I see your point that "References get top billing". But Thunderbolts - Life Sentences, for example, is part of the character's blibliography and is not under the references. Bios106037 (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

First, deleting entire pages worth of posts by other people on your Talk Page is considered poor Talk Page etiquette. This is especially true when those comments include admonitions about your behavior by moderators. The proper practice is to archive a page, not delete its contents.

Second, do not remove the sales information from the Ultimates article again. Your arguments against it are irrational and unsupported by reason, the common practice on the site is to provide sales figures for works of art when the information is available, and the consensus on that article's Talk Page agrees with this. Nightscream (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not issue you an ultimatum. I pointed out to you that deleting entire pages worth of posts from your Talk Page is considered poor form, and told you not to remove valid information from the Ultimates article, as there is no valid basis to do so under WP policy, and consensus has agreed to keep it. I have indeed responded to each of your arguments. The inclusion of sales figures is not an opinion, it is a common practice on WP for movie and comics-related articles. Sales are not "subjective", as they are tallied numerically. If you could elaborate on how sales are "subjective", please do so. Your argument of "So?" seems unintelligible, and I don't know how to respond to it other than to point out that sales figures are as legitimate a piece of information in an article about a comic book as any other. I have not advocated the reversion of legitimate grammar edits, so bringing this up is irrelevant with respect to me. Also, could you not put large spaces in between your signature and your posts? It helps make the posts easier to identify by author. Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Ultimates, or remove valid information that consensus has agreed to include in the article, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, saying "That IS vandalism because you didn't even look - information take from Reception in PH and then repeated in rv, and added spelling mistakes and didn't see note on Film. Sloppy." is a personal attack/insult. Saying, "also undid flaws rv by careless editor as obviously didn't look." is an personal attack/insult. These comments violate Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia: Civility, and are not justifiable. Your statement therefore, that "No personal attacks have been made, only comments to the effect that some editors have undone solid edits that go to style." is untrue.

Second, the above post by me is a warning, not an "ultimatum", and your arbitrary redefining of such terms is irrelevant. "Taking it upon myself" to admonish others not to violate policy, and warn them that they face blocks when they continue such behavior is indeed one of my responsibilities as an administrator, regardless of your indication that you are ignorant of this reality. There's a reason, after all, that those templates exist. If you think administrators do not or should not have this ability, and that you can recast such legitimate administrative activities in terms of "tone", then perhaps your issue is with Wikipedia and its policies, and not with me.

The arguments you made about the sales figures were indeed responded to by myself and four other editors on that article's Talk Page. An appropriate reaction on your part would be to respond to them, perhaps to elaborate on your position, and explain why you do not feel convinced by others' counterarguments, not to claim that no such responses on our part have been made, and to engage in edit warring against consensus.

