by Asgardian, your history of incivility and false accusations towards fellow editors is also far worse. TheBalance (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever violated the 3RR (i.e. do 4 reverts to the same edit in the same day), but I admit that I used to be much more prone to do blind reverts in my early Wikipedia days. I'm almost certain that I never exceeded 3 though. I have turned much better though. As for "false accusations", I occasionally did tend to get paranoid when repeatedly stalked by sockpuppeteers, and for example recall reflexively mistaking the then just registered Cameron for JJonz when he started out by angrily attacking a page the latter repeatedly had it in for, but as JJonz has since made peace with me that isn't a problem anymore.

Beyond that I'm simply straightforward and usually say what I think at all time. As for yourself, your sole reason of content is that you for some reason have such a fanatic devotion to a character* that you refuse to make accuracy corrections even when staring them in the face, and that the wide variety of blatantly inaccurate facts (that I mostly corrected beyond the two mentioned, which you stubbornly maintained) in the various connected pages, Power Cosmic in particular, and the devotion you maintained them with, at one point, with good reason, made me draw the conclusion that you were deliverately falsifying the information, but then you're hardly one to talk, given the above false accusations, and venomous pretentious conceit.

Also, it says tons about your character that you in all seriousness compared me to an editor who is a proven systematic deliberate liar and manipulator, and who does in fact insult and provoke much more extremely and deliberately than myself through his far far more unreasonable edits than my own, incoherence of edits and justifications, and deliberate parody-level overstated smarmy venom combined with an "incivility defense" against anyone who points it out, and even use bigoted rhetoric that I should be banned because of my handicaps (and yes this is the way he worded it), simply because of personal bias/vested interest and that you dislike my freespoken lack of filters. I try to be civil against everyone who don't prove me wrong to do so, at that point I simply turn honest, and I have forgiven Cameron and ThuranX (or even Asgardian) for calling me worse things than I have ever called you (afaIk I have called you a liar, which I have since amended to blindsided, and you have definitely not been any more lenient to me, as seen above for example), for less reason, since I don't care much about that kind of thing, but rather tends to get pissed off by deceit (and literally Fascist ideology), which is why Asgardian and myself are like fire and water. Dave (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Dave. I just thought you might like to know that in your comment, where it says, "This mentions edit-wars on Abomination and Rhino page", the linked "this" just leads to the main Admin Noticeboard, which doesn't mention that edit dispute. I'm not sure if this was an error on your part, but I just thought I'd let you know. Also, BOZ has indicated to me that it is recommended that users making comments endorse their own comment below it. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, those links worked back when I made the list, but I suppose that the sections may have been archived by now. (I thought that I fixed that in the draft page though?) I'll check it up. Dave (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, here was the fix, but it does not seem to adjust the link in question. Here is the correct one. Dave (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By the by, I'd advise against constantly barging uninvited into conversations elsewhere. In addition to being rude you also weaken your credibility. Asgardian (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

When you are either talking about me, or issues that directly concern me? How? For that matter you also recurrently do so. Dave (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Juggernaut

Just a neutral head's up that you might want to look in on this article. -- Tenebrae (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried, but Asgardian mostly wouldn't budge in the slightest, and there weren't major accuracy problems (unlike some other articles), simply some lack of "extent of power" references, so I lost interest. Since it's you who's asking, I'll check again though. Dave (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine. I see that you have reinserted the missing references, which is nice. I don't see why there was a notice that I'm apparently not allowed to edit that particular page though? I've mostly let Asgardian do whatever he wants with it. (I asked BOZ myself to make one in the Dormammu case) Dave (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

Per discussion at the administrator's noticeboard, and per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Administrator_topic_bans and WP:ARBMAC, specifically concerning decorum, I am page banning you from Dormammu and Juggernaut (comics) for a period of one month or until the dispute is resolved via use of the talk page of the respective article. This page ban can be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, or the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If there is no consensus on how to deal with the situation, then a request for clarification or appeal may be filed to the Arbitration Committee. I have recommended in the past to either seek dispute resolution through request for comment on the article, or mediation, or whatever form may work best for you, but to the best of my knowledge this has yet to happen. As continued fighting over the articles in question is unacceptable - it does not matter who is "right" or who is "wrong" - I believe my action here will prevent disrupting the articles in question through either edit warring or page protection. In the future, if you find yourself in dispute with another editor, please do not edit war over the issue. Instead try to reach a resolution via the dispute resolution process. Any editing you make to the page prior to a resolution of the dispute will result in a block, initially for 24 hours but escalating to a maximum period of one month. If necessary, this ban will be extended to additional articles.

Please use a draft page if required to aid in the dispute: Talk:Dormammu/Draft or Talk:Juggernaut (comics)/Draft.

