Phunbot

Ra's

First, don't blank your Usertalk. it is yours, and you can if you really want to, but when the majority of your talk page is warnigns, and you blank them, it's often taken as a sign of hostility to those sending you the warnings.

Second, please slow down your page edits to Ra's. They started out good, but now your'e getting too much detail into the page. I've reverted a number of your animation edits, and hope you'll compare the differences to see how better to write up such sections. Reduce the amount of 'weasel words' you use. Words that inidicate lack of certainty, like 'possibly' or 'probably' suggest you're guessing at a reason, and that's not allowed. Excessive adjectives arent' welcome either. Finally, I'd suggest that you write up your edits in Microsoft word for a while, to get some grammatical help, with commas and such, especially for dependent clauses and careless spelling errors. You can write up the information, then copy and paste it into the wikipedia window, where you can "Wikify" it with the formatting for activating links, using italics, and so on. I do like what you've done with the page, but I think you really should stop for a while, let other editors review your efforts and clean up things they might want to revise. It's part of the 'teamwork' oriented way Wikipedia grows best. Hope you understand I'm saying all this to help you, not to hassle or chastise you. ThuranX 03:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Response

As for your first comment, it is mine so I think I can do with it what I want and as for the warnings there was one and the person who gave it to me didn't know what they were talking about as the reason they gave me the warning wasn't valid for what they gave it on.

As for my edits getting too detailed, I don't think there that detailed as I could get much more detailed. All I do is get detailed enough so people have a good idea what the episodes are about. As for guessing, well when I guess its an educated guess based on something that is a fact like my Mystique comment in the Asteroid M article I added to. Me personally I don't like guessing and theories as much as the next person in a place for facts but sometimes there is need for a touch of speculation/guessing due to the subject matter, like in the case of comics, as a lot of stuff is left to the imagination of the readers.

And I don't have Microsoft Word, I have basic Word Pad though I do use my browser for spelling errors and go over my work before saving.

As for stopping the continuing editing, I try to hit it all in one edit but sometimes I forget something or something comes up to give me more information that at the time I didn't have so that is why I add more stuff after the fact. But once I am done with an article I usually will stop messing with it afterward unless someone goes in and makes an edit that isn't good or something of that nature. And ya I know its a teamwork thing because a lot of the contributions I do I couldn't of done as well without others previous works on the articles I work on. And ya I know your not trying to hassle me and just trying to help. Phunbot 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, i'm not saying 'stop making foru edits when you could do it in one big edit if you used spell check', I'm saying 'Stop ALL edits to the page for a day or two, to allow other editors to review the page, make edits, and then go back, see what they did, and edit more." I'm going to head over to Doczilla's page and ask him to review your edits, and give some input. Let's see what he has to say and how he might change things. You're doing good work, but you should ask for some editor help, since you have changed a lot at this point. ThuranX 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I come across an article I will contribute to it as much as possible at the time and usually will find myself remembering something else to add as little as minutes, as most as a day or so afterward. Once I have finished my contributions I do stop, occasionally checking back to see its progress since my adjustments. And ya I have done major overhauls of a few articles and even created some so help is always appreciated of course but once I've contributed I am done with the articles in question and if someone happens to come along and add more info I didn't know of or even if they catch something minor I still appreciate it but as I just began to start here I don't know any editors from first hand experience except for you so I think going to complete strangers for help may be a little annoying for them plus as they be strangers I wouldn't know there history with editing and whether they could help. Also the articles I contribute to I usually have all the info I need in order to make the contribution I want at the time so there isn't any need for initial help, just help to expand on it afterward if anyone can. An example of this is like in the Appearance in Other Media section of Ra's al Ghul, as I actually watched the episodes in question at the time I didn't really need any help in fleshing out the contributions in that particular section. And with something like the articles I have created, mainly Vibrania and Vibranium (comics) there isn't much info out there to use to expand those articles and what little info there is I put up so the only real contributions a person could make would be additional pictures or a slightly more detailed history if they could manage to find resources to provide such. Its because of that in there talk pages I commented on if they should be classified as Stubs as the articles had little info on them when at the same time only a small amount of information exist for them due to there brief appearances in the Marvel Universe. Phunbot 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Re: blanking the page. Actually, Wikipedia doesn't want you blanking the page. At the top of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#When_pages_get_too_long, see where it says don't delete. Don't worry about it. You didn't know. I didn't know it myself for a surprisingly long time. Just remember for the future. Doczilla 07:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reveting the edit. YOu have been contradicted by two other editors, and saying 'I have the facts' does NOT demonstrate that you do, in fact, have the facts. Further, the speculative way in which you wrote the edit shows you lack some facts, including the 'not known' part. Doczilla and I have chosen to revert this to a version which is concrete, firm in it's assertions, and makes no guesses'. While I understand your desire to do well here, you admit to having little experience. Please choose to learn from us, not oppose us. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and review your edits. ThuranX 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculative remarks

