User talk:David A

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, David A, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 20:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 New Ranma section pages 2 reflist2 3 AFD nomination for Items in Ranma ½ 4 Service award 5 Lime manga image 6 Smile 7 Re: smile 8 CrystarB4 edits 9 re:CrystarB4 edits 10 Re: barnstar 11 Character images on main Ranma page 12 Minor Ranma character image reduction 13 Silver Surfer 14 Editor issues 15 Thanks for pulling the images on the Ranma character fighting techniques page 16 Editor issues 17 Thanks for pulling the images on the Ranma character fighting techniques page 18 Ranma items page 19 Hulk (comics) 20 Threading etiquette 21 Anime character articles 22 Revised FUR requiring article parameter 23 Need to do better 24 Thought I'd bring this to your attention 25 One-Above-All 26 I'm back Baby Boy!!!! 27 I'll be back!! Again and again!! 28 Excess fair use image in Ranma character articles 29 Ranma pages 30 Citations for Powers and abilities of the Hulk 31 Hello DavidA, are you O.K. today??? 32 Belated barnstar thanks 33 The word "magic" in the category 34 Recent vandalism 35 Thanos and telepathy 36 Powers and abilities of the Hulk 37 Good article qualifier? 38 Abomination edits 39 Apocalypse

[edit] New Ranma section pages

Are you thinking of setting up separate pages by character to migrate that info out of their article space? If you could set up a sandbox and play around with what you're thinking of setting up, I think that would be a good idea for a test run (similar to what I did when I was suggesting breaking up the minor characters by anime/manga). If I am reading you right, the thing I have seen with separate pages like "battle records" or the like for other series is that they have a chance of getting nominated for deletion (AFD) because someone will think that they are non-notable on their own. So before you go ahead and create the new pages, set what you'd like set up as an experiment in a sandbox (not the WP:Sandbox because that gets cleaned out every hour) and we can discuss. --BrokenSphere 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle records in each separate page should be acceptable then?

Yeah, I'd second this. Unfortunately, as useful as some things are, Wikipedia community often doesn't see it that way. You can end up wasting a lot of time working on something that some admin just gives the delete stick too. Derekloffin 21:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be very unfortunate, given that this would be the best way to finally solve all this mischaracterisation trouble. :\

I could post what I have so far in the sandbox in the meantime, and let you work it over/shorten it down to what's most relevant then? Dave 12:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I worst case, could I simply send them over to the two of you so you could help keep the pages referenced? Dave 16:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

How about doing one such page as a trial run so we can see how it would look and make recommendations, then use that as a model if it looks good, before you create x number of pages and potentially waste time and effort. --BrokenSphere 17:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently pasting the various pages here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A

The battle records should be ok, but many of the profiles need to be severely edited down (to a fourth the length or so), and have references added for a couple of additional volumes, and I'm not sure I'm up for any more. It would be great if other users could take it up where I left off. Dave 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, feel completely free to copy them for personal use or modify/improve/shorten them at will. (Including editing them here, if you prefer) Dave 00:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

These are very comprehensive, but for Wikipedia purposes (and I may be wrong), I'm not sure how they could be set up for reference purposes. You may want to get either some more veteran editor's input or an admin or two to chip in and see how they can be used. --BrokenSphere 04:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we just make notices, so that any editors can look them up when they want quick check-through references for the profiles? That's almost what I originally intended anyway. The battle records should work as a separate page at least. Though we'd have to make them more easily overviewed. Dave 11:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean refer them back onto those records here in your user space? TBH, I have not yet seen something on here that is a comprehensive listing of all fights that go on in a particular series. --BrokenSphere 20:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much for the general character references (It's still possible for anyone to edit them right?). They should be very useful for all footnote editors. As for the battle records, we could always add them as a separate section for each character, or the appropriate 'fighting techniques' pages, but othervise, why not? A separate page should be a fun, informative and useful addition, as an external page to link to in each appropriate character section, much like the ones you're assembling, and it's not like it should be _against_ the rules. Dave 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reflist2

See Template:Reflist. What reflist2 does is put in 2 columns, and reflist3 would put in 3 columns. So putting Nabiki's reference list in two columns shortens up the time it takes to scroll through it if it was just one straight list, as well as fills up the whitespace to the right of the list. Lots of large reference lists are formatted into columns for similar reasons.

Not sure if it applies to you or not, but if you aren't seeing a difference, it may be due to the browser and browser settings you use or something else technical. According to the documentation it only works in Firefox at the moment.

Note: multiple columns currently render properly only in Mozilla Firefox,[1] though the feature is included in CSS3, so it should work for a larger number of browsers in the future.[2]

Also, thank you for the comment on my talk page --kudsy 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD nomination for Items in Ranma ½

I don't know if you know, but the article was nominated for deletion 2 days ago. In view of the issues raised with it, I'm trying to rectify those to justify keeping it (e.g. minimizing plot summary details) and am asking you for help, since you've been making detailed references, that could help out with getting the article properly sourced. --BrokenSphere 23:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really have the energy and commitment and energy for more than at most very few adjustments. At the moment I'm quite busy, but I will back you up in the discussion. Couldn't you just start to add a few references yourself in the same style as those I've provided myself (Tilte, Volume & Chapter references) and then ask for delay time to insert more of them? Dave 11:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy myself; the thing is, I don't own the Viz translations, which would help in adding manga cites. However, I'm looking at the descriptions and trimming down plot detail where possible. --BrokenSphere 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just own the Egmont ones myself and am only motivated to improve the fighting techniques page right now, but if you simply check up your fan-translation chapters and look up the ISBN numbers for the Viz stuff (or use the ones I posted for the Swedish volumes, since Viz may not overlap perfectly with the Japanese editions) you should be ok. It's just notes about the chapters the items appeared in after all. If the censors can be stalled/give you a respite for a few weeks, you could chip off small parts now and then. Dave 14:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you've been following the debate, but the page was recently deleted. :( I've asked the admin responsible for a copy of the page and its talk page for archival purposes. --BrokenSphere 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that sucks, and is completely unfair, especially given that only one person thought it should be deleted, while everyone else voted for keeping it. At least by the last time I checked the discussion 2 days or so ago. Why couldn't they simply have waited a while until the problems cleared up? Should I send a complaint somewhere?

Btw: Make a wikifarm of it in the meantime. Dave 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

TBH, I had the feeling that the article might get deleted in its current state, but have been busy and didn't think it would get deleted so quickly, although it has been a week. As to the Wikia or whatever, I'll look into that when I have more time; something similar was done with Sailor Moon and I'm not sure what they were able to or not able to put on it. If you have issues with the deletion, I would address them to the admin responsible, but I don't know if you'd get very far. Until this Wikia thingy is set up, it might be better not to create anything similar in the meantime, as that stands a chance of getting deleted too. --BrokenSphere 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Service award

Just came across these today. Here's one that you merit, as per [1].  :) --BrokenSphere 22:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I suspect that it's not something to be proud about, but thanks anyway. If nothing else it may get a few overzealous, pompous, irrational butt-ins off my back. ^_- (Most objectors have been reasonably sensible, but that 'President' David Palmer guy actually severely annoyed me) Dave 23:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw: Shouldn't you have a higher badge yourself? Dave 23:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of edits, but, haven't been on long enough yet to qualify for the others. --BrokenSphere 14:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lime manga image

Can you get one that shows him better? The Mint one gives an idea of what he looks like, but for Lime it's harder to tell because of his position in it and relative size. --BrokenSphere 17:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it had to be good battle shots that emphasised the nature of their abilities (Lime is overwhelmingly strong but doesn't rate nearly as high in speed, while Mint is the opposite), and I think those two were the best ones available, but I'll do another check to make sure. Dave 19:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The new one fulfills both needs ok. Dave 19:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

[edit] Re: smile

Hey... thanks! :D Gscshoyru 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• And from me, too. :) Happy that I could help. Moonriddengirl 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CrystarB4 edits

He is rightly suspected of being a sock-puppet for JJonz, including that he uses JJonz 'Gaashooru' when addressing Gschoyru, but he didn't vandalise Powers and abilities of Superman or Sentry (Robert Reynolds). He's currently either blatantly trying to bait both you and User: J Greb with harmless and completely pointless, non-vandalism, edits, while feigning 'harmless pacifist' comments, or is simply some unrelated guy doing semi-stupid but harmless edits. Please keep track of whether he does reverts or just adds an 'and' or similar here and there, or he'll lure both you and J Greb into a pitfall/ban. Ridding you of much credibility with the admins with JJonz getting an open market to do whatever he wants/act silly petty tyrant again. Dave 17:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You'll note I've stopped, a while ago, for that reason. I realized. I explained what's going on on AIV, so as soon as a blocking admin gets around to it, he'll be blocked. Then I'll explain myself on the sock report. Gscshoyru 17:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm sorry if I came across as patronising. Dave 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:CrystarB4 edits

If, and a mighty big if, if it were just an arguably useful or relevant a word here or there I'd agree with you.

However

• The user is hitting the same articles JJonz ran through;
• This spate came right after JJonz2 was blocked indefinitely and JJonz had 2 months tacked on for blatant socking;
• The edits, as a whole, did hit a point where it could be considered dissipative editing;
• Based on the Sentry (Robert Reynolds), since he was adding information that was in the same line it definitely moves to disruptive. At least as I understand it.

Your concern though is noted.

- J Greb 19:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point isn't that I disagree about him and JJonz rather blatantly being the same person, it's that he's currently being a more devious than I would previously have given him credit for, given his consistent embracement of Lobo as a personal role model. I.e. he's doing a 'nudge-nudge wink-wink, I know you'll get this vague reference but the admins wont' double-play where he's perfectly feigning victimhood to get fallback for when admins quickly browse through his history the next time. I.e. he's blowing a few sock-puppet vandal identities, while keeping one of them officially 'pure' and hopefully getting all of us out of the way in the process, before his ip has time to get perm-banned. Sacrificing a few pawns to gain an extra queen with much looser restrictions.

He's without a doubt the by far worst and most detrimental wikipedian I've ever encountered. Exactly the type of vandal that is very hard to handle, since _everything_ he does is deliberate lies, distortion and censorship, without adding anything of value whatsoever, and he's relentlessly using the loopholes to get away with it. Dave 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey... not to discredit what you're saying here... but the admins are a bit smarter than that. They know it's a sock. Socks are desperately hated, oddly enough. And after seeing what they can do, I begin to understand why. So don't worry about it... they will assume good faith about what you were doing.

