Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Book of Vile Darkness. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 陣内Jinnai 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Lady Deathstrike. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 24.148.0.83. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (24.148.0.83) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!
TwilightHelryx 23:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks! :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not believe that the events were in the same issue, but there is a small chance I might be wrong. Can you give me a page/panel in which the other part of this happened, and then I'll go back and recheck for confirmation and then move the reference to the end of that paragraph? Homoaffectional (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea. :( 24.148.0.83 (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person who kept adding the Siege/Avengers reunited text to the Thor page (that you've removed) continues to put it back. So, to prevent an edit war, I've added two references. The first couple times, s/he removed them as well. I've added the references now to the exact text s/he wrote (which was probably the way I should have done it in the first place, but I am new at adding references/citations) and it hasn't been changed recently.
Anyway, hopefully that will prevent another revert. Your thoughts are definitely welcome, and hope you are ok with the compromise I've tried to create. I think it satisfies your need (per your initial reversions of his addition) of citing where such was stated.
Belay my last. I honestly couldn't fathom anyone actually giving a series the name "The Sellswords" without irony, particularly a series featuring Drizzt Do'Urden. Sorry about that. Boomshadowtalkcontribs 04:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the image for Enchanters Three. I had to scram and never got back the the computer. Your help with with the minor points is greatly appreciated. Asgardian (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Korvac, yes, had to run again, but came back and fixed it. Thanks for your diligence.
I am sorry if I am giving you an hard time with the archenemy thing. I am not trying to edit war with you or anything in fact since I thought you felt that way I decided to do the same on the article Venom but Darktower didn't like it. By the way it's the article Venom (comics) not the article Eddie Brock that mentions they are archenemies. I was wondering why you were never deleting it on the Venom artice now I know why. Also that's where Mike Conroy's quote belonged so I put it there for you.God bless. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! 24.148.0.83 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Timberius has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://marvel.wikia.com/Timberius_(Earth-616) (matching the regex rule \bwikia\.com\b). If the external link you inserted or changed was to an external Wiki, then please note that these links should generally not be included (see 'links to avoid' #12). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
My bad. I fixed it up without the link. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that it was used in OHTTMU. This is the original image I found: http://www.comicvine.com/aurora/29-3189/aurora-bw/108-11134/150061-aurora/105-190980/ It shows both Byrne and Rubinstein's signatures on the lower right hand side, which makes me believe it was a commission. Was it later used for the handbook or are all handbook images original?Luminum (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the evidence so far, not really. Apparently she's stabbed through the leg in Chapter 2, seems to be depicted as having lost it in Chapter 3, and is just show to be "wounded" in Chapter 4. All discussions about her wound only say that it is "grave" but do not state that her leg was lost. I'm unwilling to make a statement about her leg based on Land's sketchy artwork of her as a stick figure and a later depiction where her lower leg is generally hidden by other characters. Hope that helps.Luminum (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're interested, I just happened upon an earlier reference to Thor's hammer found missing in the "Old West". It's the first story (but not the cover story) in DC's Tales of the Unexpected, No.16, August 1957. A gold prospector ("Mr.Bard") finds the hammer and uses it to create rain. Thor appears and explains that Loki stole the hammer and hid it on Earth. Thor was punished, reduced to human size, and made to roam the Earth in search of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argobod (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Equilibrius has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://marvel.wikia.com/Equilibrius (redirect from http://www.marveldatabase.com/Equilibrius). If the external link you inserted or changed was to an external Wiki, then please note that these links should generally not be included (see 'links to avoid' #12). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
My bad - I'll remove the link. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to S.H.I.E.L.D.. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from S.H.I.E.L.D.. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Can You Prove That You're Human (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hello, 24.148.0.83. You have new messages at Can You Prove That You're Human's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I think the list of Baldur's Gate characters should rightfully be named "List of Baldur's Gate party members" (or something to that effect), as that is its actual scope at the moment. At the same time, I think the List of Forgotten Realms characters is actually an okay place for the characters you mention, though that whole article would benefit from being sorted according to the origin of the characters (with headers like "Dark Elf Trilogy", "Baldur's Gate series", "Source Books" and so on). I began that work myself off-line, but have have not read any of the books so I can't finish that project.
But if you want to go the other route and include the various Baldur's Gate characters from the list of Forgotten Realms characters to the Baldur's Gate list instead, I think they should be put in a table under a separate header, like the party members. And the intro paragraph should be rewritten to accomodate the changes.
And just a note, Belhifet is from Icewind Dale, not Baldur's Gate.
