Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:38, 1 December 2009

Welcome to my User Talk page. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have.

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Misplaced Pages:

• The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Misplaced Pages:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Misplaced Pages policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Misplaced Pages Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!

--WillMak050389 04:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Last Statement

Odd to be sure, given that your History indicates that you seem to spend all your time policing one entry (cosmic fetish?). Have you actually crafted any articles from scratch? Made significant contributions? If not, perhaps more discussion and less snarkiness may help. Study the changes.

Asgardian 02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would ask Asgardian to please use civility in discussions with fellow editors, and to concentrate on the content of the edits rather than cast aspersions on the character of the editor. --Tenebrae 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanos

Hey, just wondered if you would like to put your feelings over the recent discussions on the Thanos article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCincarnate (talk • contribs)

Galactus

Just informing you and User:Asgardian that I've formally instituted an WP:RfC, and for all parties to not edit Galactus until issues are resolved. --Tenebrae 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Galactus&oldid=247883656 would be wlecome. Asgardian (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your support on the pages currently being haunted by a certain other user. He seems hellbent on elevating what I can only assume is a favourite character - Thanos - at the expense of all else. He can't seem to see how subjective his versions are. Well, we'll persist.

Asgardian (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Taa II

This article lacks citations to multiple third-party reliable sources to verify its assertions and assert its notability. Simply undoing the redirect without adding reliable sources isn't useful. Either add sources -- per Misplaced Pages policy, the burden of proof is on editors adding or restoring information -- or let the redirect stand. Or the article can just go to AfD, where I'm sure it will be deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In what way does the Taa II article qualify for speedy deletion? Assertion of notability is not one of the twelve criteria for speedy deletion, thus you are overstepping boundaries. TheBalance (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd put it up for speedy deletion. I'll fire up the AfD now. --EEMIV (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the article without discussion. TheBalance (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Taa II

I have nominated Taa II, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Taa II. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --EEMIV (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Silver surfer

just to be sure, I've had a look at my comics and the Galactus mini explicitly states in TEXT that the silver Surfer is a) in a black hole and that b) he is at the core - so I concur with your analysis. I really don't plan to indulge any more of David's time wasting debates on something that is clearly stated on the page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Balance, please do not revert portions of an article that are part of an ongoing dispute and Talk Page discussion. Doing this can get you blocked. Discuss it on the Talk Page with others, and do not revert until some consensus has been reached. Nightscream (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus

Yes, I've been absent from Wiki for a while and have seen the ensuing mess. I'm sorry but to be quite honest, I've grown so irritated with David A that I stopped using wiki for a month and half. I mentioned in the Galactus talk page that it was a partial reason for my absence but in truth it was the major one; I just didn't want to elaborate on that in an effort to sound more diplomatic. His edits on the Galactus article weren't worth my aggravation, so i'm sorry to say that I just didn't give a damn for a while. I see you've been having your disagreements with him as well. In any event Nightscream asked me to comment and I have done so, but won't be able to comment again for a week or so due to an upcoming obligation. I'm just honestly sick of the dude. I've got a lot more to say about him but i'll keep it to myself and limit it to the comments i've given on the talk page...so you're on your own for now man in terms of dealing with him, I apologize.Mobb One (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, David A is continuing to obsess over the Power Cosmic Template. All the reasons why this area can't be quantified have been explained, but he can't see it. His fannish obsession with this is a concern. Asgardian (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't _have_ an "anti-Galactus agenda". (What would that be? Cutting out the disproven lies about him containing the previous universe within him? That he's a third of the Living Tribunal? That you guys keep wanting to include some sort of power-ranking that puts him equal with Eternity, even though this has been consistently completely disproven?) I have an extreme annoyance with extremely selective disinformation, and Asgardian is the worst Misplaced Pages user that I have ever encountered in this regard. Habitual lies, deceit, and insincere manipulation is a red blanket to me. I've been engaged in cleaning up plenty of other pages from this kind of hyperbole as well. Your selected section is simply the first to be this completely unreasonable and fanatic in inserting them. If you think that you get annoyed with _me_ for inserting verified truths, just imagine how I get from having to counter Asgardian's deliberate lies and complete inability to compromise. He's a proven sockpuppet user with multiple bans and blatantly limited relation between his justifications and cutting, or highly contradictory systems for different pages. Dave (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dave, you have never been able to build a case for any of your agenda-driven changes. You continually accuse others of lies and half truths, but you are absolutely the worst I have ever seen in this regard. Your so called "verified truths" are 9 times out of 10 nothing nothing of the sort; and frankly, there's nothing worse than an editor that pushes his POV interpretations based on misrememberings and questionable reading comprehension skills.