P.S. you're a regular contributor, not a vandal fighter... there are some really, really evil people who wish us harm. This guy is pretty bad, though, seeing as stayed under the radar for this long. Poke them and they show their true colors, it seems... Gscshoyru 01:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: barnstar

Hey... thanks! :) Gscshoyru 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Although I noticed that you already had one afterwards Dave 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The more the merrier! ;) Gscshoyru 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character images on main Ranma page

I've seen the discussion regarding these on the discussion page and the deleting admin's reasoning was what I suspected when they were pulled last night. Personally I somewhat agree with the reasoning because 1) those characters already have images on their own article pages and 2) the images were taken from Furinkan.com, some of which I've replaced based on an older message left by the webmaster months ago. If you look at other anime articles, they don't tend to have character pics on the main article space, saving these for a list of page or those characters' respective page --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Ranma character image reduction

Since an admin's tagged the main minor characters page as possibly containing too many fair uses images, as Derek and I discussed here, I'm going to start going through this and the manga-only and anime-only pages and pulling images for the characters with the smallest writeups. If you disagree with some of the pulls I make, add them back in before they get deleted as a result of being orphaned. TBH, I was expecting like this to happen eventually as I saw what happened a few months ago to the Naruto character pages. However I think it's better that we start pulling images where applicable and at least we were somewhat warned about it first, as opposed to someone else going in and pulling them all. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Surfer

I deleted your POV statements on the SS entry again. The Surfer did not prove to be weaker than the Hulk in SS #125, Defenders #2, or IH #95. In SS #125 the Bannerless Hulk (a physically stronger albeit less durable version) proved incapable of physically harming the Surfer.

He didn't harm the Surfer, or at least not significantly, but the latter was thrown around without anything to set against him except for force-blasts, and those didn't do any damage to the Hulk either. From my perspective you're the one being incredibly POV.

The Hulk was treated as a non-threat by the Surfer the entire issue, at one point the Surfer allowed the Hulk to attack him to better analyze the Hulk's energies.

He was thrown around like a rag-doll without having anything to set against the hulk hand-to-hand.

In Defenders #8 no strength comparison can be drawn and your interpretation is dubious at best, the force bubbles effected the mentality of everyone in them, only the Hulk's rage allowed him to continue to struggle.

No everybody else was drained of energy. Hulk was the only one still capable of breaking free by getting madder and more powerful.

In IH #95 both the Surfer and Hulk were weakened, however the Surfer proved to be a threat not only to the Hulk, but to the Hulk along with his Warbound -- which have proven to be extremely powerful characters in their own rights as evidenced by WWH. The Surfer decimated the Hulk hand-to-hand in that issue and the Hulk only incapacitated him through a well executed plan which included a distraction.

No the Surfer didn't decimate him. In the final one-on-one combat, the Hulk pounded him to the ground into unconsciousness and cracked his hide as far as I remember, but I'll re-read the issue to check.

Do you not recall Heroim's statement to the Hulk? You show your Hulk bias on this one, the Hulk pounding relentlessly on a Surfer while he was on his knees in the process of thanking the Hulk is no proof of any physical superiority. In fact, I can make the case for just the opposite because the only scene in the entire issue where the Surfer and Hulk physically locked up it was the Hulk who was sent to the ground and got up bleeding. The Surfer was also back on his feet just panels later after the undefended beating by the Hulk. Like I said in my edit summaries, the Hulk has not proven a strength superiority to the Surfer in any of your referenced issues. Continue to make the changes I will continue to revert them.

So it's ok for your completely unwarranted deleting of that the Surfer had been extremely powered-up and leeched the Hulk's power on the one occasion when he matched the Hulk's strength, and that Hulk managed to overcome the strength of a 10x more powerful than normal Thor with a single arm when far more enraged (the Surfer was completely outmatched when the latter entered this warrior's madness mode), but not my far more accurate entries. Gotcha. Continue to do POV changes, and I will continue to revert them. Dave 16:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after checking up the current layout I don't have any objections. It simply states that the Surfer can increase his strength to Incalculable levels, which he can. What I objected to was the completely unfounded "the Surfer can power himself up to insane Hulk levels". Dave 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-read Hulk #95, and the battle rundown went as follows: The Hulk greets Surfer as a friend, Surfer sucker-punches him full force to the head with a mace. When Hulk is still in a state of great surprise to be attacked by one of his perceived last friends (which he states out loud) the Surfer follows up with another hard blow. Hulk is still conscious and apparently unharmed, but the warbound attack Surfer on their own. Given that Korg was the only one of them who was moderately formidable at this point in time (Miek hadn't mutated, Hiroim hadn't received the old power and was strictly stated as a 1-ton level warrior, Ihloe didn't have a power-armour and was strictly an expert fighter human) Surfer swiftly kicks the crap out of them. Hulk and Hiroim attack simultaneously, the latter distracting the Surfer to let the Hulk land a blow, destroying the slave-disc. Surfer thanks the Hulk and is pummelled into unconsciousness by the still enraged usual friend, but wakes up 2-3 minutes afterwards and frees everyone else. You're right it's not a good gauge. The only thing we're shown is that Hulk can beat the Surfer unconscious with a few hits, and both were weakened at the time. The Defenders case is definite however, and in SS #125 the Surfer didn't seem able to compete through physical force, didn't manage to harm the Hulk with his blasts, but likewise wasn't hurt (or at least not significantly so) by the pummelling he received. Dave 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Surfer never tried to compete through physical force in SS #125, he was attempting to help the Hulk the entire issue. He did comment that he could easily disintegrate the Hulk if he desired to, however. Defenders #8 provides no strength comparison whatsoever. If you want to use IH #95 as evidence of the Hulk's physical superiority, I can make the same case for a Doc Samson physical superiority over the Hulk since he has K.O.'ed the Hulk with a single sucker shot. TheBalance 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Surfer only boasted that he could, that's completely irrelevant. He was attempting to fight back through force-blasts (which made no damage) but was thrown around like a rag-doll on a physical level. He stated himself that the current Hulk was stronger than the one he 'matched' (through severe cheats of power-up and draining) in issue #250. If I remember correctly this was also at a time when his emotions were virtually shut off, and his compassion was considerably more limited. But I'll try to find and re-read this one as well.

In issue 95 the Surfer was the one doing the initial sucker-attacks when the Hulk was completely open and didn't expect it, similarly to how Doc Samson took out the old far less powerful Byrne-Hulk (a man whose stated goal was to depower the Hulk to a level far below Thor) but the Surfer failed to take the Hulk out. The Hulk didn't sucker-punch him to nearly the same degree, since the Surfer was already into the battle, and was aware of the Hulk's charge, who then knocked the latter out with a few blows. Afterwards he's been powered-up far beyond this level by absorbing energy from the explosion that destroyed Sakaar.

I just re-read it, and the Surfer actually explicitly screamed "You must be stopped" and blasted away full force without any effect. Dave 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Full force"? Please show me where that is indicated in SS #125. Once again, more useless, biased, unsupported POV estimations with no basis in what actually saw print. TheBalance 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Screaming "You must be stopped" at the top of his lungs would certainly be taken by most as that he was doing his utmost to stop the Hulk.

"At the top of his lungs?" This just keeps getting better and better. TheBalance 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes certainly. See your "it was never stated that the Surfer was powered up in issue #250" reference above, when this was the most repeated phrase during the story, or your refusal to admit that the Hulk currently has a higher base level than he's ever had, despite that this is the most repeated statement in the story from virtually every character. Pot meet kettle. To return to the topic: Quote: "Your heart is a cauldron of the darkest, most savage and repugnant emotions known to man. You are periliously out of control Hulk..." Zoom out to an airline view several hundred meters away. There is a globe of energy at least 200 meters wide, blast flying out of it as the Surfer unleashes his power. The Surfer's voice booming in bold text, with the speech-bubble with two additional outlines of plues and black to emphasize it, despite the faraway distance: "And you must be stopped." Zoom in to the Surfer blasting away at the Hulk but not succeeding to hurt him. As usual I do have solid reasons for my deductions, whether you agreewith them or not.

You have yet to prove the Surfer was "extremely" powered up when he caught the Hulk's fists and held them. Powered up, yes, "extremely so" a POV estimation as I have maintained from the beginning. You're just not getting it, your interpretation of events is just that, your interpretation. There was no indication the Surfer was extremely' powered up when he caught the Hulk's fists in Hulk #250. The was no indication of the Surfer being physically outmatched in SS #125, nor was there any indication the Surfer "tried his hardest" when blasting the Hulk in SS #125 or that the Surfer yelled "at the top of his lungs". And so on.... TheBalance 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The "top of his lungs" bit has already been proven given that the voice was bold + extra blue circle emphasis + extra black circle emphasis even at a several hundred metre distance. Of course it could be argued that he could scream even higher, agreed, but it's was certainly extremely high. Given that he nonetheless screamed (this we can at least agree on) "You are dangerously out of control and must be stopped", with an accompanying "awe"-moment (surrounding energy manifestation) and blasting Hulk several times over going by the stray force-blasts, I think you can agree that it would be very far-fetched to say that he wasn't trying hard under those circumstances.

However after rereading it I agree that there is no _certain_ indication that Surfer was physically outmatched, just because he was thrown around like a rag-doll. Excepting the massive force-blast barrage, he was essentially strictly passive/defensive. However, when the Surfer opting to use these instead of his fists Hulk had no trouble grabbing hold of him and doing so. So it's a definite "maybe so, maybe not, no go". In any case agreed on this point as well.

The only things we were shown in Surfer 125 and issue Hulk 95 was that Hulk can withstand the Surfer's force-blasts, and can knock the Surfer out for a few minutes with 3 blows. That we can also agree on.

As for the power-up in Hulk 250, "extremely" is of course relative to what you consider extreme, but it was explicitly stated several times that his powers and strength now increased in direct proportion to his rage, and that his rage against the barrier was boundless. To me that's "extremely" powered-up.

Come to think of it there was an official Marvel Role-playing game a few years back (much, much later than the old incarnation) which had much better power-gauges than the regular handbook (going much higher, and replacing the silly "class 100" scale with "this guy can lift a bus, that guy can throw an ocean liner). In it Thor and Juggernaut were listed at level 19 strength. Surfer at level 20, Thanos at 22, Destroyer at 24, Hulk starting at 20, but going up to 30 when sufficiently . I've long since lost it, but maybe there is a site displaying the stats somewhere?

Btw: I restored the lost text from yesterday. It seems like you accidentally omitted it during a double-edit. Dave 18:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In Defenders 8 what was explicitly shown was that all the Defenders were being drained of energy from the same contraption and the Hulk was the only one reaching a high enough power-level to break free despite this handicap. This was pretty damn explicit, much like your previous attempts to censor the far more incriminating circumstances in Hulk #250, ignoring that Hulk has been shown to reach at least 20 times his calm level to push warrior's madness Thor towards the ground, which pretty much makes your argument ridiculous, and falsely stating that Hulk was teamed up with all his warbound when attacking, who with one exception were very low-level at this point. The only help he received was a distraction from Hiroim. Dave 13:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk has never fought a "10x strength Warrior Madness Thor". Peter David made no mention of a 10 fold strength increase in the issue and true Warrior's Madness is an incurable disease that results in banishment from Asgard. This is not what the Hulk dealt with. That "10x strength Thor" was also totally powerless just moments before taking on the Hulk.