Alternatively you can pursue the idea which J Greb proposed, if both parties agree on this. You can have a pair of sandboxes for each article, Talk:Dormammu/David A draft / Talk:Juggernaut (comics)/David A draft and Talk:Dormammu/Asgardian draft / Talk:Juggernaut (comics)/Asgardian draft, on which the respective parties may edit as they please. As you work on them and compare with each other, any edits you agree upon can be incorporated by another editor into the live version of the article. If both parties can agree on a version of an article which they both find acceptable, I or another administrator can then lift the ban on that article immediately. BOZ (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the page as I requested. I've responded to Asgardian at the Administrators noticeboard, and started a discussion thread over what, if anything, needs to be changed at Dormammu. Dave (talk) 11:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the topic ban from Juggernaut. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ulimate Nullifier

Greetings. I'm not seeing anything truly outrageous there, and the editor in question may be already be gone. That said, could do with a clean-up. Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It does seem odd for you to weigh in on this, but since the user does seems clearly extremely suspicious (traitoR spelled backwards, only one instance of edits, inaccurate adjustment), and like a sockpuppet of someone (and no, I don't automatically suspect you for everything), I would generally prefer to see whoever used it perm-banned for the usual reasons of no liars in an encyclopedia. Dave (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, most vandals are one-offs. Probably long gone. They just like to see these mindless acts upset people. Asgardian (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It is generally a behavioral pattern of using multiple socks at convenience, showing a complete lack of trustworthiness in general edits, and this one did not make the kind of addition that an uninvolved editor tends to make. Btw: The Ultimate Nullifier article was already handled/found a compromise in through J_Greb's advise, much like the Dormammu one, so you should not delete anything you feel like there. Dave (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, please note, no one advised you to not file a User Check. Also, I haven't edited anything at the UN, so I'd hold off on making any statements. Again, there is no harassment - I'm just here to correct inaccuracies, be they against the comics; Wikipedia or plain logic. Why don't you think about what I said about power ratings on the Doctor Strange Page [1]? Talk is good.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You've frequently reinserted inaccuracies over and over, and used sockpuppets, and follow me around everywhere to delete rather than correct any references you feel like, so it's very hard to take that seriously at this point. Still, this could be the sock of some other user, and you're playing a mind-game. You do that sometimes. But regardless I'd still like to get any sockpuppet users flushed out. It's not like I consider DrBat some kind of paragon just because he also has problems with you. In fact he may be just as bad for all that I know. Dave (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, no one follows you around. I'm just trying to help you out with some things that smack of POV and don't have any real place on Wikipedia. Again, I believe that to be a random vandal. It will probably turn up a meaningless IP. There is also no mind game. As for DrBat, probably best to leave him out of things. That was settled recently, and I doubt anyone wants a repeats of that.

On another note, I echo Tenebrae's comment re: the Galactus quote. That is exactly the kind of contribution that is needed and gets applauded (as has happened here).

Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the editor did do exactly the kind of edit done by people unhealthily obsessed with this stuff such as ourselves, and made his name into a comment to someone. Meaning that he most likely is a sockpuppet, and as usual I don't see why either you or Mobb or anyone else is allowed to continue after being busted with that type of behaviour (well, I don't see the harm if someone uses one account to edit entertainment and another to only edit unrelated science articles, but beyond that). As for the insert. I also like it, but TheBalance and MobbOne probably won't, so I'm counting down how long it will last until deleted. Dave (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice addition

...of the Howard U. prof. of lit. quote. It's good to have that kind of academic commentary to help give these things context in the real world of culture, literature and entertainment, and not just in our little bubble. Very nice. -- Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. (Although according to the google I did he apparently used to be tenured at another university when he wrote it) I freely admit that I largely agree with his assessment that it was highly inappropriate to turn hardcore fascist nihilism into "the one big great truth of the Marvel Universe", but I do not insert that type of unsourced personal opinion. Dave (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been crazy busy on deadlines and such for the last couple of weeks and haven't been Wiki-editing. I'm sorry I missed being able to offer the asked-for help, on my talk talk page, around Jan. 10-13 Since this is now 11 days ago, I'm assuming the issues were more or less revolved. -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

m:Global sysops/Vote

Hello - You, or someone with your username, has voted in the Global Sysops Vote but you don't have a Unified Login (SUL account). Please could you:

• merge your accounts
• or add a link from your Meta user page to your local user page.