Let me know what you think and want to do. Poulsen (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand which list you mean to include the computer characters in - the Baldur's Gate list? And it would be strange to include Belhifet in the BG article - the Belhifet article should be a redirect to Icewind Dale#Plot instead, I think. What is your overall goal for both the BG and FR lists - to only include literary characters in the FR list?
If you do want to include Bodhi, Irenicus, etc. to the BG list, then I think the header "NPCs" might be good, with the the original headers changed to "party members" instead. Like this:
Baldur's Gate
NPCs
Party members
Good
Neutral
Evil
Special
Baldur's Gate II
NPCs
Party members
Good
Neutral
Evil
Recurring Baldur's Gate party members
How does that look to you? Poulsen (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a Seinkiewicz confirmation at Gatherer: Magic Card Database. Something like that would be a perfectly fine verification to footnote. Hope this helps. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (24.148.0.83) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Allison Tragedy (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Again, thanks for your support to the project. I'd recommend getting an account, though. You get access to better tools after about 7 days. Allison Tragedy (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to G.I. Joe (NES game), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: G.I. Joe (NES game) was changed by 24.148.0.83 (u)(t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2010-06-17T01:16:47+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why that triggered you, and don't care... 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I checked it out and wrote a decent summary of the problems on the talk page. I think the user had some good perspectives and definitely good faith, but the overall changes to the article were a regression rather than an improvement, since it stripped content bare and rearranged the format of the page. Can you extend a welcome to him or her to the ComicsProject/Wikipedia (even though it appears that s/he found it to request an assessment)? Also, since I reverted the page, I'm not clear if I'm in a position to handle the assessment. Can someone take that up or can I still do it?Luminum (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. 4twenty42o (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's not even a big enough of a deal for an official warning or something - I just figured since it mentioned the British version of a toy, I would use British English for that sentence even though the rest of the article uses American English. I don't really care though, so no need for a warning. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to get in a back-and-forth edit war, but the 'Post-Siege' section can not stay as it is. The events and dialogue of 'Fallen Sun' counter established canon on several levels and are not suited be shown in the 616 history page as they are.
As for my edit, if Rogue says tomorrow that her last name is 'Van Der Witte' then saying on her wiki page that she revealed to have a Dutch surname would not be speculation. It is simply the meaning of the text. When I say that this supposed relationship can only have taken place before Rogue was physically intimate with Gambit, then that is not speculation. It is the literal meaning of the dialogue. To ascribe any other meaning to the text would, in fact, be speculation and it would be a tad ridiculous. Rogue's words "...for the longest time I was unable to touch.../ he was the only one who could hug me" simply can not be taken to mean "Well, actually I had already done all of that with Gambit, but I guess I'm just not counting that for no reason." These words can only mean this was at a time when no one else had touched her. And therefore before her physical intimacy with Gambit.
Furthermore:
-It is a canonical fact that Sentry's return was well after Rogue had a regular sex life with Gambit.
-It is a canonical fact that Sentry #4 from 2000 shows that Sentry's disappearance was before any students other than the original 5 were X-men, and he has no idea who Rogue is when he sees her, establishing that they never met. And even if that wasn't the case, Rogue would still have been underage before Sentry's disappearance as well as a member of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.
(And I wasn't even going into other facts, like how the ending of Siege fell in the middle of Second Coming, making it impossible for the X-Men to attend any memorial services.)
How is literal meanings of text and quoting issues with year and number either speculation or WP:OR?
As it is now, it is unacceptable. If a scene counters this much established canon it shouldn't be included in factual 616-timelines. There's a scene in X-Men Unlimited #4 that shows Rogue meeting Mystique after her power manifested, while it was well established that she was already with her before that ever happened. I don't see that scene included on this page either, which is as it should be. We all know that sadly, not everything in print is canon, and not everything in print should be treated as such.
What you are describing is straight forward original research and that is not permitted. If (as it does) Sentry: Fallen Son says that they had a relationship then that is what we describe, wikipedia can't and doesn't care (and by extension neither should it's editors) that this makes no sense with what has been established previously. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but now you're ignoring several points:
1- This part of the article shows Rogue's chronological 616 history. The fact that this scene does not fit 616 canon makes it debatable whether this should even be here.
