Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:02, 26 February 2007

Also User:Doczooky (formerly DoczBot before the obvious name hit me) set up for bots.

Daredevil

I very much appreciate your efforts on the Daredevil article. I put a comment in the talk page about the plot summary detail so I could possibly cut it off before it got out of hand. If you want to add anything to a discussion on it, please do so. --Newt ΨΦ 15:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for the link

I've reviewed the link your provided regarding some copyedit parameters relating to the comicbook project, and it gives more clearer insight into the perspective here on this site as opposed to other database projects. I also appreciate your kind response, you assumed the best from my edits which is a good standard for all of us to follow. Regards. NetK 04:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Doczilla, thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was a robust 62/1/1, so I am now an administrator. If you ever have any questions about my actions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Cover Browser

Glad you and your son liked CoverBrowser.com Doczilla! -Philwiki 15:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-heroes

Thanks. I'm glad you raised the issue. --TM 01:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Basilisk

The first sentence can be tweeked to say: "Basil Elks was a petty thief who BREAKS into a museum to steal what he BELIEVES IS an ordinary emerald - but is in fact a Kree artifact called the Alpha Stone."

However, to say "Basil Elks IS..." is incorrect as he's dead. As for a double "was", what of it? Anyone can take that out.

Asgardian 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

HalfShadow 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just pointing out that I'm not making stuff up; anything I post is verifiable. HalfShadow 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

A request for a peer review of New Universe has been made at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Comics/Peer review/New Universe. I'd appreciate your comments on the article, hopefully it will kickstart the comics project's peer review process. To comment, please add a new section (using ==== ] ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible. Steve block Talk 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Pyrokinesis in fiction

Please go through this entry and do to it EXACTLY what you did to Electrokinesis. For example, please delete all references to characters who are not explicitly described as being Pyrokinetic in their own media, particularly those in Anime and Manga, where the word could only possibly have been included as an Americanization(if at all), because the word Pyrokinesis is not a Japanese word. Please also visit reality warping and the pages regarding shapshifters etc and delete all character who are not explicitly named as having these powers in their own media. Also, fictional immortals where immortal is not used, or is used as an adjective rather than a noun.

perfectblue 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Even the science channels set straight thinking to one side for the sake of ratings! "

At least we can agree on something. Maybe there's hope yet

perfectblue 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Joker Categories

I reverted your edit to Joker. one was a redlink, the other is less appropriate per the requirements for each. please read the lists on each cat, and see. ThuranX 06:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first off, I'm just trying to keep a good article good. I generally respect your editing, so I'm going to try to enumerate my thinking on this. (Though I suspect I'll probably have to repost it on the Articel talk, LOL) I'm not going to debate the two, as they'e very different illnesses. at a glance, though, at the criteria for inclusion in each category - for fic. psychopaths, he clearly fails on 1( his "death in the family" planning to use the diplomatic immunities), 2 - irrational thinking's a hallmark of his, 8 (he's claimed to learn from mistakes many times, batman credits his disease with being his downfall, not his lack of planning), 11 - He's quite perceptive at times, esp. about the motivations and feelings inside others, 12 - most of his 'relationships' aren't impersonal, but radically bombastic; 13-15 i can't reply to affirmatively OR negatively, because of the CCA and the editors... so out of 16, he loses on 5, and i dropped three, so... 8 of 13.

For Sociopath, though not numbered, he's all about #1. #2) He's used aliases a bit ,deciet and double-crosses more, even to the point where we saw in the build to the Infinite Crisis that Joker was repeatedly told or heard, or it was said about him, that no other villian trusts him or feels at all safe around him. #3) His impulsive trends to violence have ruined his plans by distracting him to cheap violence, #4 he flips out. that's WHY no villain trusts him. he might shoot any henchman or co-conspirator at any time. #5) see the whole no one feels safe thing.#6 is a write off, he's a villain, so I'll drop that one. #7 he's all over tht qualifier. He never seems to regret anything, and there have been stories in which Martian Manhunter or some magic user have temporarily 'fixed' Joker's mind, and we see im overwhelmed with guilt. so that gives us 6 out of 7, and 6 out of 6 when I disregard a qualifier which is sort of irrelevant in the comics. that's a 61% on psycho- to at least a 85% for socio-... Anyways, that's my thinking. If you can support a rewrite of the Psychopath article to support a change to the cat, so Joker fits, well, you're a better man than I... I think there's ametaphor for that sort of thing, but it's late, and robot chicken is a rerun. so i'm out isntead. peace.ThuranX 07:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Asgardian