This is necessary to confirm your identity or your vote may not be counted. Thank you --(RT) (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Think it through

Try not to avoid barging into discussions on articles you are not even involved with, simply because I'm there. The motive is transparent, and again, it weakens your credibility. Asgardian (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always been honest about my motives remember? Meaning, it's exactly what I say it is. In the last case that you consistently use contradictory justifications from personal convenience. I also don't care about surface/pretend-level credibility like yourself, only about genuine honesty. You should be aware of this by now. (And most likely very much are, given that you word everything in the deliberate repetitive mocking game-playing manner that you know that I loathe. "Think it through" again? Please.) Dave (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't do anything differently, you will always get the same result. Asgardian (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, lying, distorting, and manipulating like yourself instead, is the one great truth for the digital age. Charming. Thank you, but no thanks. I much prefer actually being honest to myself as far as I can. Dave (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion @ WQA

Hello, David A. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Users are expected to refrain from commenting about other users, directly or indirectly, in an edit summary, on a page where those other users have not edited. Is there a reason for which you made this edit? Has Asgardian ever edited that article? If he has edited on the page, we'd all appreciate if you provided diffs to substantiate that. If not, an assurance from you that you will not make such edit summaries again would be sufficient for me to mark the WQA resolved so that we can all move on. Think about it, okay? Your concerns about his conduct can/should be raised at the arbitration case that is currently open for that purpose where more binding involuntary remedies will result. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

He's consistently made very manipulative edits in terms of stating completely contradicting policies from page to page, i.e. in this case (quite some time ago) inserting a less reliable but othervise identical type of reference for a character he likes, while fanatically editing them out for characters that he is less personally fond of. I've tried to reason with, cut deals with, or finally resoprted to trying to bring attention to this in just about every way possible, and he's consistently betrayed all good faith I have assigned him literally hundreds of times in a row over a span of over two years. He also consistently uses this type of tactic for comparatively millions of times lesser offenses than what he has done as an ongoing game tactic. I'm almost completely spent of any energy editing Wikipedia whatsoever much thanks to him, and am far from the first.

As User:ThuranX said in Asgardian's case page that I linked to in this particular WP:GAME, it is literally impossible to have good faith as a demand no matter how many times this is blatantly misproven (through elaborate completely dishonourable manipulation and likely advanced trolling tactics), and only serves to severely empower his type, which he consistently takes full advantage of. Check through the quite thorough linked pages if you wish. Dave (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That said, in this particular case I should probably just have removed the reference on the grounds that it was outdated, severely contradicted by later instances (and additionally follows Asgardian's own ongoing rationalisation of "no match-ups"). I'm very frustrated by him at this point, and he is well aware that I visit here much less frequently due to himself which makes a good time to attack, since I won't respond quickly at all. Dave (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration

Hello,

Thank you for participating in the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎. The RFC has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it allowed for you to simply repost all of the statements from the RFC page? It's not like we're likely to change these all that much, and I'm very short on time and energy. Othervise, it should probably be ok to incorporate any of the linked evidence I and others have provided in our posts there. I have a tendency to stray, so that might be best to keep it concise. Dave (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Concise is exactly what you're looking for - they say "maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs" so that's what you want to shoot for. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that we should mostly just copy-past various links then? I'm afraid that I will just mess it up if I say too much. Asgardian does tend to use me as some kind of convenient example, so it's probablyt better to let others do most of the talking. Or do you think the old text is acceptable enough for me to just copy-paste it? Dave (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your statement at the RFC comes to 1062 words (probably including the links) so if you like you can just copyedit that to pare it down just slightly, and repost it. Or, if you're concerned that it would be "over-the-top", you could cut it down to only the most necessary parts (with an eye towards removing opinions, and limiting it to more objective facts), but that's up to you. BOZ (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, some cutting it down it is then. I posted it here. If I misunderstood and this place would have been preferable, please mention it, and I will move it there. Dave (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope - where you put it is where it belongs! BOZ (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Dave (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, David. I have posted a proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence that I think might help, and to which I hope other editors can sign on there.

His fellow editors need a "probation officer" admin to whom they can turn, who has veto power over Asgardian's disputed edits and unilateral changes to Project MOS. In addition, we need a reinstatement of the probation he was under in, I believe, 2008, in which he could make only one rv (either via "Undo" or by a multitude of edits essentially comprising an rv) a day. That last probation lasted a year; as his behavior did not change, bringing us to this point, this probation reinstatement should last two years. Given that at least one other editor is calling for a ban, this probation seems a less drastic and more productive solution.

--Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am almost completely convinced that it is not going to help. He's a consumate liar and manipulator who regularly breaks his word and will just gain additional skill in misrepresenting the cases to said arbitrator. I genuinely do think that he's earned a permanent ban fifty times over, will continue to distort information both in the pages and outside, and do not condone a non-working solution when I have given him continuous chances for over two years, and he will continue to use scare tactics in trying to get any other user who notices his behaviour banned for severely misrepresented nonsensical causes. He is exactly the kind of contributor that it is dangerous to let roam free in an encyclopedia environment, and will just continue to be an ongoing severe time-waster for anyone who gets involved with him. Dave (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the support, Dave, but I think you should put that message on Alexandr's talk page, since we don't know if he's monitoring mine. Nightscream (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it. Dave (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that the evidence has been presented, please read and/or join in this conversation. BOZ (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up of evidence on the Asgardian case

KnightLago, the drafting arbitrator, will start posting on the workshop page early next week, so this is the time to submit any final evidence. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That's been a long time. I've mentioned that during previous actions (RfC or whichever) against Asgardian and posted the link once. Doczilla _STOMP! 00:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Marvel Cosmic

