User talk:Spidey104/2010 Archive

Headings Response

Just thought Alternate Versions and Other Media would be the right heading. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

1) This was at least the third time I've put this on your talk page, so it shouldn't be news to you. (2) It has been a rule of Wikipedia since it first started that headings should only have the first word capitalized. --Spidey104^contribs 21:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Spider-Man Work Group member. If it's ok I have an job that I think you can help me with. Just recently I created Template:Spider-Man Work Group and if you would have time you can place this template on any article or template while you (that's right you!) can rate the article/template on it's importance and quality scale. Also it would help if you could create an category on the importance scale if I haven't done it yet. Good luck and most importantly have fun. Thank you! Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard and Mary Parker

Okay, explain how I am misinformed about Richard and Mary Parker supposedly being SHIELD agents. The comics have repeatedly shown that SHIELD was only founded relatively recently, after the start of the "modern" era, by which time Peter Parker was already Spider-Man, long after Richard and Mary died. The only time they are referred to as SHIELD agents is the cover of Untold Tales Minus One; they aren't referred to as SHIELD agents in the story within. And here http://marvel.com/blogs//entry/631 is Tom Brevoort noting that cover is in error "And yes, that cover copy proclaiming Richard and Mary parker Agents of SHIELD was a mistake, and it was entirely made by me. I remembered that they had been secret agents, and I somehow misrecalled Stan saying that they had been working for SHIELD, even though he didn't. I really should have checked that." This is reaffirmed by the Parker's recent Handbook entries, which note them to be CIA and that SHIELD was founded a decade after they died, and by the SHIELD entry which does not list them as agents of the agency. 86.158.46.54 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There are other issues of Amazing than the flashback issue that refer to them as S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. Offhand I can think of the cover image and an approximate range of issue numbers, but until I have time to go double-check for actual numbers I won't make a change. When I change it to the correct information I will be sure to include references. --Spidey104^contribs 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got Tom Brevoort saying the cover image is a mistake, and that they weren't SHIELD agents. You've got Marvel's existing timeline making it impossible for them to have been SHIELD agents, since SHIELD wasn't founded until well after their deaths. You've got Marvel's official guides stating very recently that they were not SHIELD agents. In the unlikely event you can find issues that claim otherwise, then they are simply perpetuating the error that cover led you to make; Brevoort's statement (made in 2007) and the Handbook entries (made in 2009) confirm the official stance, and any references to the contrary are mistakes, not retcons. 86.151.45.54 (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Tom Brevoort could be making a mistake saying the cover was a mistake. (2) How do you know it is the "official" stance of Marvel? Tom Brevoort's comment (that is over 2 years old) is not official; Joe Quesada would make it an official stance. (3) The Marvel Official Guides are a joke and an affront to any serious comic book fan. They are put together by interns and people who have no real knowledge of the comics and there are many mistakes in them. (4) The Marvel Official Guides would be the ones performing a retcon (or a mistake) if there are multiple issues that reference them as SHIELD agents as they come later. (5) SHIELD was created after WWII, so they would not have been dead before it existed. --Spidey104^contribs 16:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Tom Brevoort was the editor in charge of the comic in question, and by his own admission the cover claim that the Parkers were SHIELD agents was made by him, and a mistake on his part. And now you presume you know better than Tom Brevoort as to whether he made a mistake or not? (2) It's the official stance for Marvel because the Handbooks have specifically noted that the Parkers are not SHIELD agents, and whether you like them or not, the entries within are all editorially approved. (3) You are very mistaken about how the Handbooks are put together. The Handbooks are not put together by interns. They are put together by writers picked for their knowledge of Marvel's characters. As part of the process of writing an entry they have to re-read every appearance of a given character, meaning they are not working from vague memory or partial info, and giving the lie to your claim that they have no real knowledge of the comics. Are the Handbooks mistake free? No. But I'd disagree with your widesweeping and unsupported analysis that there are "many" mistakes. Plus, show me a reference guide that doesn't have some errors. That doesn't invalidate the whole. (4) *IF* there are multiple issues that reference them as SHIELD agents. Big if. At the moment I've supplied specific references to back my side of the debate, while you've gone with vague and unsupported "other issues" and "approximate range of issues." (5) The history you linked to fails to take into account the sliding timescale Marvel subscribes to; SHIELD was created in the 1960s only in the comics that were written in the 1960s and early 1970s. SHIELD was created well after WWII, not immediately after it. Tony Stark had already become Iron Man by the time Nick Fury became its second director, at which time the agency was still very new; Fury's predecessor Rick Stoner only held the position for a short time and Fury had never heard of SHIELD prior to being recruited into it, despite being a high-level CIA agent and well-connected in the intelligence community. 86.164.85.111 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I've supplied specific references to back my side of the debate, while you've gone with vague and unsupported "other issues" and "approximate range of issues."