Hiya, Doc. Tenebae here. I've seen some of your comments at User talk:Asgardian, a page he keeps commenting out. If you choose to lend your support to a request for Admin help regarding that editor, please see this to Admin Noticeboard entry, which I wrote on behalf of several editors whose criticism of him he has deleted. I hope this does some good....--Tenebrae 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

He's taken if off his Talk page, but I gave him a warning in a post there (it'll be in History) that I would take it to an Admin if he continued, and when he ignored that and made the same wholesale reversion at Awesome Android, I wrote in the edit summary that I would now contact an Admin. He was warned on his Talk page — after several attempts at working with him on this — and everybody was notified at Awesome Android. I didn't mention User:Grey Shadow in my Admin request since I've never corresponded with him. Gee, I hope this does some good. Keep up the good editing that you do! --Tenebrae 01:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Infinite Crisis - External Links

Hi Doc

I placed a link to my website that annotates DC's Infinite Crisis series and its tie-ins some months ago on the Infinite Crisis page. That link was removed so I added a comment on the discussion page on 27th Nov asking for it to be re-instated. Despite having no replies, I noticed that it was replaced some time later, but has now been removed again by yourself.

Could you let me know the reasoning behind this decision?

Apologies in advance if this isn't the place to have this discussion - please direct me elsewhere if you need to!

Cheers --Ginger2323 09:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc

After no remarks on the "Infinite Crisis" discussion page concerning the above, I replaced the link to the Annotated Infinite Crisis page. I looked this morning (20th Feb 07) and found that you had removed it with the note "We've removed that link several times"

Any chance you can let me know why?

Cheers --Ginger2323 07:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying to your reply back in December; things went a bit hectic round that time!

Thanks for the explanation; the site's ongoing and I have had several people contact me offering corrections and suggestions, many of whom have found the site originally through Misplaced Pages. I'd suggest that the number of errors is reducing as more and more information comes through not only from myself but from others and that the longer the site is linked to from Misplaced Pages, the more information will be offered.

Obviously I'd like to have the link re-instated.

Cheers. --Ginger2323 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrocausality

As per JzG's recommendation, I've totally reworked the above article as a revamped stub. Please take another look if you like. Thanks Bwithh 20:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Blah matters

Greetings Doc. Well, this started because Tenebrae panicked rather than discussed, and then decided to issue an ultimatum. As I've said several times during our recent discussions, other posters also need to be reasonable. By that I mean less emotive. Despite creating discussions, shortcircuiting a few fiascos (a la Cosmic Marvel) and touching up a few old entries that needed it, I still get rudeness from CovenantD and Tenebrae still acts like the schoolyard snitch ("Look what he did! I'm telling!"). Personally, I think both could do better. People in glasshouses and all that.

As for Talk Page flotsam and jetsam, it's all there bar the bluntness from Tenebrae. I hardly think it makes me a criminal. The edits of later have been pretty solid, although I note that no one really gives any credit for the positive improvements made on the entries. I'll put my case once again in the Discussion page of the entry that sparked this furore, although it would never have happened had certain parties debated the listed reasons rather than panicking.

That aside, happy editing. Am going to try and tackle the Skrull race entry soon, which is a bit of a mess. Your input from time to time would be appreciated.

Asgardian 08:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Heh. No problem Doc. I'll archive at some point, but I'm not sweating on it. All the best.

Asgardian 09:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Doc, about to save a first draft of the updated Skrull page. More to come. Looks like the Badoon have to be done as well...

Asgardian 08:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate tarantula

Why do you insist on removing the ultimate tarantula info? Everyone knows it's him. Just because the holy scripture of Marvel hasn't deigned to address him as such is no reason to remove it. Second, the Tarantula II info says that he was mutated into a spider, and developed spider-like abilities. Removing said powers from the SHB is completely retarded. The only reason you keep taking it off is you are a giant prick and do not want me to edit anything. Well listen up Doc,[REDACTED] allows users to edit. Just because I won't cow down and give my self a stupid username doesn't mean you can keep removing my edits.