Greetings. Since it would seem that you now only use Wikipedia to monitor one article, why don't you provide that image and dialogue for us to view so that we can settle this? If you can't, it has to be pulled to avoid a distortion of the information. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link (found in a "respect" thread) I showed you before. If it has stopped working I can upload another scan of the image: http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/601/awfr1.jpg In any case, as I provided an example of in the talk after you invited people from the general comics forum (by misleadingly linking to an 8-month old unrelated thread) I´d much prefer to add 3 categories and quite a few neglected characters. Nobody has commented so far though. Dave (talk)

Re: the link, the LT decides the gems can no longer be used in unison, and hence has power over the Gems. Asgardian (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, as you well know by now, the LT states outright that it is uncertain if it has sufficient power to wrest the Gauntlet from Warlock. During the following face-off it verbally convinces Warlock to give up the IG and cooperate in splitting up the power, as a confrontation between them would destroy all existence. Dave (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It is actually in doubt, and as such it is best to leave the mention out. Asgardian (talk)

If the LT itself states that it is uncertain if it can take the Gauntlet by force, and the gems are stated as what remains of the original ¨One Above All¨, then no it is not factually in doubt whether it has power close to the LT. You simply don't personally like it, and as usual when this is the case you distort the information. You are also the fellow who put Galactus, Numinus, and In-Betweenerr in the same row as Eternity, despite that the first mention has been stated as a less than an insect in comparison, most recently in Millar's Fantastic Four series, so your rationale is contradictory to say the least, also as usual. Dave (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, we'll go to the wider audience. Asgardian (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You already did contact the comics forum, remember, but given that you threw the context completely off track with the initial link, neither of us got any response to our preferred structure, so we'll have to go with the previous compromise until then. Dave (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a trial Template for viewing at the Template: Marvel Cosmic Talk Page. Also, I noted your edit at Juggernaut. Does the Avatar story state they are all immortal? I can't recall that one. Asgardian (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The ¨8th Day¨ story states that Juggernaut is effectively a mystical deity, and the handbooks that he is invulnerable to pretty much everything, including molecular manipulation, lack of food, oxygen and rest, and he has demonstrated the ability to heal virtually any wound. Taken in combination aging should be the least of his problems. Dave (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Galactus

I've started a discussion at Talk:Galactus to try to "referee" and avoid an edit war User:DavidA and User:TheBalance. I hope you can join in. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

You have agreed to mediation, so I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Galactus. I have included a (hopefully) appropriately neutrally worded statement as to my feelings of the case. I encourage you to add your own statement under the "Additional issues" header. This should be brief (preferably no longer than what I wrote) and discuss succinctly the issues you have with the other editor's opinions on article content, not how you feel the other editor's conduct. For example, you would want to say "I feel the article should include X, but he removes it; I feel the article should not include X, but he restores it; I try to rewrite parts to fix them in a particular style but he reverts it", and describe, in brief, why you feel these edits are appropriate. Brevity is the key here; assuming the case is accepted, you should have ample opportunity to explain your feelings later. Remember that Mediation is about trying to resolve your differences, not about proving who is right or wrong, or getting the other editor in trouble. It is not about providing evidence of wrongdoing on the other editor's part, because this is not an Arbitration case. The idea is not to discuss how you feel about an editor's conduct, or what kind of person they are, or focus on the negatives – this is an attempt to state your case and try to see the positives in the other person's point of view and find a middle ground, even if you don't see how that is possible at the moment.

So, after you have added your piece in the "Additional issues" section, make sure to sign the agreement – mediation cannot proceed until all partied have agreed. Thank you, good luck, and I will do my best to be there to help the mediator and the both of you. BOZ (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you feel that I have included any articles in the case which should not be included, or that I failed to include any articles which should be included, please let me know as I can change that before the case begins. BOZ (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Asgardian

Hi Dave,

Please try to refrain from making negative comments about Asgardian, such as "deliberately deceitful and evil". I believe WP:CIVIL still applies to all WP users, even banned ones. He'll be gone for a while, so that stress is off of you, but he is still lurking here and there so no need to keep any drama going. Thanks, and hope that all is well with you. BOZ (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

He's still around? I thought that he had moved on by now. Oh well, I'll try to catch and cut mmentions out of sentences. Although he's actually been factually proven as the first mention, which combined with a glee in doing so and utter contempt for any objections means the second from my perspective. Still, the second may have been out of hand, as he may very well have other compensating better qualities I don't know about. Anyway, you're entirely right. Enough overemotional nonsense drama already. I'll have to keep better track of that. He's (almost) out of the picture, and shouldn't take up any more of my attention. Yet another reason to remove the entire (mea culpa) pointless section I suppose.