Peter David stated outright in the comic that Thor was in his Warrior's Madness mode, which was stated to increase his strength tenfold simply by entering the insanely raged state later in his book, regardless if it was forcibly triggered due to absence from Asgard, and PAD confirmed that the latter was 10x his usual level in an usenet post, like it or not. The previous powerlessness is irrelevant, Thor was stated to temporarily be fully repowered, but it decreased afterwards, he was hardly powerless however, he retained part of his abilities for a few issues until being fully repowered again. It was a gradual decrease.

Another check-up. In Warlock and the Infinity Watch (gawd nearly all those 90's Starlin books were horribly awful when reading them nowadays) it was explicitly stated that Thor did in fact not suffer from the warrior's madness when simultaneously beating up the Surfer and the Watch, he was strictly an insane normal Thor, which would go a long way in explaining how Beta-Ray-Bill could possibly hold his own. I.e. the _only_ time we've ever seen it in effect was Hulk #440, where Hulk oupowered an insane Thor 10x his usual level with a single arm. Again, you entire argument is ridicilous. Dave 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are arguing that the Hulk was able to match Thor at 10x his normal in TRUE Warrior's Madness only shows how little you know about the character.

Oh yes, that must be why I've read the entire Simonson and Jurgens runs. More bland statements in the "if it's the Hulk it doesn't count" "if it's the Surfer or Thor it does". It was explicitly stated that he was in 10x warrior's madness mode. Nothing you've said has changed this and you are trying to hide it behind inane accusations towards someone who has shown far greater flexibility of thought than yourself.

Show me, in comic, where it says Thor's strength was multiplied 10-fold in this encounter. There was no such indication in comic. This was not an example of true Warrior's Madness, true Warrior's Madness is an incurable disease. TheBalance 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "But the time for words is long past. The Maestro knows this as as he sees the berzerker rage in Thor's face. He has no name for it. Although it is known to Asgardians as the dreaded "warrior's madness". In the end though words don't matter. Only power does. Only strength." Fact: In Infinity Watch #25 it was stated that Thor did not suffer from the warrior's madness during his encounter with Surfer, he was just insane. Fact: In Hulk #440 it was explicitly stated that he suffered from the madness. Fact: It has been stated in Thor's own book that he was 10x his usual level, which was personally affirmed by Peter David. Again, you very easily accept that Thor can get 10x stronger than normal when completely insane, but not that Hulk can outdo it. What I "feel" should be "right" is irrelevant. What you "feel" should be "right" is irrelevant. What matters is what is explicitly shown or stated. As is stated in Thor's own profile page. He currently can enter the warrior's madness and eventually leave it through supreme effort.

Berserker's Rage and Warrior's Madness are seperate and distinct conditions. Warrior's Madness is an incurable disease - Fact. Warrior's Madness is clearly not what Thor was afflicted with in Hulk #440 since Thor came out of it. TheBalance 17:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fact: The book itself and Peter David have explicitly stated that he was in it. Thus he is now able to enter and leave it at will. Odin said that the madness was dangerous because it would eventually infect all asgardians around him, which might also hold true for the current disease. He also didn't _think_ that the true madness was possible to cure, and that the same held true for Thor's then prevalent psychosis, but was proven wrong about the latter, and later shown as wrong about the former. Perhaps Thor's experience gave him control, due to eventually breaking free from a display of will? Regardless, the explicit statements hold.

FWIW, Peter David has also said that the considers Thor to be more powerful than Hulk, and considers both Thor and Hercules peer to the Hulk in raw strength. TheBalance 17:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether he considers him more powerful is irrelevant to an issue of strength, and as has been stated in the handbook the Hulk has long started out a bit into the 'class 100' league, just like they do. As for Hercules, he was shown as completely outmatched in Hulk 108 (or was it 109?) where he stated himself that the Hulk could have crushed his skull whenever he wanted, but held back. Hulk can reach _far_ beyond his usual levels when sufficiently angered. That's nothing new.

You mean the issue where Hercules let Hulk pound on him? Come on. TheBalance 14:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that Hercules tried to reason with him (and eventually succeeding) directly after the initial tussle, but Hulk's blows did far more damage, and to quote Herc (who is a character I like _more_ than the Hulk, probably my favourite in Marvel's stable along with Black Panther, Meggan and She-Hulk) himself, in reply to Hulk's attempt to chase them away by stating that he's a monster: "If that were true Hulk my skull would be as shattered as my pride." Pretty damn explicit. Dave 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In Hulk #250, the Surfer had not yet drained the Hulk of his power when he caught his fists and held them. The Surfer held his fists in order to drain the Hulk's power.

He was _extremely_ powered up at the time and was draining Hulk's power from the moment he touched the fists, leaving the latter cured just a few panels afterwards.

There was ZERO indication he was "extremely powered up, there was NO indication just how powered up he was. Once again, bias.

Uh-huh. Quote: "Anger into strength? My anger at Galactus' barrier knows no bounds! If an infusion of gamma-rays could turn that rage to unlimited power? The nothing could hold me on Earth! Nothing!" "You want to pierce that barrier by adding to your own unimaginable might the sheer raw power of the gamma-radiation. A power that would increase your strength in direct proportion to the rage you feel?" "I think I can invest you with the power you need Surfer, but it's not going to be easy. Much of the machinery has to be adapted to our purposes." "The infuser draws gamma-rays from space. Then, modifying themso that they'll combine with your unique genetic structure.It will bombard you with a massive dose of gamma-radiation until it permeates your every cell. As my power was converted into raw power when I was the Hulk so will yours be. Until not even the space-barrier of Galactus can withstand your rage. But Bruce Banner has overlooked one fact. He was a man before becoming the Hulk whereas the Surfer possesses the power cosmic. Will not the additional power make him like unto an angry god?" "Continue! I must feel the gamma-rays seething within me. Power, pulsing, pounding in every fibre of my being. Power enough to rend a world asunder or to be free of one forever." "I need more power! More!" "Feed the power to me even as I assault the accursed barrier." "Growing angrier at the thought of his imprisonment. Growing stronger as his rage consumes all else! Witness as god gone mad! And if such power can drive a deity to madness what can mere fear do to those made of common clay?" "and the heaven-directed stream of gamma-rays is immediately cut off depriving an enraged Surfer of his added power!" "If it was you who destroyed the gamma-infuser robbing me of its power." "You are the receptable of gamma-radiation which added to what I have already absorbed will give me the power I need to smash through Galactus' barrier!" They briefly slug it out with either budging when Surfer is in this state and then he catches the fists while the power transfer is glowing from the start turning Hulk to Banner in a few panels. I'm seriously beginning to think that you're not for real. SImply a troll having fun at my expense.

The Surfer's response to the Hulk's exclamation that no one has ever been able to do that? "No one has ever possessed the Power Cosmic!" Your assertion that the Surfer was "vastly" powered up at the time is a POV estimation and not supported by the story.

Now that's just plain deliberate lying, given that you've just read the issue. The Surfer stated himself that his power was vastly increased in direct proportion to his anger. It was the entire point of the story/the machine the Surfer and Banner built and exposed him with. You're far more POV than myself as usual, despite your arrogant delusions to the contrary.

The Surfer only had sufficient power to breach Galactus' barrier after totally draining the Hulk of all his power.

Curing the Hulk, by draining the radiation then available in his cells. When empowered the latter draws his power from extradimensional sources. It's not a constant thing, and it only provided the final push.

Once again, Defenders #8 provides no direct strength comparison what-so-ever, there is nothing explicit about that issue at all. If you believe the Hulk's strength is greater than the overall power of Dr. Strange or the Surfer you seriously need to pick up a few comics without the Hulk name on the cover.

I've picked up plenty, and unlike your own severely biased downgrading/underestimation of the Hulk, I do consider both of them as far more than a match for him if using their vast array of abilities intelligently rather than just slugging it out in close quarters, (although the Hulk did shatter the Cyttorak bands once) but it was explicitly shown that the draining managed to incapacitate both of them, while Hulk retained enough energy to break free. Hulk overpowered Onslaught in terms of pure power, when the latter channeled energies greater than Galactus' and comparable to a Celestial (Franklin Richards + X-Man at the same time).

More useless POV estimations. There is no evidence that Onslaught's energies were greater than Galactus', only flawed ABC logic. Franklin Richards permanently burned out his so called "Celestial-level" power reconstituting Galactus during the Abraxas Saga. To this day he remains totally powerless. As for X-Man, the Surfer recently defeated Cable at full potential in direct combat. "Beyond Galactus" indeed. TheBalance 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No more useful explicitly referenced stuff. Onslaught has been stated outright to have possessed their combined powers along with Xavier's and Magneto's. He created a second sun and Franklin was stated by Ashema to have power rivalling her own. All completely verified facts.

He's currently set to slug it out with Zom, who is at the same level. His power is in rapid flux from time to time, that's the entire point of the character, despite your completely blindsided perspective.

If you think the Surfer's comment in SS #125 was a "boast" you are also mistaken. The Surfer was completely devoid of emotion at the time and he even stated that it was just an observation in the response to the Hulk asking him if that statement was a threat.  :::::::His being devoid of logic severely counteracts your argument that he was trying to help the Hulk or holding back in consideration. Just because he made a statement still doesn't make it true. On a purely physical level he was shown as outmatched, resorting to energy-blasts to defend himself, and it was stated outright that the Hulk was now far stronger than the one he 'matched' when severely powered-up.

The fact that you try to argue that the Hulk didn't receive help from the Warbound during his battle only shows your incredible Hulk bias. TheBalance 15:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's rich coming from you. The rundown above explicitly shows that the Surfer made two sucker-punches when the Hulk was completely unprepared/not expecting them, using a bludgeon in his hand, increasing the force of his blows, didn't manage to hurt or knock out the Hulk.

The hit caused Hulk to bleed, indicating damage. Wrong again.

As I stated right below, _beyond causing temporary pain in his jaw_. Not anything further whatsoever. He was still completely awake and not even dizzy.

beyond causing him temporary pain in the jaw, and aside from Hiroim (who was just above Captain America level at this point in time) the Warbound strictly attacked the Surfer on their own, also explicitly shown.

As Hiroim stated, if the Surfer was allowed one more pass they were all dead. This was a weakened Surfer who was unable to utilize the Power Cosmic due to the obedience slug. Take that as you will. Your bias is apparent.