If you wish to ask others to participate, then I encourage it. Just make sure you follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Canvassing. I would also encourage you to take a look at some other comics articles that feature sales figures, such as All Star Batman and Robin, All Star Superman, "Batman: Hush", etc. Nightscream (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely accusing others of vandalism, calling the work of other editors in your Edit Summaries "sloppy", and referring to the legitimate warnings by administrators of policy violations is not "pointing out where editors have gone wrong". These are insults and personal attacks that show either in ignorance or apathy toward Wikipedia policies, regardless of whatever euphemistic attempts you make to redefine this behavior. Reading "what goes happens on some pages" will not change this, and given the stuff I've read on Wikipedia over the years, is hardly likely to "shock" me. I've been editing a bit longer than you, and trust me, there's nothing new about your behavior, as I've seen it before. If I were you, I'd worry more about learning about Wikipedia yourself, and not the sensibilities of others, since it seems that you're the one who could benefit from this. Nightscream (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interview in which Jeph Loeb flat-out explains that he is going to leave some elements unresolved, and names the upcoming books in which he is going to resolve them, and is properly sourced and cited in the text, is not "speculation". Nor is there any information that he's not going to finish the series, which is completely unsupported, and is quite speculative itself. Please stop deleting valid information from the article. Nightscream (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove valid material from Wikipedia articles, or use inappropriate Edit Summaries, as you did to the Ultimates article. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete it every time when that badly written. Deleting valid information because it does not conform to your personal sense of aesthetics is not a valid criteria within Wikipedia policy. If you feel such material can benefit from a rewrite, then that is what you should do. Remove such information without a valid reason again, and you will be blocked. Nightscream (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were going to rewrite it, that's fine, but I saw your edit over 11 hours after you had deleted it, and you had not edited it. If you're not going to edit a passage until a later time, then don't delete it. There is no "Wiki-standard" that calls for outright deletion of text simply because it's badly written, and is in fact a violation of WP policy. But if you can point me to a policy that says otherwise, please do so.Nightscream (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Ultron, you will be blocked from editing. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for a period of 72 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued removal of material. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Asgardian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unfortunately this is a rather petty act by an emotive user who is simply annoyed at the fact that things did not go entirely his way on the Ultimates article, and appears to be obsessive about the content. He then followed me to the Ultron page, and insists on keeping what is weak material. By that I mean poorly written, unsourced and flipping in and out of universe. This is not how articles are written, as I mentioned on the Talk page for the article. It should be obvious that the additions made are beneficial. These are meant to encyclopedia-standard articles, and should not read as fan pages that mean nothing to a layman. I put it to the powers that be that Nightscream should possibly have his adminship revoked, given he has shown no ability to read the situaion here and has responded with emotion rather logic. What I have done here is no different to the many, many other articles I have improved. Asgardian (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, reread this, if you haven't already. Engaging in the kinds of petty, churlish and bitter personal attacks that you just did will not get you unblocked. It is especially unwise when you are under ArbCom restrictions, and I may extend the block just for that. I have also read the diffs Nightscream provided. This has clearly been a long time coming. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I gave you another 24 hours of time-out as a result of your comments on the contributor in the above unblock request. Per discussion with Jc37 the whole block has been reduced to 48 hours with credit for time served. Although this does not come without a warning that continued incivility could lead to an indefinite block. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about these blocks. As such, I've left a note for User:Hiding to review the initial block, and have also left a note about my concerns at Daniel Case's talk page.

Also, for the moment Asgardian, please do not add another unblock template. - jc37 05:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you (Asgardian) to heed the warning concerning incivility.And note that this warning includes other disruptive actions, such as you have also been warned about in the past. - jc37 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Emperor if he would help mentor you. What this would mean in your case would be for you to drop a note on his talk page anytime you are in a contentious situation on a talk page, or anytime your edits are reverted, or anytime you would like a "second opinion" on anything. Another set of eyes might be helpful to (hopefully) prevent future situations.

If you agree with this, please leave a note on his talk page when your block has expired. - jc37 07:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that this is fine by me. Rather than things escalating I am happy to give my opinion on any dispute. I have this page on my watchlist and if anyone is welcome to drop me a line and ask me to look things over. Worth bearing in mind I will be working on the general principles that everything can be fixed with commonsense interpretations of the guidelines (and remember they are only guidelines not the Word of God) and talking things through (keeping in mind that the "D" in BRD is "discuss" not "do it again", and that consensus may mean compromise). So give those a go first but it looks like it is going to be important to intervene early to stop things getting out of hand - I think the one thing we can all agree upon is that it'd be better to head things off earlier as this isn't conducive to improving articles (which is why we are all here after all). (Emperor (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the note. I you feel that someone is not seeing the bigger picture or broader plan then it is really your responsibility to try and explain it to them as it will avoid a lot of misunderstanding - if in doubt take it to the talk page, it might be slower in the long run but playing ping pong with the versions is ultimately even less productive. You should also assume good faith when suggesting they are following you around - as you edit a lot of Marvel articles anyone sharing the same interest will tend to also edit the same articles and it is also sometimes a good idea to check out editor's contributions to see what they are doing. (Emperor (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've asked Nightscream a couple of questions. I think it is likely the block will expire before we get this sorted, which is a bummer. What I suggest is that the next time you get blocked, don't post an unblock that amounts to a personal attack. Keep it really simple. Say, "I do not understand what this block is for". I really do not know how to make this point any clearer, so I will be brutally honest, if you can forgive me. You need to learn how to engage with people. If there is a medical condition which affects you, letting people on Wikipedia know about it may provide some understanding and help us better engage with you. But there needs to be respect of the rules of engagement. Civility and consensus are the rules of engagement on Wikipedia. They need to be respected by everyone. If you respect them, it makes it easier for you to argue your own case. Right. It's a new day, let's see where it takes us. Hiding T 09:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Action -254.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for the nice note. It's much appreciated. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! :) You took out my edit of the lede I wrote to the article on Henry Pym. The lede/lead is supposed to be a summarization of the sections that are below it, as stated in WP:LEAD. I summarized the PH and FCB, since I thought those were the most notable sections. Just wondering why my edit was reverted. I haven't edited in a long while here, and don't know if there was a rule change, or if it was because the PH and FCB were the only things summarized. If it was because of the PH and FCB thing, then I can add a summary of the other sections to the new lede/lead as well. Just wondering why the edit was reverted, and if there's any way to have a compromise. Thank you, and have a nice night (Well, it's night here... :))! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... I wasn't insinuating that I thought you were being spiteful, so my apologies if that's what it sounded like!! I'm just a bit clueless on current policies now-a-days, not having edited for a while, so forgive the bad edit. I was always under the impression that articles that are considered Good/Featured articles had a multiple paragraph lead. If the new rules say otherwise, then I apologize. I want to see if this article can become a GA or Featured article (I'm a big Henry Pym fan over every other character, so forgive my fanboy-ish goals! ;) ) Thanks, and have a good night! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for folks to help convert Respect Threads to wiki formatting on Project Fanboy: WikiFans. Respect Threads, showcase scans of feats performed by comic book characters and have gained an audience on several comic book message boards. A few other wiki editors and myself are trying to convert them from the unprofessional look of a bunch of posts on a message board to the formatting common with WikiMedia wiki's. To view an example of what we're doing, here is a link to Respect Silver Surfer.