You only have two references for your side of the debate. One is a blog. The other is a single issue. I had hoped to temporarily end this debate with my comment about the "other issues" because I know I cannot fully support my argument without those references. Once I do have the necessary references I will put this up for discussion in front of several editors so that it is NOT just you and me arguing endlessly. After my case has been made and your case has been made I will abide by their decision, whether they support me or they support you. However, continuing this argument until I have had the time to find the references is pointless and a waste of time. I have left the articles in question alone with your edits in place until I am able to find the necessary references. Furthermore, I will NOT edit those articles once I have my references, I will ask for other opinions (as I have already stated I would).

It may be a while before I have time to find those issues, so can we leave this argument alone for now? In the meantime I would suggest you continue to make constructive edits such as this [1] and this [2]. (I did not revert your edit to Devil Dinosaur just to spite you. I figured you either had a reference or it was purely conjecture, and either way it would get to a positive outcome -- as it now has.) Also, could you register an official username? Your IP address has changed multiple times already and it would make arguing this in the future easier so other people weighing in on this case are not confused. (Plus, other editors will be less suspicious of your edits if you're registered than if you're an anonymous IP because most vandalism is done by anonymous IPs. I know I am not alone in this opinion.) Thank you for your time to read my long response, and I look forward to peacefully settling this argument in the (relatively) near future. --Spidey104^contribs 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to leave this debate alone for now, with one final comment re: my references since you've raised that issue - yes, one is a Blog, but it's a Blog on Marvel's official site by the senior editor who was in charge of the comic that is currently cited as the main evidence for the Parkers being SHIELD, and the other is at least two issues, as it is the Handbook entries for both the Parkers and SHIELD. My edits were always constructive - I provided reasons why I made the edits on the talk pages and asked other editors to refer there rather than simply reverting them. You chose to revert without discussion, simply dismissing my edits out of hand, without having any citeable evidence to back it up. You then chose to dismiss my citations with the flimmsiest of reasoning ("maybe Tom Brevoort is wrong about being wrong" and the demonstrably inaccurate claim about who puts the Handbooks together). As for registering, I have zero desire to do so. I can't help that my provider changes IP each time I log on. I always explain why I make the changes I do, and try as much as possible to cite references. I have also reported cases of registered users who have posted blantantly false information they made up wholesale. As such, I find it the assumption by some on Wikipedia that being registered somehow makes one more credible utterly falacious, and in fact have come to object to that assumption so much that now I will not register. And now I have that all off my chest, yes, let's rest this unless and until you can find citations to back your side of the discussion, and others can be brought in to arbitrate. 86.164.85.111 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Apology

I understand. We all have those moments.;) Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

re Juggernaut (comics)‎‎

A few things:

1. This removal of the content you want in could have used a better term. But it is the right action.
2. With regards to WP:BRD, which most editors try to adhere to, once the bold edit is reverted, the next step is to discuss it on the talk page and gain consensus there for the change. Not bull ahead and edit war to get what you want.
3. Just because "It's like this elsewhere" justifies it. Bluntly: Plot and plot like sections should not rely on information from solicits. Yes, that means that a lot of other comics related articles need clean up. That does not make it "OK" to add to the problem.
4. Once the issue is on sale, it's likely that expanding the plot based FCB to include it will follow. As I pointed out on the talk page, we don't shill for Marvel, they've got others doing that for them. We are not a news site, we can wait since we are not under the deadline pressure a news site is under. We are not a fan site even though we are fans editing the articles.