More importantly, I've made an effort in trying to ignore barbs and strictly reason with and explain my viewpoint to TB in recent posts. Hopefully that will lead somewhere more constructive. Dave (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Galactus, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Galactus

Hello David --

I have agreed to mediate this case, and I wanted to confirm with you (and, of course, the other parties) whether (a) the issue discussed therein still exists and (b) you agree to me mediating the case. Please get back to me on my talk page or the talk page of the mediation case. -- tariqabjotu 08:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dave, are you still out there? Did you contact the mediator? BOZ (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not yet. I've had lots of other distractions and tasks, and the damaged harddrive with Galactus images (such as the later Rom issues contradicting TBs claim that a galaxy rather than a planet was teleported) is still in for repairs, and I seem to have lost a lot of focus and interest.

I've also come to gradually accept that the entire MU is an extremist cultural indoctrination tool for perversions of the fantastic, hopeful and imaginative into paranoia-inducing Lovecraft-overkill existential-nihilism-as-religion nightmare-fuel, gruesome-eternal-torture-camps-make-everything-better fetischism, and literal no-Godwin's-"law"-for-you crypto-Fascist ideology, including, but not limited to, mass-murder, torture, warfare, and destruction idealisations, outright-gorn-is-great-even-if-it-makes-rape-seem-pleasant-in-comparison-but-make-harmless-loving-sexuality-comparatively-shameful discrepancy, badly researched information-twisting out-of-context accentuate-and-blow-the-negative-completely-out-of-proportion scapegoating for people with medical disorders in general (including myself), with apparent heavy focus on complete moral dissonance on most writers' part. Especially in combination with that the non-self-contained-finite-work people literally work as dealers of schizophrenia-inducing hallucinogens, in combination with hatemongering, contempt, extremely petty/badly motivated banal, entitled and conceited murderous hatreds while condemning ones that at least have much better validations, and outspoken completely unapologetic, or outright even more genuinely sadistic attitude regarding the truth when confronted with it.

Meaning, it's very hard to keep up any actual interest in contributing with edits for the place when lots of the writers (or simply the cultural environment they have to work within) seem like some of the least qualified people on the planet to propagate any type of morality, and generally break down into self-righteous hypocrite hellfire&brimstone torture-fetischism propagators, outright extreme bigots of far worse caliber than moronic suntan-haters, or self-admitted wannabe casual serial-killers of anyone who annoys them in the slightest/speak too loudly on their cell-phones, with the general only true concern being their own entitlement to pervert the concept of "freedom of speech" from "safety from oppression" into "indoctrination that creates oppression" considerably worse than the press people they simultaneously condemn. Frank Miller's movie "300" really is a perfect summary of what the industry at heart is about, but given that it's a culture of lies there is no end to the sea of misdirections, and rationalisations they use to distort around that, no matter how many reliable scientific studies that state the highly negative effects this has on people, so it's "lies generally trump truth" and a lost cause; a relentless purely destructive and incoherent memetic mixture of Lovecraft, Nietzsche, Rand, and Mussolini on hard drugs, which would likely be replaced with something just as bad or even worse if it disappeared.

Anyway, even though I'm attempting to slowly work my heavy compulsive repetitive behaviour behaviour view to much more constructive and life-affirming input, I suppose that I have to follow through the G discussion to feel satisfied. I remember finding some handbook scans that I could upload for the first point at least, as well as a recent FF mention of Galactus being an insect compared to Eternity, or SHIELD issue #2 wherein he was referred to as "the son of Eternity". The rest of the points will probably have to wait for my portable harddrive being fixed though. Dave (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, well if you want to follow through with the G discussion, you should probably reply to the mediator, because I think he is waiting for a response from each of us. I started a thread on his talk page a couple of weeks ago. BOZ (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just notifying you that I closed the mediation case as stale. If the dispute flares up again and there's a need for mediation again, you are welcome to file a new mediation request. -- tariqabjotu 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the help in any case, and sorry about any trouble. My attention has been very split due to the time interval (doesn't work well in combination with ADD etc) and plenty of personal matters, but we still probably need to hammer out the issues at some point to wash ourselves clean of the matter, so I hope that you didn't delete the page. It would be easier to simply reopen the old one when my portable harddrive information is "repaired"/slooooowly extracted to a new one from the broken previous one (supposedly soon due actually) and I get some attention-span back for it. Dave (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Immeasurable" and the like.

Keeping it simple and to the point:

"Immeasurable mystic energy" (Dormammu) and the like (Celestial (comics)) are still inappropriate to place into an article. If need be, please leave yourself a note to the effect to refer to when editing.

Including it as one change among many made in one edit is going to the entire edit undone. You should be well aware that hiding, masking, and/or complicating editing in this manner is disruptive.