I was wondering if you might have time to contribute your comic book knowledge and/or scans of comic book characters performing feats, and help us out with our Respect Articles project?Millennium Cowboy (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear! I look forward to the help! Muchos Gracias amigo! Millennium Cowboy (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Source for creative origins and development? BOZ (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear your opinion on this: Talk:Odin (Marvel Comics)#Marvel: Ultimate Alliance

vol 1

I haven't reverted yet, but would you explain why you removed all the volume clarifiers from Odin? - jc37 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And nor should you revert. The Wiki-way for original volumes is to just state issue and dates. If it is Vol. 2 and onwards, it gets a mention.

PS. - please don't jump in when someone else has asked me question. This is not a 1984 scenario. --Asgardian (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "wiki-way"? Presuming that you mean some guideline somewhere, would you please point to it?

As for commenting on a talk page. My comment does not preclude you responding to the question. After all, I could have just as easily responded on their talk page. That's one of the wonders of Wikipedia, discussion is just a click away : )

Anyway, I look forward to your citation for the initial question. Else, yes, I (or others) may indeed revert the removal. (Honestly, I could have reverted the edit already, per WP:BRD, but I thought I would ask if you had a "good reason". Which I'm still waiting for...) - jc37 07:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No cited reasons? (I note that you have edited since the post above.) Very well, then I'll revert. - jc37 22:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon... I though I'd give Asgardian a chance to dig this up. But...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles with numerous volumes last sentence. - J Greb (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the citation. That's all I was wanting to know in regards to the edits in question. It's a shame that Asgardian couldn't be bothered to explain his edits. - jc37 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know if I can get the OK to start a "List of Thor enemies" page since every other superhero has his own Rogues Gallery page. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold (but not reckless). And be willing to discuss upon request (or even proactively). And you should probably be fine. Just my two pence : ) - jc37 06:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is up. Now we need a template and page for Namor. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:07, 7 Auguest 2008 (UTC)

1. Break up your edits.
2. Unless there is some where else the DC bit is included, it stays in the article. It is as relevant as the Amalgam bit and since the article is under (comics) it is the de facto dab article.
3. If you feel the section still needs to go, bring it to the articles talkpage instead of editing it out by fiat.
4. Lastly, if you're going to fix the "vol. #" by the MoS, fix all of them in the article you're editing. you missed a few "vol. 1" and left the "vol. 2" in the wrong places.