I hope that helps.

- J Greb (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian is synonymous with edit wars because he disagrees with Wikipedia policy, so I'm sure you can understand my skepticism that he was actually correct about Wikipedia policy. Thank you for letting me know about this. --Spidey104^contribs 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Return to the argument??

Hey, it's been a while. Would you be interested in rejoining the argument on Brittny Gastineau to include the necessary information about her part in the Bruno movie? Dayewalker and Onorem Dil are still being very combative, but recently Reswobslc joined the argument in agreement with us. If you rejoined it would now be three people to our side. Maybe we could win it this time!!! 128.104.truth (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You tipped the scales in our favor. Thank you. 128.104.truth (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you help again? 128.104.truth (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry you're having to deal with Off2riorob's bu!!$hit. 128.104.truth (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Civility note

Your reference here to other users as assholes is uncivil and not the way to edit here, please don't comment about good faith editors in such ways. Also, you clearly understand that there is no consensus to replace this disputed content and yet you replaced it, please don't reinsert it again without support at the WP:BLPN Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hypocritical much? I find it wonderfully humorous that your note about civility is written in a very hostile (in other words: uncivil) tone. --Spidey104^contribs 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You have had your note , you are welcome to ignore it or whatever. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

His note to me about being civil was also written in a very uncivil manner!! 128.104.truth (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP note

You have repeated your insertion of the discussed content, please be aware if you reinsert it again I will report you to an administrator. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian's Talk Page

Hi. While I personally think that rules should be changed that forbid a user from blanking his/her talk page in most instances and require an accurate archiving, I'm not sure if restoring it against his/her wishes is within policy, even if he or she is banned. Just so you know, Asgardian has been blanking his talk page for his entire three-year tenure here, so I'm not sure what the point is of just restoring that relatively small portion that you did. Nightscream (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

He may try that, but I'm not that worried. If he violates policy in that manner, he'll simply be blocked, even with a rotating IP. If it persists, the articles he favors can be protected. His behavior is too well-documented, and his credibility too lowered, for him to get away with it without anyone noticing.

As for his talk page, I actually was thinking of creating an archive of its entire history, since I did this before with a user who kept blanking his talk page. It was a lot less than three years' worth, so doing this with Asgardian's would talk longer. But I'm not sure if restoring it on the actual page is within policy. Allowing blanking, though, is definitely something we have to change. Nightscream (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian has been banned for a year. Let sleeping bears lie. I recommend focusing on what can be accomplished this year instead of stirring things up with someone who can't work on the articles for now anyway. Doczilla _STOMP! 19:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't done anything else to Asgardian's talk page since that solitary incident and had let it lie for 9 days until this pot was stirred again. (Though I do support Nightscream's idea to create an archive of what has been removed from his talk page.) --Spidey104^contribs 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Article modifying response

Hey, I'm trying to meet your standards here. Rtkat3 (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Then why do you keep making the same mistake over and over? It is not a high or hard standard to follow. Spidey104^contribs 16:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

You know that canvassing editors you know will vote 'keep' in an AFD is a blockable action? I suggest you pack it in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