2- To state that this issue says Rogue and Sentry had a 'relationship' is pure speculation in and off itself. No one in the issue says they had a relationship. All Rogue says is that she hugged him, then we see Cyclops say some half-finished insinuating remarks about an off-panel conversation. Rogue is the only one that knows what happened and so we can only go by her dialogue, so the only thing that is 100% certain and correct is that it was revealed she hugged him at least once. 'Relationship' is just speculative. More happened? Maybe it was a one-night stand? Maybe they just made out? Maybe Sentry got a drunken BJ? No 'relationship' but it would all fit the scene. So this current phrasing is wrong by the standards you describe since it's conjecture.
3- If this is to be included, then dozens of other scenes that are not included now (some of which contradict each other) should be added as well. There are dozens, if not hundreds of moments of Rogue's life that are omitted in this article. (Which you clearly have no issue with) Rogue had a flirtation with Longshot once. That's not here. She made out with Colossus once. That's not here. She dated a robot made by Mystique once. That's not here. I could go on and on. If we are to be consistent, all of those things should be added, which I'm sure you'll agree is not a good idea. These articles are not supposed to be a transcription of the characters' every single appearance/mention ever.
Especially in light of the last point, let me suggest we remove the whole 'Post Siege' paragraph then. There is nothing lost by that. Neither the X-Men nor Rogue played any part in the event as it is and it's 616 status is highly dubious. There is no reason to include this. 'For completion's sake' is obviously not an argument. If all those other things can be left out, there is no reason this has to be included.
ADDED NOTE: Half of the 'Publication history' section at the top of this page consists of pointing out inconsistencies between issues that describe her past. That is exactly what I did in this paragraph. Why is it not an issue there then? It has no more or less place there. And isn't this page supposed to be informative about the character's history? Pointing out inconsistencies simply by mentioning content of issues and where they clash, is not 'original research', it is simply what this page is supposed to do: be correct and informative, and mention the sources.-JAHollander (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is about my edit with adding a reference. I screwed up because that was the first time I added reference.[edit]
It was easy to add the reference. I just didn't know what to do to the reference sheet.
It is a reliable source, at least for this place.[edit]
I am trying to prove that I am honest, so I will only use reliable proof. I'd rather leave Wikipedia alone than post information and references that are flat-out &54#@167
You said, "if they're definitely playing D&D, why not use the right links?" on the Gamers: Dorkness Rising article. Well, I thought that the links provided more information, but I'm ok with the D&D-specific links you provided. Just FYI. Funny movie, at an rate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the recognition of and compliment about my recent work on the Dungeon article. I apologise that it has taken me several days to get back to you. In all honesty, I never set out to make any significant edits to the article, but you know how it goes: you start out by thinking, "I'll just do this one little thing", and then you quickly and unexpectedly move from sticking your toe in to being immersed up to your eyeballs. With regards to article assessment, short of requesting a peer review for A-level classification, there often doesn't seem to be a way to submit articles for (re)assessment. As it relates to Dungeon Adventures, neither the Journalism, Magazines, nor Role-playing games WikiProjects have much to say on the subject. However, I find it somewhat difficult to believe that an ordinary, average, everyday user such as myself could assign a particular quality or importance rating to an article (in keeping with established WP criteria, of course), especially one that I have worked on, completely bypassing the involvement of an authoritative, disinterested third party. Or is it actually the case that I do have the freedom and discretion to rate articles on my own? I feel as though there must be something simple and obvious that I have overlooked here. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Apo-kalypso (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the references! I often delete uncited sentences and sections as it gets people to look up the sources. And you see: It works. ;) Best regards, --Revolus 23:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - on occasion, I'm sure it does. :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I used imdb as a reference and you rvt the edits. I am baffled because in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References#Templates, imdb is given as an example. So is it possible to use it or not ? Thanks you in advance for your answer. --Crazy runner (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say was Fox didn't allow it on SPIDER-MAN, but they did show Myotismon biting a womans neck in "Gatomon Comes Calling"/
Contrary to what delusions you may have, not all of us know how Wikipedia's editing criteria and coding works, and not everyone has time to spend an hour or so reading up on its outlandishly foolish system just to get a general idea. Perhaps it is my responsibility to properly format my edits, but it is definitely not your responsibility to destroy contributed content that has a place on a wiki simply because "you don't like how it is formatted." So, get over yourself and help people to fix/add-to the articles, rather than pointlessly contending with them. Also, cry some more. --76.94.191.184 (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made me cry. I'm going to tell my mommy on you. :( 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Valkur has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Tiderolls 02:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the problem is; I was just combining two refs for the same book. But, whatever.24.148.0.83 (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Book of Vile Darkness. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 陣内Jinnai 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Valkur has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Tiderolls 02:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