This is not an invitation to debate if the characters can be interpreted as "this powerful". It is a frank statement of the manual of style requirements of Wikipedia. Avoid, as much as possible, using these terms. This has been pointed out to you before. Please, work on something on your end to minimize or eliminate it from appearing in your edits.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think in terms of "sneaking things in", I'm largely driven by momentary impulse, but beyond that I don't find anything you wrote offensive. Dormammu has beaten Eternity and the Phoenix Force in combat, created kings of hell as mere pawns, rewritten universes, and treated elder gods as playthings. As such "immeasurable" or something of the type 'above' "enormous" or "tremendous" doesn't feel like peacocking to me, but as a statement of fact. You did keep a "vast" description for Beyonder after all, although he/she really was shown resp. stated to work on a universal scale in FF319 and Thanos 7-9, so it is not undefined. Still, I suppose that it was unnecessary. I hope that it is ok I'll reinsert that Dormammu has been described as the ("big G") god to the denizens of his universe though? Dave (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The cited ref I had little trouble with, it was the multiple changes - something we've both had trouble with from other sources in the past. And FWIW, I can understand the editing on impulse and that you are a forthright editor.

As for adjective choice, "vast", "large", "great", and similar are good, simple, succinct terms to use when avoiding "The character is this powerful" cannot be avoided. "Immeasurable" starts to run into hype, especially in the power section of the infobox. "Immeasurable mystic energy" says nil about what power(s) the character possesses, it just implies that in some way he's freaking powerful. "Manipulation of mystic energy" is a statement of what the character does and is what the section is for. Also "Immeasurable" implies "unlimited" which is troubling if the character has been shown to be beaten in a power-to-power conflict or been unable to do certain things.

- J Greb (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Dormammu isn't omnipotent, so I can see that immeasurable is inappropriate, especially as his power level goes up and down like a yo-yo depending on who he's fighting. What do you think would be an appropriate adjective?

Btw: May I also say that (regardless of gradually processed personal impressions about certain morally reprehensible common elements within both comics and other media, but then I don't exactly perceive things the way most do, and may or may not take things too literally) I really do appreciate the politeness, decency, patience, and civility from yourself, Nightscream, Boz, Tenebrae, and others here at Wikipedia. Quite frankly it is very refreshing compared to most places on the Internet as a whole, especially in the sense that the admins here tend to be genuinely responsible and reasonable, whereas Wikias and forums are frequently... less so, and the structure is an awful lot less confusing than the places that are arbitrary and have very little. Cotnrary to all the pot-shots Wikipedia gets on the web there is a certain class to most mainstays here, and that's nice. Dave (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Dormammu, right now it seems fine as is. If it were an article for a Marvel focused reference work, I could see "Manipulation of vast but not unlimited mystic energy with varying degree of control (see section)." working as a starting point. It's a bit moot here though since this isn't a Marvel focused, or even a comics focused, reference work. - J Greb (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, never mind then. The article is mostly fine as it is anyway. It should probably be clarified somewhere in the text that Dormammu is in fact not a demon, and has been described as "something worse", although I'm not sure where exactly it would be most appropriate, but except for that it is mostly acceptable in preparation for the release of the new Marvel versus Capcom game. Possibly a brief personality&motivations section though. Dave (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian again...

This tread is very, very close to baiting.

Is it surprising that the ban has been reset? In a couple of ways, yes:

1. As per the admin extending it, the reset is the by product of a different case. So there is very, very little for us to see or know about.
2. Spartancourage is/was active in a very, very narrow group of articles that seem, IIRC, to not be ones Asgardian frequented.

But that isn't an excuse for a post like the one you left.

If there is another editor, or more, about that you feel is close to Asgardian in edit style, please take the case to WP:SPI. Given this particular instance it may wise to cite what has just happened and ask a check user be done on the additional account(s). But make sure you clearly ID those accounts. I can't find a current record of a "Cosmic Egg", "CosmicEgg", "Cosmic egg", or "Cosmicegg", so I've got nothing to go on based on what you have currently posted.

- J Greb (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You should know by now that I don't bait, lie, or play insiduous headgames. Ever. (Anyone who consistently does intuitively registers as an amoral embodiment of pure evil to me. See the story for illustration.) I respond, and do so openly. Asgardian has a history of always carefully calculating ways to insult or manipulate me in semi-sublime or backhanded ways, and to pay careful attention to everything I do or say. As such, he knows about my problem with the explicit no-Godwins-"law"-relevance literal glorification of Fascist ideals in the "300" movie (including of course that it want anyone like me in a genocide camp, but then so do most current comic book authors, despite that I've never hurt anyone unless physically attacked, have a high-level of empathy, and am the type who literally helps old ladies carry their groceries... Maybe it's a lashout reaction against getting a guilty conscience for so frequently, literally on scientific level, working as a force for drug-running, and Mussolini-, Nietzsche-, H.P.Lovecraft-, hellfire&brimstone torture fetischism-, and schizophrenia-mongering, and being part of the media custom of perverting everything positive about freedom of speech into something "Have I met my quota of getting away with hurting as many people as possible today, and then nasally laughed it off?" monstrously egotistic and oppressive, i.e. who have among the least moral leverage amongst humanity. You know, the standard "whip the dog until it finally turns frenzied and then blame it while congratulating yourself to face the mirror every morning" deal. There are certainly plenty of creators that give an extremely strong such impression) See the "Hercules in hell" storyline for just one example.) Then I see on the listed ban discussion page that Asgardian had used this particular alias to circumvent the ban. Around the same editing interval someone of extremely similar self-proclaimed attitude named "Cosmic Egg" shows up at TvTropes. Among other things I also have experience with the old semi-stalker JJonz deliberately choosing obnoxious handles he knows that I will recognise is him, and again I don't do subtle and have no interest in games, so I stated the question outright instead for straight communication. It could just as well be coincidence, and the Spartan Pride have been symbolic for "one lone man against the admins" or somesuch, but I really hate sociopath-style manipulation games, so it needed to be done and over with. I've had a few stalkers following me around and "giving me clues" to get attention a few times before, and it can get very annoying after a while. I did however try to keep the comment very comparatively brief and civil. Dave (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Marvel Mystic