Hiroim's assessment is irrelevant, as was the Surfer's that he could disintegrate Hulk when he later did his best and failed. Excepting Korg (who is Thing-level), the Warbound were pushovers at this point in time. The Brood was a spawn not a queen, Elloe had no armour, Hiroim no oldstrong power, Miek no metamorphosis. As I've always said this was a battle of strength (and using the board as a shield) alone. Hulk was just as weakened, and taken completely by surprise. Your inability to listen to reason even after I've completely crushed your every argument basically makes you one of the top 3 most blindly and zealously biased wikipedians Iäve ever had the displeasure to encounter. I.e. you're wasting my time.

The Hulk managed to knock the Surfer out with 3 rapid punches in succession, only using his fists, when the latter was prepared for them but stopped defending himself.

The Surfer was totally unprepared and in the process of thanking the Hulk for destroying the obedience slug. Wrong again.

No he wasn't. He was in the middle of a battle. That does not equal attacking somebody using a bludgeon when they are completely unprepared. Not fair but not the same. I don't see why you're even arguing this point as I've agreed dthat this issue isn't a particularly good reference.

Not a completely unprepared sucker-attack, but also not fair. So unlike yourself I'm not immune to reason or changing my mind, again showing that you're far more biased. In any case the Hulk used to start at mere Thing level when calm and currently he's stated to start considerably into the 'class 100' range, and able to increase his strength many times over, hardly the level when the Surfer could match a slightly angered 'just above the 100 range'/'equal to Hercules' version.Dave 10:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk's current "power up" is hardly relevant to the issues that played out in the past which is what was under contention.

No, what has been in contention the entire time was your assessment that the Surfer is as physically strong as the Hulk, which has been explicitly shown as ridiculous, especially given the "warrior's madness" and Onslaught affairs, but also through Defender #8. The other two instances are more uncertain. SS #125 strictly showed both of them at some point trying their best to hurt each other and failing to do so. Hulk #95 strictly showed both of them weakened. Surfer hitting Hulk with two bludgeon-enhanced sucker-punches The power-up is a fact, frequently referenced, hardly worthy of quotation-marks. That you are even unable to admit this with all the very explicit references during the entire crossover is quite extraordinary.

I suppose the constant reiteration of the Hulk's "power up" is an attempt to console yourself since it is obvious you are a rabid Hulk fan-boy.

Flash fact: My self-esteem doesn't hang on this, or approval from your typical delusions of grandeur Internet lunatic. It's a hobby. On the other hand I'm very easily provoked by your kinds sheer stupidity and in-your-face arrogance. It's a severe character flaw.

Once again, your Hulk bias shines through.

Uh-huh, that must be why I think the Surfer is far more than a match for Hulk if he doesn't just stand there idiotically exchanging punches and regular force-blasts.

I have well-founded reasons for all of my views, and have never been "rabid" in terms of reason alone. I like the character, but plenty of others as well, and have never let that get in the way. You've shown far greater bias regarding the Surfer. It shines through that when the Hulk gets ridiculously powerful moments it somehow "doesn't count" for you, i.e. the warrior's madness and Defenders issues. You have still not managed to counter any of my more important points, simply ignoring them while I consider, evaluate, accept or pick apart all of yours. Your statements of my bias are irrelevant distraction from this fact. As virtually all people who have debated me can assess, I generally change my views if I consider that the other party has a point, even if it's an unreasonable blowhard. You have consistently been unable to admit anything, simply ignoring the points and restating your feelings on the issue. Again you are incredibly arrogant, blinkered and I am apparently wasting my time on you.

The Surfer has also since had a "power up" BTW.

He has only appeared in Annihilation and FF since Planet Hulk as far as I'm aware. Was he powered-up in the former? He didn't seem more powerful when fighting the FF, but if this has been explicitly stated it will be unconditionally accepted. Dave 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest you pick up Tales to Astonish #92 - #93 for the first example of the Hulk being outclassed by the Silver Surfer. TheBalance 17:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Read it, but it's just as irrelevant as Loki being an even match in those days. He was far less powerful in those days and has shown vastly greater abilities on multiple occasions. Dave 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor issues

I've noticed this several times with some of your edits. Usually you're good to catch it, but it seems a few of your late ones got through. I think I got them, but you may want to look them over again to ensure what I put in was what you intended.

If possible, I'd advise against using that editor, or at the least see if you can find some options on it to remove the word blocking. Derekloffin 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It happened again? I thought changing my browser would take care of it. Thank you very much for the help in any case. It seems to mostly strictly block out Taro's last name. Dave 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for pulling the images on the Ranma character fighting techniques page

31 is better than the previous 53, so hopefully this will hold if scrutinized, so thanks for your understanding. If we can pull out more, even better, but additional pics shouldn't be added in. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. This works fine for me. In worst case we could modify it a bit more. Please change the parts where the layout is unsatisfactory, and if you could find somebody to help with copying and pasting references from the images that would be even better. Dave 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. As usual all mentions of Taro's last name were omitted from my last revisions. Possibly only Ryoga, but I think there was another one as well. :\ Dave 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

me]] 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editor issues

I've noticed this several times with some of your edits. Usually you're good to catch it, but it seems a few of your late ones got through. I think I got them, but you may want to look them over again to ensure what I put in was what you intended.

If possible, I'd advise against using that editor, or at the least see if you can find some options on it to remove the word blocking. Derekloffin 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It happened again? I thought changing my browser would take care of it. Thank you very much for the help in any case. It seems to mostly strictly block out Taro's last name. Dave 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for pulling the images on the Ranma character fighting techniques page

31 is better than the previous 53, so hopefully this will hold if scrutinized, so thanks for your understanding. If we can pull out more, even better, but additional pics shouldn't be added in. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. This works fine for me. In worst case we could modify it a bit more. Please change the parts where the layout is unsatisfactory, and if you could find somebody to help with copying and pasting references from the images that would be even better. Dave 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. As usual all mentions of Taro's last name were omitted from my last revisions. Possibly only Ryoga, but I think there was another one as well. :\ Dave 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranma items page

I have it in my user space, but no, it's just sitting there still. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's too bad. Have you contacted some semi-benevolent editors? Dave 17:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope; other than you, me and Derek, do you know of any other semi-regular editors who work on the Ranma pages? I wouldn't worry about the items so much as trying to improve the existing pages. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What was that girl called? Dave 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, Kudoshido. That's her handle. Sorry. Dave 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hulk (comics)

The Hulk has demonstrably, confirmably, unquestionably destroyed enormous amounts property and created enormous amounts of destruction countless times through the decades of his comic-book stories. If you believe this is not so, please call for an WP:RfC. --Tenebrae 23:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Before going that far, I've created a discussion link at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board#Ongoing discussions of interest. --Tenebrae 23:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk has gone on 4 actual rampages over the years. After being turned into a mindless state by Nightmare. After his body was left without his mind, by Doc Samson. After his mind was severely impaired by imbedded shrapnel from a grenade, and he saw it as a sacrifice to make him a target rather than allow the entire world to go to war. After he took a gamma-bomb to the face and went insane. The copy-Hulk controlled by Tyrannus also went on a rampage. Excepting this, and the villainous Gray Hulk, all the instances I recall are that somebody attacked him and he acted strictly in self-defence. The "Onslaught" event spliced his mind. In this deranged state he once "took over" an island for a few days, to signify a point to the army after they kept attacking him despite giving them a literal "line in the sand". So no, beyond the usual superhero battle property destruction while defending themselves and bystanders against attacking villains, the whole "Hulk regularly goes on unprovoked rampages" bit is basically an urban myth. If mind-control counted it would count for any hero forced to do something against his or her will. This was not the case for Superman when he took over the world, and this is not the case for anybody else.

Hulk has also repeatedly sacrificed himself to save many billions of humans or aliens over the years. Your zeal to classify him as an "anti-hero" or "villain" severely signifies that you're not matter-of-factly segmenting him between incarnations, which I modified. That you likewise simply categorised his seeking of justice for his people as revenge, likewise doesn't convey the more complex situation. So no "countless times" (math teachers these days...) only goes if you mean it in the same way as general slugfests. Dave 15:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to take a look at the talk page and article history, and to give us his take on the changes and on consensus. Thanks. --Tenebrae 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And what does this admin know about the character? Nothing? And this "consensus" has this been backed by a single actual reference rather than bland opinion that appeared after your very transparent attempt to bait for attention by misrepresenting my views above? Have I even had the chance to enter the discussion for more than an hour before you've taken the cowardly way out and not allowed me time to make my own case? Have you even been able to actually counter a single point rather than playing with words and trying to get somebody else to handle the argumentation for you? Have any of the ones you've managed to interest do so? You're certainly a very talented strategist and "I'm oh-so innocent no matter what I've actually done" actor, I've got to give you that, you'd make a "good" lawyer, but cutting to the meat of it the only thing that matters and, as always, will immediately convince me, is matter of fact references. Dave 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit of 17:57, 18 September 2007 appears to address both your and the other editors' concerns. Thank you. --Tenebrae 18:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It seemed succinct enough. It neither implies "rightness" or "wrongness", they consider him a potential threat (which he evidently is), not stating that he's regularly wantonly destructive and threatening human lives without external influence (which he evidently doesn't), and likevise not stating that he's wrong or right in what he does (personally I think they should just have presented the evidence for various courts or at least chosen a battleground outside of the city), just that he's convinced that he's in the right. In any case he apparently won't manage to go through with actually killing them, but it remains to be seen what happens. Dave 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Threading etiquette

In regard to the problem with how you responded to the multiple editors at Talk:Hulk (comics)#Destruction debate, you method screwed up three things:

1. Formatting and continuity of other editors' comments. When an editor hasn't opted for bullet points, either by writing complete paragraphs or using enumerated points, it's because they are putting forth a complete, coherent comment. Politeness would be to answer, or rebut under the complete comment. In cases where points are enumerated, it's better to reference the number or numbers in your response rather than interrupt the formatting and screw up other editors' option to respond in kind to the original comment.
2. What exactly the other editors said. By breaking up the comment, you leave latter editors the task of piecing together who said what with out being able to fully trust the signature lines.
3. What exactly is attributed to you since you didn't add a signature line to each one of your comments.

- J Greb 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to insert a signature at the end of responding to each editor, and always prefer to discuss each point one at a time. It's what me and others have done in the past as the most efficient way of "cutting to the grist", as they (to me) don't present coherency, but several separate points (or accusations) but I suppose I could try your way. It's just that it generally turns much harder to keep track of (and thus answering) all their arguments, and I prefer to address every single issue. Still if other people's minds work differently than my own in this regard, I suppose I'll have to adapt. Dave 20:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anime character articles

I was checking my list of contributions (Yeah, I do that sometimes) and saw we once talked about what it would take to make "Ryoga Hibiki" a Good article. By Quasirandom's initiative, discussion began a while ago on creating a guideline for character articles.