1) I did not know, so I apologize. Can you point me to the Wikipedia page about that so I know for future reference? (2) I only posted to two specific people's talk pages and I wasn't planning on posting to more, so you do not have to worry. (3) Why is it a blockable action to inform editors who have a vested interest in an article (based on previous contributions to the article) that it is being considered for deletion? (4) I posted to the WikiProject Comics board similar to this post [3] for an article that did get deleted. Not all members of the Comics WikiProject will support a keep (many will support deletion), but I felt it was appropriate to inform editors that would be reliable critics of whether it should be kept or deleted. They are much more reliable critics than editors who do not regularly edit comic book pages. I do not regularly edit World War II articles (for example), so I would not express my opinion (for or against) deleting an article as I am not a reliable critic on the subject. Spidey104^contribs 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi - check out WP:CANVAS, the message you left on the comic project was fine as it was simply noting that an AFD was running, it's the bit where you ask other editors to vote keep which is a problem... --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for directing me to the canvassing page so I know what is and isn't appropriate. By the way, I fixed my earlier mistake. ([4] [5]) Spidey104^contribs

Fictional history of Spider-Man

If you do want this article to stay I do recommend some more sources because there is an few places that needs citations (The Clone Saga section for example). If there is one of these please try to fix that. The main article for an certain section is an good place to search for one. Thank you. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll put it at the proverbial top of the list (when I'm on Wikipedia), but I don't know if I'll have enough time in the next week to provide enough of a change to convince the editors who are for deleting the article that it is a well sourced article. Spidey104^contribs 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear you! Another thing about the article I notice is there is too many sections. I reccomend an section not mainly based on certain issues or events but either the years that it takes place or the certain age of comics. Trust me it will look a whole lot better. The article History of Superman is an good example of this and Batman#Fictional character biography too. Trust me I want an good Fictional character biography of Spider-Man just as much as you do. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good idea to combine sections into date headings!! Of course that is not going to be easy. By the way, have you noticed that this is Cameron Scott's second time nominating the article for deletion? Concensus has been to keep the article twice before, so why is he bringing it up again? Spidey104^contribs 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was his third time. I know this is the third time the article has be nominated. Anyways looking up in the Wikiproject discussion section he doesn't seem to be fan of the fictional history articles and he thought he would get a go at it again. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link for that discussion. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, Spidey104. Just a friendly request that you add an edit summary to all edits. Helps the rest of us know what each of our collaborators is doing! With regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And indeed you are good about it. But without going to your contributions page, all I could see where some of the edits on May 19. As I said, it was a friendly request, one ending with "with regards," so heaven knows I wasn't the least bit scolding. I think you're a very responsible contributor to WikiProject Comics. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Spidey104, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Character Assassination (comics)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Character Assassination (comics), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Assassination (comics). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Soliciting your input

Hi. There's an attempt to bring the History of Spider-Man article, which needs enormous work, up to encyclopedic standards. You were among the editors in the deletion discussion, and it'd be good to get your input on, and edits to, the work-in-progress at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that I have not been present up to now with those improvements, but I have been busy recently and I only have a few edits at all anywhere in Wikipedia since shortly after the conclusion of the AfD discussion. I like what has been done so far (I applaud your effort), and I think the notes in bold are a brilliant idea. I will try to help more with the improvement of the article, but I am still fairly busy. (I also apologize for the lack of edit summary on my recent edit, but I can honestly blame it on my computer. My computer glitched and deleted it, but I had already hit the "Save page" button.) Spidey104^contribs 17:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

From wikipedia's Talk page guidelines, specifically the part about a user's own talk page, "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred". There was no reason I felt the need to archive messages on my own talk page. I am perfectly within my rights to remove them.Caidh (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I must have clicked the wrong link inadvertently but that does not excuse the mistake. My apologies for placing my comments in the wrong location. Caidh (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Y'know, I had a feeling I did that wrong! I'm on deadline, writing an article about photography, doing a little research, saw that blatant copying from an outside wiki and just dashed things off. Thanks for helping out. It was a funny and welcome sight to see see a fellow WikiComics Project hand over on that page!