Category: Military brat

Please read the Military brat (U.S. subculture) article and then tell me if you still believe that the term isn't appropriate. Please note the number of resources utilized in documenting this subject and the number of them that use the term "Military brat." Military brat is an accepted term and a highly studied subject. The term is used by researchers and the community it describes. It is relevant to the subject because it does have a bearing on the individual as is supported by the research. Balloonman 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Being nice

Your comment at CfD about another editor was a little rude. Cleduc 07:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

possibly justified... but when in doubt... Cleduc 08:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On the Anonymous user

I think I'll be trying to put in a minimum number of hours a week on Misplaced Pages. I've really bonked and just haven't had the drive, especially for fiction articles that are so poorly written but so strongly defended. I'll see what I can do. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 14:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please revisit and consider

Thanks for your endorsement on the Category:Categories for deletion proposal, but be advised per User:Tim! and User:Submillimeter's point, I've modified my proposal. Template:I0re: See this summary, and my comments on clear documentation all along our project pages. This alternative is more consistent with normal category practices. For your convienience this is a direct link back into the discussion. Thanks // FrankB 21:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Fatone411

Re: this comment - I'd suggest you ask for a checkuser comparison with User:EJBanks and User:Creepy Crawler. I don't think you'll be surprised if they turn up positive. CovenantD 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Quinn Martin Productions follow-up

Hi, Doczilla -- Thanks for your help redirecting the stub and cleaning up the article.

I hope you don't mind this intrusion. I have a question I was about to post somewhere (hadn't figured out where yet), but you may have an opinion to offer. Using "Quinn Martin Productions" as an example of a page that would be listed in Category:Television production companies of the United States, would you expect to find it listed under "Q" or under "M"? The category is full of inconsistencies, and I was going to clean it up, but I can't find a style guide entry or anything that governs. The closest is the "Ordering names in a category" subsection of the Misplaced Pages:Categorization of people article. What do you think?

Thanks again.--Vbd 09:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And Chaos Died AfD

Metamagician3000 and I have reworked the article on Joanna Russ's book And Chaos Died. It's not a great article, but I think it's much better than what had gone before (on the AfD, 23skidoo has changed his vote to keep). While it could certainly be expanded, it maintains an encyclopedic tone, establishes an amount of notability and includes external hyperlinks. Thoughts?

Best wishes, Anville 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Otogi Zoshi characters

Since your initial comments at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 6#Category:Otogi Zoshi characters articles have been placed in the category. Do you still think it should be deleted? (Please can you reply at the category discussion if you want to change your vote.) Timrollpickering 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Assistance

Doc, I could use a little help. It seems that a poster called DCIncarnate wants to dig his heels in on some ridiculously small points. A good example are the entries for the Living Tribunal and Eternity. He insists that they have omnipotence, ominipresence etc which is technically not true, as Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet and later the Heart of the Universe has trumped them both. It is fairer to say they have "near-omnipotence." I suppose it is like the invulnerability argument - no one truly possesses it so we needed another term. However, he insists that such showings are "bad writing". Can you help with this? I find it interesting that you and I and others can do solid edits on entries like the Skrulls which no one touches (or probably reads), and yet the curiously teen-popular cosmic entries take a pounding. That chap that kept pushing that cosmic list was another good example. Go figure.

Asgardian 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained this to you. But it seems you are just ignoring it, Asgardian.

Infinity Gauntlet: master of mind, time, space. I see no reason as to why this would look bad against Eternity.

Thanos: The End + Heart Of The Universe: Thanos seen everything for what it was when he had it. He was above beings like LT even in the all knowing category.

None of this makes The Living Tribunal and Eternity "Nigh-omnipotent" it made Thanos MORE powerful then them.

DCincarnate

They WERE NOT omnipotent etc as they could NOT predict Thanos or Warlock's moves once they had the IG. Therefore, they are "near" rather than totally omnipotent etc. As I've already told you, Warlock KNEW how Eternity was going to react at a meeting of the cosmics before he did. READ the comics!