If you're interested in participating, go here.--Nohansen 11:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, from what I've seen we'd basically need to butcher almost everything from the articles to make them 'good', i.e. completely non-in-universe/adapted for non-entertainment articles or ones with a great social reference impact and lots of guidebooks/almost no information at all. I'd rather keep all of them B-class. It serves the readers looking for information much better. I appreciate the thought though. Dave 17:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revised FUR requiring article parameter

I've updated my uploads because I started getting the notices; I did pull many of the movie ones because they only appear that one time . Also, after I orphan my own images I tag them with {{db-author}} to indicate that it's OK for them to be speedy deleted; this way I don't get bombarded with orphaned image notices. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the FURs for only those images that had them in all the Ranma articles. The bot notices seem to affect only these for the moment. I didn't add FURs for those images without them. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify, did you handle _all_ of them (the entire battle records pages etc. All in all it would make up over a 100 images for the entire Ranma section) or just the ones with warnings (for the time). If you need it, please check Derek's page for a long list of warnings. He's uploaded almost as many as I have. Quite a lot of them may also have less 'fair use justifications', but just copying the modes for the ones I've uploaded should handle that as well. Best Wishes and thanks a lot for the help. Dave 08:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need to do better

I think you need to do some reading regarding:

1. Wikipedia policies and how to talk to other editors. You just failed at Wikipedia:Civility. Also, try and avoid non-thinking edits. You kept a sentence with wonky grammar that I just fixed. Asgardian (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh- A statement of fact about blatant censorship and view-pushing is incivility, but doing so in the first place is ok, and I should be a smarmy deceitful , i.e. say "quite frankly", or "if I may" before, and limit my logical-analytical thinking in the process. Or for that matter make disparaging comments about my intelligence and matter-of-fact editing is also considered ok, if done with a certain panache, rather than honest discussion. Got it.

As for sentence structure that's never been my aim at Wikipedia, and remarking on it is a nonsensical diversion. It's to correct factual errors, and outright lies. You see the problem with several mainstay comic book editors (but not manga ones, they're generally a nice bunch) is that according to my experience several mainstays are seemingly virtually immune to logic. I can have superior arguments and foundations for my conclusions in every respect, and it will usually be met with underhanded means and ignored rather than re-evaluation. I.e. insults, demagogue lies to gain 'support' by people who have no idea what's going on beyond what the person in question has told them, twisting rule-quotes to suit personal ends (if it's an 'unfortunate' brief fact reference to a work it can easily be countered with 'copyright infringement', if not by 'original research', cummulatively countering any Wikipedia edits whatsoever, no matter how rational.

Yes, that is exactly what I am talking about. "Outright lies" is far too emotive, accusatory etc.

I go where my logic takes me. I have extremely bad experiences with the pack mentality in this particular community. Beyond the above there is a rampant use of sockpuppets rather than standing for your own edits. But all right. You in particular haven't been a problem, unless you've used a sockpuppet I'm not aware of, and you've actually been upfront, so I apologise. It's still cherry-picking though, and the hypocricy of making backhanded, inproperly veiled insults, rather than as a consequence of matter-of-fact observation, doesn't sit well with me. Speaking of which, another example would be would be easily to slam me with a "sarcasm" if I said "you're not exactly lacking in the hypocricy department" instead, even though the statements are identical. Again, conveniently twisted around out-of-context paragraph quoting is the biggest problem with Wikipedia, since anyone can push anything if they find an appropriate clausule.

Asgardian (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2. The Marvel Universe in general. Galactus IS the balance between Death and Eternity. Just read his entry, then that of the Living Tribunal. Then go and read Fantastic Four vol. 1, #257.

Asgardian (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I read that story, and thousands of others. I've got his history pretty much memorised. As I said Galactus is the balance, not the equal. His power had to combine with Uatu's to even summon Eternity. No feat or battle he has engaged in has ever remotely indicated this. It's wishful thinking hyperbole at best. Dave (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Try Silver Surfer vol. 3, #10. Equals.

Asgardian (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Will re-check, but he has never ever been shown anywhere close to that scale, whether ranked far below in Infinity Gauntlet, battles with Mephisto, (from Stan Lee himself none the less) In-Betweener,(Englehart, much like issue 10 if I remember right, which contradicts your single dubious reference, rather than outright demonstrations) a Watcher in the "Last Galactus Story", teamed with the Stranger in "Infinity Gauntlet", consistently described on a scale of power with the Watchers, Odin and the Stranger, and the Celestials being higher in Gruenwald's official OHOTMU, beaten by Tenebrous and Aegis in the same "Annihilation" arc you brought the quote from (which I didn't censor), stood up to by regular Thanos, fought on an even level by original Tyrant, easily taken out and then fully repowered by Gravity, or referring to Eternity as father (which is the way I understood Thor#168-169 as well) and not even being able to summon him by himself, he's never ever shown remotely that level, while Eternity, Infinity, Oblivion, and Death are consistently stated as having practically unlimited power, with certain M-bodies more easily handled... then again that is an aber. Dormammu killing him would actually place him at Galactus level if not using the "M-bodies only have as much power as they manage to synch up" failsafe...

In any case, he's a quasi-physical tip-of-the-scales, while they are wholly conceptual and by nature higher-dimensional/levels of infinity above anything, and you can't limit the evaluation to two cherry-picked instances, when the actual power-demonstrations, and larger amount point in the direction that he's one among several, rather than a single character comment that he's "the most powerful in the universe". That's just an in-universe opinion, much like "Sentry has the power of a million suns", not demonstrated fact. Dave (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought I'd bring this to your attention

There's an editor named TTN who has been going around merging standalone fictional character articles into the list of x characters for the series that these characters belong to on the grounds that they don't meet the notability guidelines or cite enough real world information as per WP:FICT to stand on their own. He's also redirecting individual episode articles to the list of x series episodes, although this doesn't really affect the Ranma articles. This was first brought to my attention here. He hasn't touched any of the Ranma ones yet, but he did merge a whole lot of the Urusei Yatsura characters back into the larger list. This pattern of editing has been brought to the Arbitration Committee which accepted the case but hasn't made a ruling yet. Nonetheless I think it would be worthwhile to start digging up secondary sources for the Ranma characters online, in print, or on DVD commentaries say, to get enough real world info into the articles so that they can pass scrutiny, as TTN is still proceeding with his merges or otherwise questioning the notability of these types of articles. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be really awful, but I'm not sure how to do this in regards to specific characters. I did in fact go through, and add the available cited information from, all the available Takahashi interviews, as well as the Memorial book, which is as much as I know of. I don't see his rationale, as there is usually a definite limit to how much one can dig up from these in regards to fiction. As long as the article accurately and neutrally cites from the appearances of the characters there should be no reason to merge them together for no good reason. 'Space-consuming' would be a pretty irrelevant issue after all. The more accurately informative for those interested in the work the better. A better option would be to categorically create initial real-world referenced head pages for those simply interested in this aspect. The interest itself shows the great appreciation dozens of millions of visitors have for the more extensive variants. Why such a need to completely exterminate this feature, beloved by so many, even if it may not be a personal cup of tea, rather than restructure, or prohibit an GA or A rating? By extension, should all B-level articles be destroyed? At the very least individual pages for the most noteable beloved characters, frequently in works viewed in many millions of copies, should be allowed to remain. Dave (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be hard for me to condense the whys and hows of what TTN's been doing, as the record is already long, so it's better to read for yourself to get an idea of what's fully involved. I've proposed the creation of a Ranma Wikia on the Ranma ½ talk page as a counterpart repository of info that is currently here. Derek has already put in his thoughts. I may shop the idea around to the other big Takahashi projects, InuYasha, Urusei Yatsura, and Maison Ikkoku for a combined Takahashi Wikia as there should be enough contributors from all 4 of these series to warrant a Wikia creation and continued maintenance. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, based on the Talk page, there exists very widespread, well-worded objection on the subject, definitely not consensus. We should look into the option of compressing all the used real-world references into a co-existing page, to provide both options. Dave (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One-Above-All

Hi David! I've been following your contributions on One-Above-All, and I'd like to talk to you about the recent section you created, called "greater powers". You state there the possibility of powers even greater than One-Above-All's. However, look what Marvel:The End says about this:

“

However, contact with the Heart of the Universe allows Thanos to learn that, due to a fundamental flaw, the universe is doomed to end very soon, and that this flaw could not be corrected even by the power of the Heart of the Universe. (...) Ultimately, Thanos learns that the only way for him to repair the flaw in the universe would be to destroy the universe and re-construct it. He is finally driven to mindless rage by the attempt of the cosmic powers to usurp his reign, and decides in one fateful, final moment to absorb the entirety of the universe back into himself, so that none might ever again threaten his reign. Thanos is thus able to use the Heart's power to absorb the cosmic beings into himself - and, in doing so, he absorbs the entire universe. The cosmic hero Adam Warlock, who was outside space-time continuum when Thanos absorbed the universe, appeared to Thanos and explained to him what had transpired. Adam convinced Thanos to sacrifice himself to restore the universe. Thanos speculated that the whole scenario had been a set-up from the beginning by a far greater power (implied to be the "God" of the Marvel universe) to fix the universal flaw. Thus, Thanos had himself been manipulated and possibly even guided.

”

This evidently shows that the heart of the universe is not a greater power than One-Above-All's, to the contrary. I dont know what Avengers Infinity says about this, but I think you should at least rewrite the reference to Marvel:The End, to correctly address the (supposed) power relationship between One-Above-All and the Heart of the Universe. Best regards, Waldir ^talk 16:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the entire "One-Above-All" scenario is that there are different versions out there. The Infinity Gauntlet 'original' one being that the One-Above-All committed suicide, and Living Tribunal apparently took over his position. By this reasoning something far greater than the Gauntlet and the Tribunal should rate higher than this entity. With this other unknown entity manipulating Thanos likevise rating above, making the entire concept moot in the essence of being an 'ultimate ultimate power' rather than simply the creator/God of the Marvel multiverse. My problem with the article is that it doesn't address this dichotomy, rather than stating an absolute structure (based on selective information) where none is to be found.

I've read Avengers Infinity and nothing indicates they would be more powerful than One-Above-All. As far as I know, several entities can exist outside the universes, create and destroy them, and manipulate objects at a galactic/cosmic scale, without being considered more powerful than One-Above-All. Besides, this page classifies them 4 levels of power under One-Above-All. For all this, I think that section can be renamed, rewritten or even deleted. Waldir ^talk 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is comcvine official word from Tom Brevoort/Marvel itself or just fan interpretations? I may have worded this inappropriately, but the 'problem' here is that there have been shifting mentions to the One-Above-All. If I remember correctly the Infinites state that they are greater than any to them 'finite' entities like Eternity, i.e. they're higher-dimensional than 'he' is. This would rate them above the Gauntlet (and Tribunal) which at one point was referred to as the One-Above-All. This is the essence here. Not whether they are greater than the entity hinted at in MU: The End, which is up to speculation. Just that the page tries to present a 'necessary' case of a single referred entity (which is entirely possible), rather than the few discrepancies surrounding the issue as is. This should be mentioned in some manner. I sometimes word things in a slightly incomprehensible manner, so I hope you've understood my point. Othervise I'm happy to explain further. I have no problem whatsoever with you rewording/reformatting it.