I don't know the background for this template you're adding, particularly because the Marvel Mystic links to some seemingly non-descriptive thing called the Principality (which I would encourage clarifying), but if you're going to list related individuals, then you may want to throw Pixie (X-Men) in there too. Unless the criterion is people considered for the role of Sorcerer Supreme or something like that, she probably should be on there as one of the X-Men's magic users. Best!Luminum (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a counterpart template for "Marvel Cosmic", featuring Celestials and the like, following a main Comics Talk discussion quite some time ago. I created it, then forgot about it until now, cleaned it up a bit, and added it to all the mentioned characters and objects for some added reader 'coherence'/scrolling in the mystic side of the MU. Pixie isn't an accomplished sorceress yet, or a deeply rooted big name mainstay to that world, so I didn't think it was necessary or I would have to add other very tangential or obscure characters. Of course it doesn't matter to me either way, so I added it for you. Dave (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are not minor

Hello, I've noticed before that you will often mark edits as minor when in fact they are not. I didn't mention it before because it seemed to be sporadic, but now you seem to be doing it quite frequently. I don't know if you're using Twinkle, or something else, and need to adjust the settings, but it is better to have a minor edit not marked as such than for an edit to be marked incorrectly as a minor edit. In case you are confused what I am talking about, take a look here. Thanks. Spidey104^contribs 19:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Project page

Hi. Can you give your thoughts in this discussion I've started? Thanks. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

One-Above-All

I'm afraid my ignorance of that character, and the books in question that serve as sources for that article, make me largely unqualified to assess the edits. It would also help if you would cite specific policies in your edit summaries regarding what's wrong with the other editor's edits. I would suggest asking for Third Opinion. Sorry. Nightscream (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's strictly the personal bias he inserts into it, including stating multiple personal opinions or Peacocking as facts, when these is in fact a quite disparate number of implied instances that he is attempting to fit into a whole, without any particular coherence.

"Whatever immense power the former had managed to attain through the Gems, his power exceeds even Warlock's own, for his authority "comes from on high"... except that's not remotely word by word what happened. Or for that matter toning down the questionable instances, such as manipulating Thanos into killing every sentient being in the multiverse... and then creating copies of them, but it was still murder of every being in existence. It also takes any hint of religious thematics as a self-evident direct reference to the entity, and so forth.

It is fine to keep all of his references, but the manner he worded it, especially "the virtuous and the pure are assigned to heaven..." makes me cringe a bit due to too thorough experiences with: "But anybody I don't like shall be tortured forever to show what a pure and virtuous person that I am! Muhahahahahahahacough!" I'm all for salvation, hope, and proportionate retribution, but disproportionate sadism s a catch-all cure for torture through more torture though... definitely not. That's thoroughly monstrous. The page seems fine now though. Dave (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Galactus

You should be careful as your admitted dislike for Galactus is imposing a bias in your edits. Terms such as "Eradication" "Genocide" "Justice" and the like are ALL terms that invite subjective points of view to an encyclopedic entry which is by nature OBJECTIVE. To YOUR view, they are genocide, etc., to the character's and to those with whom the character interacts...they are at best a gray area. Kirby also designated that he designed his character to be above questioning. That is not to say that Galactus should not be questioned...but that is to say that absolutely no discussion of "genocide" or "eradication" or whatever should make it into the entry unless provided as a view point of critical analysis in the PH, which is in there.

Such terms bring this article to an implied debate on imposing human ethics and morals on entities of higher understanding and purpose than human beings, which itself is an entirely fantastical and fictional discussion and is borderline religious in nature. This, obviously, is not what an encyclopedic entry should bombard the reader with. That is more appropriate for an analytical essay or thesis on the matter.