On an unrelated thank you, that was good thinking putting the old fictional history lead into the sandbox; I integrated what I could of it. As soon as I figure out the right way to handle the tenses, I'll put it up for discussion on the main Spider-Man page and the fictional history page. It's been a good collaboration -- a great example of how Wiki is supposed to work. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I've seen that you're an enthusiastic reader of comic books, so I think you have an acute vision of what is right or wrong and know that with (great) power comes (great) responsibiliry. My name is Claudi Balaguer and I've come here asking you to help a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. The X-Men, Spider-man and the Fantastic Four would support our cause if they could, actually the only ones who wouldn't are the Green Goblin and Galactus. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fictional history of Spider-Man

Following three attempts at having this page deleted, a number of editors collaborated on bringing this multiply-tagged article up to to policy and guideline standards of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Comments were solicited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite since May 26, and a final draft, created over a month of editorial input, was completed and put up for final comment at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement on June 25. On June 30, this consensus version, which confirms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), will replace the current page Fictional history of Spider-Man. As you have contributed to that page, we wanted to alert you to the opportunity for final comments. Thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments needed

Following a month-long process of multiple editors to have "Fictional history of Spider-Man" conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), one editor has objected and wishes for the article, which has been the subject of three deletion discussions, to remain as is.

Alternately, the proposed new version appears at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox.

Your input, as an editor involved in the deletion discussion, is invited at Talk:Fictional history of Spider-Man#Rewrite and replacement. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Response

I was just trying to fix the template after it had been screwed up. I didn't know who did what. Once I figured out that your edit was okay I undid mine. It was the editor after you who caused the template to become screwy. You can check the edit history to see what that editor did.-5- (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thor Edit... changed

Just fixed spelling error on your last addition (Marcel Comics to Marvel Comics). Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the MOS

Seriously, go read the MOS of style - don't write about fictional events as if they are real, don't get into trivial in-universe detail, don't rely on primary sources etc etc. This isn't a fanboy wiki, we are trying to create an encyclopaedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your response to me suggests that you aren't interesting in writing according to the MOS - I'll be reviewing your edits carefully on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to monitor my edits. The majority of my edits, outside of this article, are actually fixing headings or references or other small problems. I try to follow the MOS for fiction, but no one is perfect. If you do see some edit I do that clearly violates the MOS please bring it to my attention. There are few articles that I keep a watch on, so I might not notice if you fix my edit. Spidey104^contribs 16:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A few suggestions

I got a few things to say since I will leave it you editing the article. One that comic book issues, aren't really reliable. And issues are better to say in the article because they make it more in universe. As for plot summaries, I don't know about comics, but for films, they don't need sources. They just need to be in good size. So trimming is key in this article too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The citation down below is an example of a good comic book citation. Telling who the writer and publisher is makes it less in universe. See Template:Cite comic for more details. Good luck! ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mark Waid (w). Amazing Spider-Man #8 (November 2009). Marvel Comics.

Did you mean to say that stating the issues in the article are better because they make it more out of universe? So I should remove all of the citations that are just the comics, but you provided an example of a good comic book citation for future issue (just not necessarily in this article)? Spidey104^contribs 20:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I meant out universe or in a real world perspective. Sorry about that. At least you know what I really meant. Anyways I would say you would remove the citations or expand them like Template:Cite comic aquires. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As for your question in the talk page. I would probably come back editing tonight. But just examine what I just did and try to follow along. Oh and trimming plot summaries would be nice too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

Also this could be a good read too on how to write plot summaries if you ever have the time. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been working on that article for a while. The next day I busy creating a new article and right now I am on a trip. But I am sure you are getting along in fixing it. How's it going with it. What do you think it needs help on? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Spider-Man article in need of help