Well while not saying so explicitly, in the manner of direct comparison, they are supposedly higher-dimensional entities scales of Infinity (i.e. it's Mr. Mxyzptlk vs. Superman, to make a semi-humorous comparison) beyond Eternity, and given that the latter was at the very least able to 'slow the Gauntlet down' in the challenge department, and the Living Tribunal was at best slightly more powerful than the Gauntlet, neither rates scales of Infinity above. Just because there was no direct comparison doesn't invalidate that these entities are, by exclusion of possibilities, at least an order of omnipotence above the Gauntlet/Tribunal in terms of raw power. (Being higher dimensional doesn't necessarily mean that you can necessarily use it for anything fancy, just that you are infinite to lower entities). That said the entity Thanos referred to may likewise be higher, but this was apparently not the One-Above-All/'Infinity Gem Being' referred to as the former master of Eternity at some point if I don't misremember. At the very least these discrepancies should remain as mentions in some form. Dave (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Do as you think is best. I confess I know very little about the Marvel universe, most of what I know came from wikipedia itself, since I've read very few of the comics. I made that remark because to the extent of what I know, that reasoning didn't make perfect sense to me. Now with your explanation, it is clearer, though I must agree that the issue is still somewhat blurred because of the lack of details. I just want to note some passages from Infinity Gems:

“

Discovering the true potential of the gems, Thanos explains to the Runner that the gems are actually the remains of a once omnipotent but lonely being. Attempts to create other life forms failed as the creations had no concept of good or evil and devolved into beasts. Realizing its error, the being destroyed the flawed creations and committed suicide, being unable to endure eternity alone. A fraction of this being remained, however, and became the Infinity Gems.

”

“

The god Loki enter the Ultraverse and recollects the gems. He discovers the existence of a seventh gem - Ego -, and that all seven were originally extracted from the consciousness of a cosmic being known as Nemesis. The Ego gem, possessing the Eternal Sersi, merges with the other gems to reform Nemesis

”

Doesn't this exclude One Above All as the origin of the gems? I know that the seventh gem plotline was developed after the "original" version of the Infinity Gauntlet, but then again, Thanos never mentioned One Above All directly, did he? Besides, what would his name mean anyway, if he wasn't the one above ALL? :) Waldir ^talk 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know anything about Ultraverse and Nemesis, so possible retcons in that regard are unknown to me. Thanos and Mephisto did refer to it as the previous 'Supreme Being' when conversing in Silver Surfer (#45 I believe), and I think Adam Warlock (Warlock and the Infinity Watch #1) conversed with Eternity and the Tribunal referring to this previous master of reality. However, that bit is a bit muddy in memory. Do whatever you find best. It’s not like this is actual error-correction, or undeniable explicit fact addition on my part, just insertion of notable oddities, since I don't see a solid coherence, rather than various writers doing whatever they feel like. Saying that they seem above the Gauntlet and the Tribunal is probably sufficient as food for individual thought.

Also, what about this? http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/slsur1.htm :s I'm getting confused... Waldir ^talk 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Haven't the time right now. Must go to bed. Will check later.

btw, there's no article on them, apparently. Perhaps an entry in Soul Survivor (disambiguation) would be good for a start... Waldir ^talk 19:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm up for starting pages right now. Will check later. Dave (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Btw: I just ended up with troubles with a particularly unpleasant editor going by the moniker Manssierre regarding various semi-connected Marvel entries, where he either cherry-picks irrational references, wildly speculates, or censors matter-of-fact references, while stating that my long list of points "isn't worthy of replying to" in the Talk, with the obligatory additional pompous sidestep insults, to give a hollow appearance of knowing what he's talking about, and summarily edit-wars away, to push extremely debatable personal views, regardless if I've made a non-countered case ending up with a compromise previously, and he doesn't bother at all. Thorough solid reasoning usually doesn't work on these guys. I've really tried, and thought compromises had been reached, but end up with unfounded categorical censorship anyway, which admittedly regrettably made me annoyed enough to reflect in my replies. My tolerance quotient has lowered after encountering his very taxing kind a couple of times in these circles, and I don't have much remaining energy/interest/attention-span reserved for them, so they'll outlast me, censor away, and push a rabid exaggeration eventually. Logic and discussion doesn't work. In any case, given your interest, some help would be very appreciated. Thanks.

There is even some possibility that he's a sock-puppet for one of them, given his very similar tone of speech, and here mismatched choice of insult words. (Basically 'The most POV, fannish, misrepresented, unreadable speculation text I have ever seen, anywhere on Wikipedia! In truth! You are a retarded illiterate degenerate, who cannot possibly write encyclopaedic entries! Go away and die!' This for changing a sentence from unfounded extreme hyperbole, respectively striking out some wild speculation, alternately adding two matter-of-fact references to very much fannish and unencyclopaedic entries?) As well as his non-existent user space, very limited Talk, and sudden rabid assault on several pages at once, after being 'inactive' for some time, and that the person in question has posted on his discussion page to gain (/'legitimising'?) assistance in the past, with a somewhat suspect track record towards myself. Hmm... Then again, it's more likely that they just have similar personalities, and have kept track of each other's activities. Dave (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest creating a WP:SSP report (like I did for Peter Vogel here), or you could request a checkuser if you decide not to take it to WP:AN/I. I'll back you up, sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, although while the Jjonz/Darrel37 case seems very suspicious, and he has similarly used multiple IPs to make the edits, the user referenced above simply has similar speech-, backhanded "If I may say so... you're a despicable piece of excrement" insults, and pompous personality-patterns. I'm not sure if it's just paranoia on my part, and he seems to have backed off. Being disproven is fully all right, but I always get into a mixture of intense confusion and gradual annoyance, whenever Wikipedia seems enforced on principles of gang-up censoring and out-there point-pushing, rather than matter-of-fact reasoning with the most solid case prevalent. So I'm generally at a bit of a loss to handle these things, vainly trying to use increasing amounts of references, but being ignored, censored, and insulted. I'm a bit short on time, given being mixed up in this kind of situation, and have made another attempt to solve it through matter of fact discussion, but I'll consider it. Your help is very appreciated in any case. I didn't know that it was possible to use an IP-comparison service, so that's very useful information, but shouldn't it be weak against people who use different IPs each time, like Darrel? Dave (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm back Baby Boy!!!!

Hey Baby Boy, did you miss me???--JJonzclone2.0 (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

David, would you happen to personally know this user, JJonzclone2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The person seems to have a grudge against you. Regardless, I've reverted all of the user's disruptive edits and gave a warning. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no personal relation. He's just an obsessive lunatic stalker who needs attention any way he can get it, and seems to latch on to certain users. He's used over 30-40 sockpuppets in some personal vendetta for over half a year, since he doesn't like that he can't deliberately lie and vandalise on Wikipedia, and blames some of it on me. To paraphrase another editor just before perm-banning one of them. "Trolling, lying, and vandalising are the only things he does on Wikipedia." Alternately, he's a vast series of socks used for a more 'respectable' identity, to push POV lies and behave like an idiot in ways the person in question cannot 'officially'. Either way, he's mostly harmless, and kind of funny. It's very hard to take him seriously. Maybe he got mad because less boisterous vandal-socks like Darrel37 didn't work out? Oh well. If the IP-detect service used above can actually perm-ban his computer from accessing Wikipedia that might be an idea. As he frothingly 'screamed' on various occasions, he's actually unbalanced and fanatic enough to keep this up forever just to 'avenge' himself. I even heard that he made threats towards another editor. Dave (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'll be back!! Again and again!!

Oh Baby boy, you wound me. You're calling me "obssessive" about you?? Well, of course I am, your my buddy, my pal, my bestest friend in the whole world. Where would you be without me?? Well, catch you later, bud!!--JJonzclone33-3 (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you're a stalker, with all the requisited mental illnesses, on top of the delusion that you're Lobo's younger brother, and using multiple scream points in every post. You're not even annoying, just repetitive and pathetic. At least you haven't stolen my underwear yet. Who are you fronting for anyway? In any case, start doing balanced, sourced, non-vandalising or POV speculation edits, like most other users, and you'll stop getting them reverted, or wasting both of our times. You're nothing to me or User:Gscshoyru‎, or anyone else you've latched on to, and desperately trying to be a nuisance, or behaving like an idiot won't change that. Whee! You got my attention by reverting 20 edits! How cool. That must make you important... Seriously now, even you must realise that this is ridiculous. Dave (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excess fair use image in Ranma character articles

This was raised on the WP:Anime and on the main Ranma talk page. I agree that we have to cut down on the images, but have been waiting for you to chip in to the discussion before removing any of your uploads, since a lot of the uploads are yours. Derek has signed on to the idea. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been away for a while but will chip in. While cutting down on the images seems ok, one displaying the character in the manga and one in the anime should be a minimum, and the ones showcasing a described event or similar should be kept as well. Dave (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The adding/readding images back and forth in character articles may be seen as edit warring on both sides, so be careful. I would hold off given that there's a dispute between what to include and what to exclude. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But what am I supposed to do? I _have_ been extremely compromising and taken the time to check through which images to keep and which to remove. I have cut them down to half. Why is this seen as unreasonable? I went the middle path, yet he won't relent 1 inch. What am I supposed to do? Just let him destroy this entire section because he feels like it? It's so very easy for someone to go in from outside and make sweeping destruction, but it took 100x more time to make an effort in improving it as much as possible in the first place, and yet I am still the one willing to compromise, while he isn't. Why is that? Dave (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All I can really say is bring your concerns and arguments in support of image retention to the main talk page. The point was originally raised here on the project talk page. There has been a trend towards reducing fair use images in character articles and especially in lists. I've also had many images removed and deleted because of this trend. I've had to accept that as that as a reflection of how consensus has been moving in regards to fair use images. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've now written a small entry. I would greatly appreciate if you could pitch in to help me out. Dave (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how much help I'd be, as you may have noticed that my position has shifted re. image use. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if you could just back me up regarding that we don't have to delete everything except the top header, and can keep the strength/speed/durability illustration (but take away redundant ones. The one with Shampoo and Kiima may be unnecessary for example). It would be very depressing and stale if eveything was categorically deleted. Dave (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ranma pages

I'm currently going through the character articles, doing updates, and pondered: are all classified as martial artists in the series? Think the category should only be placed here if this is so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosunkugi, Kasumi, Nabiki, the Jusenkyo Guide, Tsubasa, Rouge, Akari, and technically Hinako, aren't martial artists, and plenty of the minor characters aren't as well, but you could always create a [:Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters|sub-category]] if you'd like.