Asgardian 22:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this is really so hard for you to understand? They could not predict Thanos or Warlock's moves because they had the goddamn IG. They had become above the LT and Eternity with IG.

DCincarnate

Since this piece of the argument has occurred on my talk page, I guess I'll reply here because I'm not sure which page (Asgardian talk, DCincarnate talk, Living Tribunal) is the right place to reply. Omnipotent = all powerful = able to do anything whatsoever = infinitely powerful with no limits (except for maybe self-imposed guidelines/preferences that the entity is still actually capable of overriding). I have stayed out of edits over the word omnipotent because I've never thought of an acceptable alternative. If someone else is more powerful or if they have any limitations whatsoever, then they are not omnipotent. Period. Honestly there's no such thing as near omnipotence either, any more than you can have a number equal infinity minus one. They're relatively omnipotent from the perspectives of characters less powerful than they, but they're not truly omnipotent. Thanos did not become more powerful than omnipotent; nobody can be more powerful than omnipotent (does anything think he could count to double infinity?). "Nigh" and "near" suck too because that's not possible (like you can't count halfway to infinity), but at least they acknowledge that it's not true omnipotence. Doczilla 23:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. A Michael Korvac killed one universe's Eternity with the Ultimate Nullifier. If you can't keep one obnoxious blond guy from killing you with a click of a toy, you're not omnipotent. Doczilla 23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Doc. I actually meant to post my counter claim on his page, not yours. My bad. Feel free to delete if wishing to. The support is appreciated. "Relative" sounds pretty good to me. If there are further issues with the term it can go to a Round Table discussion in the Comics section as we did with invulnerability.

Asgardian 00:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hero & villain categories

Hey, Doczilla. Given your comments at the AfD for Villains from comics and graphic novels, I thought you might have opinion about this. (Even if it's "We should get rid of these categories and replace them with lists.") --GentlemanGhost 05:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actors by series

Thanks for the note. As I have just noted in the cfd debate, I really decided to air the whole issue because I was fed up of the drip, drip, drip of individual categories coming up on cfd—most of them gathering a healthy number of 'delete' votes, even when they had only been nominated for a simple rename. Like you I would be rid of them, but I thought we could do with a general discussion of the principle. However, given that I seem to have underestimated the willingness of editors to vote to delete, I am going to formalise this into a bona fide deletion proposal.

Xdamr 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Diabetics

Regarding the diabetic categories, you might want to see what the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style says on the issue: "Be careful not to define a person or group of people by their medical condition. For example, seizures are epileptic, people are not." Wryspy 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Samuel Johnson

Just wanted to let you know I reverted your edit to Samuel Johnson: his OCD is already referenced in the article, and is extensively dealt with in Boswell's bio - it's about as well documented as any historical medical condition I've come across - more citations could be provided if you aren't comfortable with James Boswell's authoritative bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should be corrected: perhaps you can suggest a less weasly word than "possibly" when discussing a historical figure. Have you read Boswell? Excerpts here: - google will yield much more. A google scholar search on Samuel Johnson OCD yields over 200 hits - not google, google scholar - good sources. I fully support your concern for referencing, and have enforced it many times, but Johnson is the wrong example to pick :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware of the genetic relationship between Tourette's and OCD, or the difficulty in distinguishing the two, or the similarity in symptomatology? His OCD is better established than his Tourette's, and he's the most well-known historical example of a person with TS. Anyway, to avoid a protracted discussion, Johnson's not my interest - I only keep the article watchlisted as he's such a prominent TS link. My advice is to do a google scholar search, and think seriously about deleting content without further study - Johnson is not a BLP. I agree with your reasoning on the AfD of Anxiety disorders (since that's a broad umbrella), but de-populating the OCD category isn't a good idea, IMO - there are too many referenced examples. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I slightly disagree, since we don't definitively diagnose anything in a traditional sense in a historical figure, so the crossover between OC and TS symptoms is relevant. At any rate, source provided - I formatted it for you, and wuld prefer a scholarly source (I work very hard to keep self-published websites out of medical articles), but if you're happy, I'm happy. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion:Hutman Artcars

Thanks for the great summary! Really helps clear things up. Just one change - I know it wasn't me who said "userfy" and I'm PRETTY sure it was User:Improbcat so I made that change. Plymouths 06:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional characters with phobias