Since you asked about my changes to your speculative remarks, I'll go over them.

Here are the remarks I changed:

(and presumably torment)

Anything "presumably" is speculation. Readers can presume things for themselves.

It should be noted that afterwards Supeman's power returns to him, questioning the longevity of Ra's al Ghul's new power.

Aside from misspelling Superman and getting the grammar wrong, any "questioning" is speculation.

(It is possible that after the events occurring in this episode, that Ra's al Ghul developed the machine to transfer his mind into another body as he could no longer use the Lazarus Pits anymore)

Pointing out this possibility is speculation. A character can say it, in which case we might quote it. We must not offer our own such speculation. An encyclopedic article isn't a chat page. Many, many things are possible. If it's not in the episode, don't mention it. Even if it is in the episode, there are plenty of reasons not to mention it. Doczilla 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, you do realize those are old edits right. I have amended those already for the reason they had speculation in them.

The remarks I asked for speculation to be pointed out was in my last edit, you know the one reverted which is the only edit you should be concerning yourself with plus of course you find an old edit I long disregarded for a better edit to comment on so you could point out so much and rant on.

This is my recent edit in case you forgot to use the history function:

He does succeed but the process is stopped before completion by Batman's interference, fighting ensues causing Ra and his daughter to fall to there apparent deaths. Afterwards for an unknown reason Superman's power returns to him.

Plus you just said:

Many, many things are possible. If it's not in the episode, don't mention it

That's funny considering the process wasn't reversed in the show yet did you tell the above statement to that editor, no and did you edit it out, no. Hmmm wonder why.

Besides I just remembered something that will once and for all end this in my favor, see you in the talk page for the article. Prepare for ownage!

Phunbot 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hmmm wonder why." Why? Because I haven't seen the episode and didn't know "the process wasn't reversed" to tell any editor that. My concerns are about how it's written in an encyclopedic entry. I've been taking your word regarding episode content. You don't have to have first hand knowledge of the topic to know how Wikipedia wants things written. Nobody has to know the episode personally to know when your grammar is wrong or when detail is excessive relative to the point of the character's overall article. Fight details are rarely relevant.

"Um, you do realize those are old edits right." You're the one who asked me to comment on why I changed your speculative remarks. You didn't say I should only explain the most recent one.Doczilla 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ra's al Ghul reverts

Please be careful when reverting edits to the Ra's al Ghul article, as per WP:3RR, which says you shouldn't revert an article more than three times in a 24 hour period. By my count, you've made four reverts between 22:47 and 06:44. H. Carver 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:3RR on Ra's al Ghul

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Laz Pits

GREAT JOB EDITING! 66.109.248.114

Orphaned fair use image (Image:ULTXANN001010 col1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ULTXANN001010 col1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Vibraniumbaru1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vibraniumbaru1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:08ras.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:08ras.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:05ras.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:05ras.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vibraniasb1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vibraniasb1.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed your other images, and tagged those which lacked a fair-use rationale. You can find a list of all the images you have uploaded at this link. (ESkog)^(Talk) 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:11j.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:11j.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 21:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That block

I notice that you haven't edited since that block. It was only a 24-hour block. Did you give up on Wikipedia or start over fresh with a new name? Just curious. Doczilla 01:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ULTXANN001010 col1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:ULTXANN001010 col1.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Vibranium (character) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vibranium (character). Since you had some involvement with the Vibranium (character) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)