Btw: Given that you're likely more well-versed in the extremely self-conflicting Wikipedia regulations than myself, do you know of a 'shortcut' to be able to showcase images of some of the minor characters? They're currently in list form, and thus a few recurring, or othervise semi-important, characters don't get any image at all. Despite being a visual medium it sort of got swept under a collective indiscriminate banner-regulation in that regard, but my experience here is that there are rules to justify or ban nearly anything somebody feels like if you really try to dig it up, or form a 5-man committée to drive an agenda, so there should logically be a loophole available somewhere. Dave (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You lost me after replying to my concern. Yes, it makes sense to have a Category:Ranma ½ superhuman characters, however, what categories would go in there that would apply for all superhumans? As for your other thoughts, think you want something like Category:Dragon Ball images? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not expressing myself clearer. I meant that the semi-minor characters are currently kept in lists, and as such go under the "no images used in lists" banner, but this greatly diminishes the pages. It's a visual medium after all. However, my experience is that there are usually conflicting rules, so if you know of, or hear of a loophole, that would be great.

Regarding the Ranma sub-category, it would probably better to call it "Superhuman martial artists" or something like that. It's a 'semi-cartoony' series after all, so even supposedly non-superhumans tend to be able to withstand more damage than they should. Dave (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you're interested, there is a discussion going on here regarding the gallery of pics for minour Sailor Moon characters. Think Category:Ranma ½ superhuman characters will do for now (if someone comes up with a better name, there's always {{cfr}}). Since you know more about the franchise than I, would you do the honours in creating the cat.? I'll give you a hand with other details if necessary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now created the requested category. Please feel free to start inserting tags at the end of appropriate character pages. I have to stop in a few minutes. Dave (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations for Powers and abilities of the Hulk

It's really only this section which need them. I have no idea how to get these verified so, hopefully, you have reliable sources? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that part of the text, and have no idea where that particular information is taken from. I just didn't want to be rude and cut it out, as it sort of fits with some vague memories. Basically, it's probably 'true', but I'm still waiting for someone to fill in the sources. Dave (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's probably refers to the Hulk movie, though I don't recall any particular events because it was one of the most boring movies I've seen. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Was I correct in doing this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. The misunderstanding stems from an extremely old handbook entry, but 1000 miles was stated outright in the referred book. Dave (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had a thought, we could reference that too. Say something like an extremely old handbook entry gives 3 to 4 miles.^<ref></ref> What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah. The handbooks almost always downplayed the established power-level of this particular character. The Hulk character nearly jumped into orbit before these were released, he has always withstood the 1000000 Fahrenheit nova-blasts of the Human Torch, and even at weakest saying that he could 'only' lift 100 tonnes is pretty ridiculous, given regular displays. The ratings were always a joke in that respect, but useful for official definitions and relative comparisons between the characters. Dave (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello DavidA, are you O.K. today???

I just wanted to check in with Baby boy today and see how you are doing. It's been a while since I last spoke with you, I stay very busy with my other personas that I have created here in Wikipedia. By the way, one of them you know very well, but I'm sure you don't even suspect who I really am. Here's a hint, I've been an administrator for over three years now. Well, got to go now, see you later sweet pea!!!--JasonJonjonzz (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically speaking the original JJonz has a too low IQ, and too manic-compulsive, plain obsessed, metally ill, and generally retarded behaviour to fit with most people I've had some form of disagreement with. While occasionally severely pompous, I sincerely doubt Thuran or Tenebrae would even consider debasing themselves to this level of ignorant fanatic vendetta, and generally half-baked edits for example, or at least the personas they choose to outwardly present, even if the intents initially overlapped, but yes, you have left a couple of tracks when making inconsidered edits in the past on pages of coinciding interest with a select choice of users, even a couple of IPs, and it is not impossible that a few other fanatic deliberate serial-liars have joined the train, since setting up an "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YoJonzieboyYoMama123456789!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" identity is an automatic acquittal, as everything is put under the banner/fault of the 'original'.

Administrators cannot acquire, much less maintain, their functions without an at least semi-serious disposition and grasp of grammar, logic, context, and/or non-chaotic mindset. None of which you have ever demonstrated in the slightest in any of your edits of interest, unless it's simply an "Hey, I'm an insane, evil, slimy little turd, and have discovered that the administrators won't ever bother to track, identify, and block my access. Muhahaha, the power, the power! Aren't I neat?" deal. You are simply far too crude, inane, childish, bratty, and attention-whore-y to fit. That level of, and commitment to a two-faced charade would take a severely disturbed individual to enjoy. Now admittedly, the glove fits yourself, but pompous most definitely does not equal insane for the rest. Keeping 1-2 'bitchy back-up' personas seems to be pretty common in the American comics 'community', and is pretty hard to overlook for a few users enforcing exactly the same type of edits/agenda, and thinking exactly the same way. Someone with even a minimum of observation prowess can notice that, but you? Nah, way too conspicious, tiresome, and over-the-top, beyond temporary 1-shot pettiness. That you would even try to imply anything in this line is the best indictation that this is not the case, and that you are simply another one of the standardised base pack-liars which I tend to grow bored with very quickly. Now go play with someone else. There's a whole wide world of damp-affected 5-year-old kindergarten brats around. Dave (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

David, I don't see why you bother responding to this troll. Ask for temporary page protection if it keeps going on or, ATPIT, revert, block, and ignore. Also, this user, along with the main account, have been blocked indefinitely. (Yay!) In any event, could we get this dealt with? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Naivete I suppose. I always have a hard time grasping that some people cannot be reasoned with no matter what. Additionally he currently believes himself on some 'brilliant' scheme to trick me into chasing ghosts, which had to be addressed. That said, half of the American comic book character pages truly do seem to be run by extremely deliberate liars, with multiple sockpuppets, rendering Wikipedia useless and completely unreliable except as their personal 'propaganda' tools. (No the above-mentioned two are not in this category, I simply found them offensive.) The problem with JJonz is that blocking single users is ridiculous. He's got over 60 separate identities. What's needed is someone who goes through them all, checks the IPs, and edits, identifies him as an individual, block Wikipedia from displaying at his home account, and send him a legal document expressedly forbidding him from continuing, or charges will be brought against him. It has been extensively proven that nothing less will do. He's one of the most fanatic sockpuppet-overkill vandals Wikipedia has ever had.

I'm extremely short on time these days, and have lost much of my interest for Wikipedia, partially due to loosing faith in it, since a sea of lies to ridiculous extremes can easily be enforced by 3-4 guys and their socks, but also since I don't really see it as worth the effort/not fun anymore. I've been busy uploading and editing images, and am going to bed soon, so I'm afraid that I don't believe I can set up a new section today. I'll check it up the next time I'm around (which could take a week) User:BrokenSphere is usually a very helpful fellow though, so maybe he can help out in the meantime? Dave (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you plan to retire? Also, concerning User:BrokenSphere, is he familiar with Ranma ½ enough to help me sort out the categories? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly plan as such, more like that I don't have so much energy and interest, and see my personal semi-compulsive prerogative to delete or mediate outright lies as mostly a vain struggle. I'm trying to tie up my 'commitments', and then we'll see what happens. Never mind about Sphere, he's very knowledgeable about Ranma, but has got enough on his plate without me giving him extra trouble. I'll create an initial frame for the category myself, but am somewhat hesitant to enter unfamiliar territory. Do you have any comments about what you'd prefer it to be like? Dave (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Use Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters as a basis and see how it goes from there. I'm unsure of what the description should be so improvise if you must. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belated barnstar thanks

It's a few days back now, but thanks very much for the barnstar (I seem to have a nice set going ... have not won the same one twice). I suppose it's for standing firm against JJonz, enough to put me on his shitlist with you, but I'd like to imagine it was for that day a couple of weeks back where I blocked about 44 accounts within an hour (all but two for vandalism) because nobody else at the time was monitoring AIV. I wonder if that's a record? (Probably not, I'll bet). Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome for the barnstar. It's not much, but at least I'm trying to be polite, and as you noted you've been active in considerably more ways than this.

The problem with JJonz is that he continues to create new cover identities, which makes all bans pointless, so identifying him as a person, or blocking his ips from accessing the lexicon in the first place seems necessary. While a habitual liar in all things, he has also claimed that he is a 3-year administrator of Wikipedia, from Texas (I'm sure his fellow Texans are overjoyed that he's acting like bad stereotypes) and a 10-year graduate of communications from one of his home state universities, i.e. supposedly able to emulate various patterns of speech/writing/general trolling, although he failed quite horribly in this regard in previous instances. Other Wikipedians had identified some of his pseudonyms as aliases for 'Peeweehurman', so he at least isn't limited to being active in the 'JJonz' areas, and given the rather simple and petty nature in the early edits of his oldest known identities 'CrystarB4' and 'JJonz' this puts the 'administrator' claim in severe doubt, and I don't have much energy for bothering with him myself, but still, it may be of general interest to check it up. It's not good for the standards of the lexicon as a whole to allow the lunatics to run the asylum. Dave (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The word "magic" in the category

Should it have been [[Magic (paranormal)|magic]] and not [[Magic (fantasy)|magic]]? And I left an inquiry over here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The pure fantasy-connected probably. It's just silly fun&games adventure, not systematically structured 'real-world' connected occultism. Dave (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So it's fine? And of the Hulk response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably fine. I previously didn't notice the other comment. Sorry. Dave (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent vandalism

I reverted a flurry of unconstructive edits on Powers and abilities of the Hulk soon as it popped up on my watchlist. You do have this page watchlisted, do you not? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, but I visit Wikipedia more sparsely nowadays. Dave (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm content that some of the more superfluous images were taken off, but can you replace that image in #Strength with a clearer one? I can't tell that he's lifting a mountain, as the caption suggests. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the "Hulk" query? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I didn't see it amongst the 'deleted image' warnings. In any case, that's the best one available. An immense mountain range is shown hovering in the air, it is estimated as larger than the Himalayas by a character, and then drops. Later the characters are shown in a cave at the bottom, with the mountain supported by the Hulk. The cover, with a text blurb included, is actually the best image available, as far as I'm aware. Dave (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanos and telepathy

Thanos doesn't have it, but I'm sure he can talk to people's minds. Kind of like the Surfer doesn't have TELEPATHY, but he can still communicate across vast distances with his...mind I guess. Loki has done it as well. I'd say Thanos has some kinda mental power and TP resistance, but he's not a fullblown telepath. DCincarnate (talk)

No, it was clearly shown that he needed Moondragon for telepathic skills, and that instance was written by Starlin, his creator (well, technically he started out as a hollow Darkseid rip-off, but I digress). On the other hand his mind is strong enough to reactively engage Moondragon on even footing, but that kind of thing doesn't make the Hulk a telepath either. You can't insert powers he hasn't demonstrated. Psychic powers implies a wide spectra. As for the Surfer he does have some telepathic ability, such as scanning memories for information and similar. Dave (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Powers and abilities of the Hulk