- J Greb (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just caught your link that you put on my talk page. I thank you for it. It's much appreciated. --12.217.237.175 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it contain every appearance by the character? DCincarnate (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there again, Asgardian! How are you today? :) I noticed that you edited out much of Paulley's additions to the Henry Pym article. I say that we should wait until it is decided what will be done at the Criti Noll articles for deletion page, before you get to work on that certain section (Though I do agree with your edit, however. I just think that it will be good to not start a conflict in case someone takes something the wrong way!) In essence, I reverted your current edit. If you disagree, however, feel free to revert my edit. Thanks, and have a nice day! The link to the article for deletion page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criti_Noll CarpetCrawler (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:GoldenAgeVision.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asgardian! How are you doing? :) I've noticed a person named "asgardian" that at one point was a member of the "Avengers Assemble!" message board. If this is the same person, then may I say, greetings, fellow member! I have worked on the Henry Pym lead, and would like for you to view my edits, which you can find here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CarpetCrawler/Sandbox I would like it if you could tell me if there's anything wrong with it, that would make it unsuitable for the Henry Pym article. Is it too wordy? Too detailed? Any advice on how to change it and make it look suitable enough? You're more of an expert on this stuff than I am, so any comments are appreciated. Thanks, and have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you mind if I asked you a question? You said in your Edit Summary, "Remember, no mention of dates in the paragraphs unless a PH." What is the reason for this? Is this a policy or WP guideline? Explaining when this occurred would contextualize the passage. Without it, the way it starts off, "Previous contact with Iron Man's armor forces Iron Man to transform...", doesn't seem to make sense in terms of tense, since it doesn't tell the reader when this occurred. Many thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you modified the section I mentioned, describing it in your edit summary with "Clarification as per request". I'm not sure if this is intended as a reference to my above post, since it doesn't address my points about when the events in question occurred, or my question about the derivation of your statement "Remember, no mention of dates in the paragraphs unless a PH". Can we please discuss this? I started a discussion on that article's Talk Page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it's in the reference, but don't you think the text is lacking in temporal context? Doesn't it raise the question to the reader of when it occurred, in terms of how it reads? Nightscream (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree that this edit was an obviously good one, but for all we know, it might've been some kid with currently poor writing skills, and/or who is new to WP. Please don't assume vandalism in cases like this, as doing so is not in keeping with WP:Newbie and WP:AGF. Check out What is not vandalism for more on this. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Asgardian. When you say that "we don't tag the original volume", are you citing an actual policy, style guide, or consensus decision? If you could refer me to this, I'd appreciate it. As for the subsequent volume titles, there was a 1984 miniseries by Bob Budiansky that was indeed called Prince Namor, the Sub-Mariner. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the West Coast Avengers cover in Vision (Marvel Comics)

1. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Resolution images should be capped at 300px unless there is an exceptionally good reason for a more detailed (read larger) version. Since the use of the image is to illustrate the Vision, the image does not need to be any larger than 300.
   • Side note — convention has been to leave covers as published at 300px, even though if they aren't used in the infobox. Otherwise, non-box image tend to get capped at 250px.
2. As per the upload screen, do not use filenames that would be cryptic or obscure to the general user. "WCA-45" is cryptic shorthand. I believe we went through this point once before.
3. It generally isn't appropriate to replace an image with a near identical but differently named and/or formatted file. Cases can be made for when the old file is either manipulated to add or remove content or is of poor quality. Neither of those exist for Image:Westcoast45.png.
4. Yes, the png could use a FUR, but the solution is to add it there, nor upload a new file.
5. Considering you punted the png out of West Coast Avengers, you had the oportuninty to see that it predates the jpg.

- J Greb (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD requires a longer lead - if you don't like the current one then feel free to edit it but do not simply remove it because you prefer the article the way you want it (raising WP:OWN issues). I was asked to point out the policies that apply in any content disputes you find yourself in and am doing so here. Getting into another round of disputes where the guidelines are so clearly against you is unwise, especially so soon after a block for a similar dispute. (Emperor (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah... that was years ago, though, so that's all in the past! Thankfully, I haven't had any problems so far in my return here. Then again, I'm only focusing on articles on things I'm interested in (Marvel Comics, Phil Collins, Genesis amongst other things,) so the chance for arguments is much less. Anyway, I'm very glad it's turned into a big civil discussion on there, and I'm also glad that we may very well all reach a compromise! CarpetCrawler (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Ultimates, Jeph Loeb stated his plans in an interview, which it was opined was not sufficient to pass WP:Crystal. This is not the case with Black Bolt's presence in "War of Kings". Marvel has not only confirmed this on its website, it did so in Marvel: Your Universe Saga, which is in print on in comic stores. Because of this, it certainly passes the following criteria listed for WP:CRYSTAL:

• 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Because of the aforementioned confirmed info, it is certain to take place, and not even "almost".
• 2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. This does not apply to this situation.
• 3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. None of the information is extrapolation, speculation, or "future history". When a publisher flat-out states a given fact about an upcoming storyline, and advertises that fact in books released prior to it, and on its website, it is factually incorrect in terms of plain vocabulary to call it "speculation".

Let me know your thoughts. Nightscream (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]