Give me a day or two to think about this. At the very least, the article looks like it has problems. As you indicated, it does contain a lot of original research. Dr. Submillimeter 21:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ra's al Ghul

Please head over and take a look at the page. I undid your revert a couple days back, because I believe the editor is acting in Good faith, but I think your input on his changes would be both welcomed, (by me, at least) and productive in showing him more about how to work co-operatively on Misplaced Pages. I've tried to guide him a bit through some talk page correspondence and one major edit of his animated episode summaries, but He's really running fast on the page, and could definitely use some input from other editors. Thanks! ThuranX 20:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of the page. I agree with all your changes (up to the metagene thing, in case you're making more while I'm typing this) and I hoep that Phunbot sees hwo to work with others. His most recent edit summary, "See talk section before editing my edits again", seems either defensive or WP:OWN oriented. I've left him an extensive message about this, and I hope we can guide him towards constructive work, instead of 'losing him to the dark side', LOL> I think with some guidance, he could do well. ThuranX 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Phunbot seems insistent on a version of the episode summary which contains speculation 'for some unknown reason, superman's powers return' (may not be perfect quote). I have RV'd 3 times, and expect him to RV it back again. He's not reading the wikipolicies. Since it seems there's almost some sort of good cop bad cop dynamic being percieved here, maybe you should go 'bad cop' him. ThuranX 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is the speculation, point it out.

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

Now point out the speculations. I see none as Batman does interfere in the episode which causes the process to stop before complete, Ra's and his daughter do fall to there apparent deaths after Ra's al Ghul bust up the area with his new power when fighting Batman and Superman's power just seems to return at the end of the episode, there is no explanation to this nor is there anything visually shown to explain why this happens which is why I say they return for "an unknown reason" because its unknown. Is saying something unknown being speculative when it is unknown, no I think not. If I said something to explain why the powers returned like because he is Kryptonian or the staff breaks would be speculative as though both are true they aren't pointed out as the reasons to why he gets his powers back in the episode. Oh and I like to point out saying the process was reversed is being speculative to as that to was not designated as the reason, one can assume it happen that way just like one can assume it was the staff breaking or something else however no matter how much one can assume if there assumptions aren't based on facts its still beings speculative. So look your being speculative and I am not because I am using facts, big surprise (Not really).

And do you know why I know all this, I have the episode currently on my computer, want to see it? I will give you a link so this can be put to rest.

And as my previous revert said, both of you may agree that the process was reversed, heck you can get 100 or 1,000 or 100,000 other editors to feel the same but in the end it's not true so why do you insist on saying I am speculating when I am saying facts from the episode and you keep saying the the process was reversed when it wasn't.

Point is I have this thing that matters here on wiki to support my version, that is facts. What do you have exactly? Except a tenacious need to mess with facts in that area. Also it does put a smile on my face having to tell you that facts matter here considering I am the newb here.

And I am not reading the policies? What policy says an editor can revert an edit that is factual with an edit that isn't factual and actually is a lie to. If there is one that says that show it to me. And if there is one then what's the point of rules here if such a policy exist that allows people to purposely be able to mess with facts here without any sort of punishment. And ya anyone can edit anything here but last I checked though a person can do a revert war with someone regardless of whether there right or not, I thought when someone does such a thing here they get scolded and eventually punished. I sure didn't think the person reverting it back to the factual version be scolded like I am being right now for wanting there to not be speculation and actual facts.

Also I won't revert it back because since you caused this mess by messing with facts I will leave you to do the right thing and revert it yourself. Phunbot 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

General Question?

Amended my previous statement as I am over it and from now on will just give short descriptions in those kind of areas. However I have a question which is why is it in wiki that certain things aren't capitalized like the also in See also or other stuff of that nature. I mean to me I think it looks better with the words capitalized but it seems to be the wiki norm to not capitalize things of that nature. Could you explain why this is as presentation to some extent is important here and like I said I think it looks better with the words capitalized as opposed to the current way. Phunbot 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rating the ToK

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 19:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There's been a Request for Comment initiated at Talk:John Buscema#Request for Comment: NPOV and images, concerning a dispute over alleged violations and which includes links to two versions of an article, for comparison.

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics, and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)