I don't think they're socks but look at what the page was reduced to. Kinda bad copy-editing all around, especially on the refs. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they may be socks of User:Asgardian, but most likely not. He tends to use deliberately misleading information, combined with extremely suspicious justifications that routinely contradict each other from page to page, depending on whichever view he prefers to push, combined with simultaneous faux-polite cover-up language, and using socks whenever he risks getting too much attention, or is temp-banned from edit-warring. User:TheJaff seems more reasonable, so he is either a new user, or a sock of a semi-reasonable editor who prefers to keep the context/pattern of previous association hushed down. Dave (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I checked User:Doppelganger3.1, and, beyond the deliberate handle, he edits exactly the same way as Asgardian would. I added a "suspected sockpuppet" tag, along with one for JJonz to be on the safe side. It wouldn't be the first time he tried to use misdirection. Dave (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you again. So have you alerted User:Daniel Case? He should get the socks banned ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is no conclusive proof that it's a sock, beyond that it edits/revert-vandalises exactly the same way Asgardian consistently does in the Thanos page, and shares his views on Hulk/Hercules/Thor, or possibly JJonz sticking to being a low-key nuisance, since he thinks it's more funny to use subterfuge, but if Daniel is an IP-checker I suppose it could be an idea. Dave (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I blocked Doppelganger as a specific sock. Any others, let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. Do you have the means to IP-check 'him'? (To get some clarity in whoever is using the sock, as an unidentified puppet-master will effortlessly continue to gather new ones, while retaining a facade) Is there a reference-list with all IPs to check more easily, or must each one be painstakingly compared one-by-one? Dave (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Some wonderful assumptions here...

Asgardian (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been confirmed as using sockpuppets in the past, have employed contradictory arguments you can to rationalise pseudo-vandalism edits, and the Thanos edit was identical, so yes, it seemed like a very justified conclusion. Then again, it may just be JJonz again. Dave (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In order - no, a clever hacker; your opinion and remember what is said about people in glass houses and finally, less venom. A tad too obsessed about small edits that fixate on match-ups...

Asgardian (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've tried to be consistent and reasonable, and never ever used multiple identities on Wikipedia. Although I've accidentally edited when automatically logged off a couple of times, including just earlier, but always made a note of it. You've used match-ups when it suits you, and generally twisted into something highly unreliable. Dave (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Actually", some of your edits are obsessive, and smack of that "highly unreliable". I also suggest you keep your six-guns in your holsters and stop making accusations of sockpuppetry and call others edits "lies and vandalism". A lot of what you keep trying to insert into the Thanos article is sub-par.

No it isn't. It's completely accurate to avoid a wording that creates an inaccurate picture of what was very explicitly displayed. I went through all the arguments with MobbOne, and you keep ignoring them. Dave (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As you have been told, the Wiki-way is to avoid POV, hence no theatrical phrases or nebulous terms. Just relate the gist, without trying to showcase one character at the expense of another. It should also be obvious by now that a P & A is just that - a small piece of prose that relates what the character can do. No terms such as "vast" or odd statements about how X can survive Y's attacks because of Z. Just state what they can do. It makes for easier reading. Yes, Thanos' tech also allows for force field projection. It doesn't require unnecessary exposition.

So, when the text is altered again, please try and understand why. Asgardian (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Relate the gist" such as stating in such as way as it appears Thanos knocked out the Fallen One in personal combat, when this didn't happen, and he simply outsmarted it to knock out itself? When you deliberately edit out the explicitly stated facts that this was only a small part of Hunger and that Galactus was not evenly matched with it, in fact it was much more conclusively stated that Galactus was completely outmatched against it, than Thanos vs. Galactus, which you naturally choose to keep, and so on. Again, I'm completely reasonable to solid _logical_ _arguments_ (not rationalising weasel-rhetoric), as is MobbOne, usually. You have none whatsoever, and keep ignoring the other side with vague outright lies of POV, when what is stated are direct citations, and simply keep vandalising the same way to deliberately push a false version of events. Your complete inability to offer solid explanations, and absolute willingness to use lies to justify the same edits over and over again, has convinced me that I sincerely cannot assume good intentions from you. It's apparently all false play-acting to attempt to present a polite facade while doing something else entirely. You've claimed "photographic memory"? Well, I don't, I simply have a knack for remembering minutiae, but either you are mistaken, since books I look up to verify repeatedly directly contradict you, or that's another lie.

The "subpar" rationalisation is irrelevant, as rephrasing existing factually accurate sentences isn't your goal, just to revert to complete insidious misrepresentation. How is "vast" a bad wording, but you "superior" (to what?) acceptable? "Vast" is accurate, as is examples of the extent of an ability, which you and everybody else routinely use anywhere else whenever possible, and are right in doing so as it is more informative, but you cannot cherry-pick exclude or include whenever you feel like it. Dave (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So there's no POV in your edits? Ever? You certainly seem to have a view. The essay on the Galactus Talk Page confirms as much. As for being "irrelevant", if you can't see the flaws in your effort in Thanos' P & A, then you truly do have an agenda. In fact, you seem to take great offence whenever anyone disputes your edits on the cosmic characters. And no, "vast" was yanked some time ago. Too nebulous and cannot be quantified. "Superhuman", "superior" and so on are better.

I do in fact have an agenda yes. It's to remove any and all deliberate lies, or mistaken assumptions that I can find. I seriously can't stand them. I'm severely manic-compulsive on that point. If you mean POV in the sense, am I a robot with no personality, then yes I obviously have, as do everyone else, but unlike yourself I do continuously attempt to stick to explicit facts and not censor out any inconvenient details, and do reconsider if someone presents me with a solid, and factually accurate case. Given all of your combined devious behaviour it's hard to simply take your word for that some 'hacker' was responsible for your sockpuppet. Dave (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - "insidious misrepresentation"...heh. How old are you? Asgardian (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice try for an irrelevant diversion while offering no specific arguments whatsoever for the Thanos case, but yes, that is exactly your apparent modus operandi, as you do consistently edit or censor in such a way that the reader will draw inaccurate conclusions about what's been explicitly shown, while assuming some standardised vague 'POV' catch-all rationalisation without any specific arguments whatsoever pertaining to the case backing it up. I have successfully defended nearly all of my Thanos or Galactus edits with quoted text. You have not. In fact, much of the old Power Cosmic and Galactus stuff in particular was very obviously thin air, or outright lies, and that's my problem with your 'cosmic' section. It was more smattered with lies than any comics-related sub-group I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The pages I have followed have turned much more neutral and matter-of-fact than when I started however. Dave (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article qualifier?

I'd like to nominate Powers and abilities of the Hulk for a good article review but was wondering if you'd like to add in anything else before I do so. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That kind of thing will just make various editors put demands on me to devote several days of my time to put it up to their standards, and I've mostly lost interest with Wikipedia to start with. At worst it will give someone with a grudge against the page a chance to push that it should be deleted. It's the most frquent loopholes in Wikipedia society. Calculated gang-up lies, manipulation, and conveniently (mis)quoted tangled bureaucracy. Dave (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you thought about the benefits? There aren't many comic-related pages rated as good articles, and I think this one has potential. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone else wants to handle it maybe, although it's almost certain to attract people who take a chance to censor or even delete it, but I'm definitely completely sick of editing Wikipedia. For every good person like yourself, there are 2-3 complete slimeballs. Not very rewarding for those who try to stick to facts and straightforward logic, rather than convenient manipulation, and I'm not getting paid for this. Dave (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw: Is there any chance that you could check over [[2]] page. I seem to suffer from a gang-up, and I'm too bored from same-old, same-old, and not really caring, to invest myself too much. Dave (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your link is broken, but I'm sure you meant Talk:Galactus. What's the gang-up there exactly? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I started going over the cosmic section, I found lots of thin air Galactus hyperbole references all over the place. Literally 'Galactus is the most important cosmic entity'. 'Galactus is more powerful than universe-creators/-destroyers like cosmic cubes', 'he is the living incarnation of the 'power cosmic' (which he uses) and it is the most powerful force in the universe', 'he is not just the balance of Eternity and Death, he is their equal', 'he is a third of the Living Tribunal' (the most powerful of all Marvel's cosmic entities) and so on, especially wording everything in such a manner that it would be misread from what actually happened in the cited (or uncited) issues. It turned downright embarrassing, and I got nervous ticks from it, as virtually none of it had a solid foundation. It's like those annoying "virtually unlimited strength" edits people keep inserting into the Hulk page, but taken to even greater extremes.

Currently I've cleaned up much of the pages I've discovered, so it's sort of 'ok', but there seemed to be another lashout while I was gone from Wikipedia last time. No as unmanageable yet as I thought though. The last time it turned nasty, everyone ganged up to undo my edits regardless if I had a winning point in the Talk or not, and either ignored or insulted me, so I got bored and went away. After fixing the Apocalypse page, and a few others, I started to get interested in the cosmic section again, completely rewrote the horrible cosmic entities page, and gradually strated to get drawn back to Galactus, after first doing some larger ones at Thanos, I did a few minor edits there, and eventually got a Talk reaction. We'll see if I need some overview or if they are sensible or unreasonable. Dave (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Galactus will probably work out, as it's basically a case of semantics. [Thanos] on the other hand keeps being hounded with the same censor-edits over and over, which give a highly misleading picture of what was explicitly stated to happen within the comics. Everything censored is completely matter-of-fact as far as I'm aware, as opposed to the serial-restored (no compromises whatsoever acceptable apparently) misleading version. Help would be very appreciated. Dave (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I really wish I could help you, but the only comics I read is manga. Have you ever tried requesting protection or leaving a note on WT:COMIC about the content dispute? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a thought, although I tend to be too lazy to read up on bureaucratic procedures. Dave (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I only have little time right now, but I'll check whether or not I've already done a Talk 'point-by-point' argument or not at the Thanos page first. I'll hopefully insert one in a few days othervise. If Asgardian and 'TheBalance' (someone who apparently is so biased that he named himself after a very biased perception of Galactus) continue with the monodirectional factually inaccurate Galactus-pumping censoring (in every 'appropriate' Wikipedia page they notice) afterwards I'll consider putting up a note, but it's not the way I prefer to do these things. Dave (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted a note. Hopefully that should solve any provlems, as I'm far beyond tired of that mess. Dave (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abomination edits

I saw your edit today, and it got me thinking about the entire section, so I reorganized it, grouping the 'like the hulk's' into one, and 'different from the hulk's' in the other. Can you give it a review? Thanks. ThuranX (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. Dave (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems completely fine. Dave (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apocalypse

Hello, I would like to hear your opinion on this. -- DCincarnate (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)