Actually, Spidey104, thank you for the invitationto help, but I am not good at doing tag edits. In fact I will withdraw from this group and wish you and the others the very best, as I do not have the wiki editing skills that you seek. Again, best wishes. Jonathan Levey (talk) 00:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Gauntlet/Grim Hunt

Not sure I can help much now. I've only been on Wikipedia sporadically because of work busyness, and I'm still committed to helping bring Fictional history of Green Goblin up to WP:WAF standard. But I support your efforts, and if I can help in small ways, I will. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the Species

I heard that you had redirected the "Origin of the Species" to Menace til further notice. I had to go to some of the pages of some of the Spider-Man villains to list who is taken part in an assignment by a mysterious person which one of them involved the capture of Menace's baby. I hope we can get a page for this up soon before the next issue comes out. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are keeping track of the issues, we should at least track down those villains who were hired to secure some items for that person until then. I had to cluster which villain took part with the other villains as seen in pages for Doctor Octopus, Hippo, Morbius, the Living Vampire, etc. There was also preview info for the upcoming "Big Time" storyline once the five-part "Origin of the Species" ends. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the comics. I usually go to the Marvel Wikia for the information on issues where I have improved some articles like expanding any info on Kraven the Hunter's relatives. I don't even know if we should give Sasha Kravinoff and Ana Kravinoff their own articles even though they played a major part in The Gauntlet and Grim Hunt storylines. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Already added. I asked about Sasha and Ana because Kraven's other two sons Grim Hunter and Alyosha Kravinoff have their own pages. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Norman Osborn

I would like to hear your opinion about this. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to The Boy Who Knew Too Much. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not revert edits without reading the edit summary. I was only copying and pasting information from a separate, but related, Simpsons article. If you have a problem with the information you should look at the original article I copied and pasted from. Thank you. Spidey104^contribs 18:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at The Boy Who Knew Too Much, you will be blocked from editing. Theleftorium ^(talk) 12:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Until another editor removes that same information from the article where I copied and pasted it from you have no legs to stand on for a block, because consensus on that article is the information is correct/fine. It is not original research to mention what the title is a reference to, or to mention the other Simpsons episodes that are similar in title. Spidey104^contribs 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? The Girl Who Slept Too Little is an incredibly crappy article that's even tagged as needing "additional citations for verification." Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you about including that information, but I don't have the time and I don't care enough to bother fighting you on it anymore. But on a side note, maybe this should be motivation to transform The Girl Who Slept Too Little into one of your Good Article achievements. Spidey104^contribs 15:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the kind suggestions. I'll be sure ask you if I have any problems. Also, let me know if I make any other mistakes in the future. Kurt Parker (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Raccoon Userbox

You're welcome. :-) I like your X-Men: Die By The Sword article by the way. I've used it myself in the past.
Quick question. Should I have replied to you here or my end? I've seen people do both and not sure which is preferred? Mutant Raccoon (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like the article.

There really is no universal preference about responding on your own talk page or the other user's talk page. I have also seen both and it seems that preference depends on the individual user. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. When in doubt I would respond on their talk page, because that guarantees they will see it since they'll get the notification they have a message. But even if you violate a user's preference it isn't a big deal since there are no rules broken -- only a preference. Spidey104^contribs 03:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Back to work I guess... Mutant Raccoon (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Just drop by to wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving! − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I have noticed you for a long time, making useful little gnomish contributions here and there, but I only just now realized that you used to be Freak104 - so, here is a long-belated welcome back!  :) BOZ (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you mention it on your userpage!  :) BOZ (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

left-hand badges

Hey Spidey104!

I am new to wikipedia and wondered how you got the colored badges that are on the left hand side of your talk page. I'm trying to build up my profile and thought that those would be an excellent addition.

Hathornt (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Spider-Man template

This is regarding your last edit on the template, all the characters that were inside the brackets were Spider-Women so why did you change it the way you did? I am just curious to know. :] − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok I was just wondering and I do like the improvement. And as for the Spider-Woman template, thanks. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)