As for the entry: "Galactus consumed the planet" is objective and factual. "Galactus eradicated the population" is factual but NOT objective.Mobb One (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with accusations of biased, attack the contributor, style reasoning when you are in a glass house/the same applies to yourself as well to at least as great degree. As you may have noticed I have been trying to be very polite and compromising to you, and to reign in my bias, due to the whole "far-fetched rationalised genocide" deal, as far as I can, so I'd ask for the same in return on your part. I'm simply very honest by nature, and admit my viewpoints upfront. However, I'm a reactive type. I don't tend to react to neutral wordings that "aren't sufficiently biased for my taste", it's injected strong bias in the opposite direction, and this has been the case here. Hence, I have allowed all of your pro-argument instances, but want the con-argument parts to be preserved in full as well... and rather keep the image text neutral, as readers can make up their own minds by reading it themselves with a single click, but that's a comparative footnote.

As for Jack Kirby, he was a brilliantly imaginative storyteller, but he was never the ultimate moral authority on every issue, and regardless of creator intents, the manner a work or concept comes across does not always remotely rhyme with intents. People can either love a character the creator tried to make them hate, vice-versa, or find parts of a marketed ideology thoroughl monstrous. For a very simple example late great Mark Gruenwald initially called a brown-hued character "Bucky" without knowing about the ramifications, then changed it to Battlestar when informed (He was an odd man out in the comics industry in being a gneuyinely decent person by all accounts, and I'm very observant in some respects, as a natural evolution from possessing extremely limited filters, so I tend to automatically pattern any creator's fundamental personality from their sum output); and that is not anywhere remotely as offensive a concept as a sentient character holding conversations while murdering billions of people on a regular basis, even though there is no logical reason for it (he could simply feed on stars instead), and handwaved to the extremes.

In any case, organised religion stemming from the Old Testament literally reads as almost indistinguishable from Nazism if taken literally, including eternal genocide owens for comparative complete trivialities, commit genocide on the infidels, homosexuals should be burned on a spit, extreme imperialistic and fear-mongering brainwashing history, and paranoid superstition runs rampant. Not to mention that has been the world's largest paedophile sect and proponent of sexually transmitted diseases, and delayed scientific development with over a hundred years due to efficient oppression.

Meaning: Stating Galactus as beyond approach by tying him into the thorough perversion of the very essence of God (as a source of hope, kindness, tranquility, and genuine force of good) into a power-mongering sect propagating the notion of "eternal torture on anybody I dislike in the slightest to show what a good person I am in comparison!" does not hold water in my eyes, but again, I will definitely not insert that into an encyclopedia, just like you keep down much of your rampant pro-bias. We meet each other halfway, and I think that we have managed to do so quite amiably recently, so it would be nice if we could stick to that behaviour (only discuss the issues, collaborate, compromise, and try to keep them as matter-of-fact as we can). I'm very tired right now, so my apologies if I come across as cranky anyway.

In any case, regardless of viewpoints regarding the issue (and no your "above approach" interpretation is in no means any less biased or extreme) I mean no offense towards you personally. However, I have been fed with a ridiculous amount of crypto-Nazi propaganda, stating that I should be exterminated on principle due to my assorted handicaps, so issues relating to it are a bit of a trigger issue. In addition, I'm obsessively details-obsessed, so if there is something wrong with a pattern I won't get it out of my head until the pattern flaw is fixed.

(I genuinely like most religious people that I've encountered better than the average person, as what they are looking for and transmit is something positive, kind, and hopeful. However, certain parts of most of the available organised alternatives themselves read as in direct opposition to everything positive that the more sympathetic adherents believe in when taken literally... which I have an extremely hard time even relating to not doing. Basically believing in God as an ultimate force for genuine good is great, whereas perverting it into the ultimate force for evil existence has ever seen, by introducing "Excruciatingly ridiculous amounts of unfathomable torture is a great balanced catch-all solution! The more pain you cause the more justified you get! Let's go raid some asylumns and refugee-camps!" into the mixture... not even remotely, and per definition categorises anybody who embraces the systematised ideal into being one of the most warranted recipient of the practice than almost everybody he/she gets a kick out of condemning... but no, I don't want to see them get roasted alive, thank you very much. Salvation, gradual spiritual advancement, and redemption of character is a considerably more palatable notion. Yes, there are some problems with it, but still much less vile, reprehensible, and absolutely evil than any other available alternative.) Dave (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

On a much more prosaic note, we need to cite which issue of the two-issue Heralds of Galactus miniseries contained A) the thing establishing the proemial whatsit, and B) the Firelord quote.

Hope you two guys are well. I know as hard-fought as your points are with each other, you're each trying to make this important article better. Speaking as one of several longtime editors watching from afar, I'm really happy to see you each trying harder to meet each other halfway. I applaud you gentlemen for that. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not well per definition (pun intended), but nevertheless appreciate the how-do-you-do, and wish the same in return. Dave (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Need opinions on photos

Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

End of year awards

	The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
	I award you this BarnSakura in recondition of your contributions to anime and manga articles during 2010 and because everyone deserves a little recondition every once in a while. ;) —Farix (t | c) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)