I have little problem with Asgardian's latest edits. From what I've seen, he is removing edits that really don't have a place in an encyclopedic entry. It is Misplaced Pages policy to avoid edits that rely on the OHOTMU or have a fan-site tone (such as power match-ups, as that invites extremely questionable and POV edits). And before you accuse me of being an Asgardian sockpuppet, a quick review of our edit history search will show that we've had our disgreements in the past. TheBalance (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When the handbooks completely overlap (As they usually do. They are official editorial summaries of all appearances after all) with the information within the books that forms a coherent picture. I do however, have a fixation with matter-of-fact quoting of explicit, non-contradicted information, including the handbooks, and have very strong views of that the most npov accurate information is retrieved by combining these with upper limit first-hand sources. (For example, Galactus blowing up several solar systems during his Stan Lee-penned stalemated battle with Mephisto is a good power gauge, and so is converting a solar-system scale worldship into energy, being stated as an insect compared o Eternity, or gradually growing to consume the universe in an alternate future in FF, whereas an in several instances contradicted instance, including the issue itself, vague instance such as the supposed "galaxy-teleporting" isn't, and literally creates an annoyed itch in the back of my head that I can't get rid of), rather than inserting personal preferences. I don't ever deliberately lie on Misplaced Pages, and have never used sockpuppets. When I've discovered a mistake, I've made another edit to fix it. The very few times that I have been unitentionally logged off in the middle of editing, I have mentioned that it was me in the next post. What would the supposed lies be, removing your old mention that 'the power cosmic is the most powerful force in the universe and Galactus is the embodiment of it' referencing an issue wherein Thanos mentioned that there are more potent forces around. Or getting annoyed when some of you try to twist the text into showing Galactus as equal or greater than the Hunger entity, when the character stated himself that he was "less than nothing" in comparison, and was almost killed by a planetary impact right afterwards? That's the kind of misdirecting information-control that tends to drive me nuts. Insert the most impressive stuff that is actually there, great, it's appreciated, but don't ceonsor the rest. Ditto for Asgardian tweaking Dormammu to give a few minor but important misleading storyline summaries, removing explicitly quoted references to replace with pov phrasings, and attempting to severely understate the character from what's actually been officially stated. "9 out of 10"? Now that's massive hyperbole. As for the "questionable reading comprehension skills" I suppose that refers to that you keep inserting that Galactus cotnains an entire universe within him, even though the cited issue explicitly shows him and the sentience to be separate after being immersed in the Cosmic Egg, and that the Thanos series (and some handbook if I don't misremember) stated it to be Eternity (his self-referred "father") before being reborn in the Big Bang. Given that you apparently read my base so completely wrong, I'm not sure if you've been more unreasonable than usual in our past dealings. At least get my viewpoint(/itching habit, but I'm trying to break free) right, as a far less specific thing than your own. It's not centered on Galactus. It's centered on that there is a sum pattern of references that should be followed. But then again I tend to feel like I'm dealing with a fanatic scientologist, which may be very inaccurate and unfair as well. Dave (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If it looks like a supercharger...

It probably is a supercharger, similar to the exact same one used on the production car. See also the FIA GT3 website and the Racecar Engineering article on the Matech GT3 car. You are however correct that the Doran GT in ALMS GT2 does not have a supercharger, but that has nothing to do with the Matech GT3 car. V_IX (Talk) 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the picture in Matech's PDF, but that actually appears to be the Roush-Yates DP motor. I'd also further point out that the other pictures in the Matech PDF are of the original 2007-spec Ford GT demo car anyway, they are not 2009 photos. I also suggest you reread the FIA GT3 site, as it does in fact list the displacement as 5000 cc. There's no mention there of it being 5.4 L. There is also no reference anywhere that I can find stating that Matech has changed the homologated engine in the GT3 cars. V_IX (Talk) 00:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well clearly there are several definitive sources saying various things, so some more sources are needed. The FIA GT3 website says both sizes but says supercharged, Matech says N/A Cammer, Racecar Engineering says and shows a supercharged V8 and says 5.4. One source doesn't trump another with this many opinions, so more sources are necessary, and simply stating that they changed the homologated engine in the car between 2007 and 2009 requires a citation as well. V_IX (Talk) 00:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that doesn't trump anything. First, that's the Mustang, we're discussing the Ford GT. And second, that's from 2006, which is before the 2007 picture of a Ford GT with a Supercharger. V_IX (Talk) 00:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But by your very arguement the GT and Mustang ran different engines in 2007. So clearly they're not completely intertwined. And considering how much disagreement there is across various sources, where does it say the 2007 engine isn't a 5.0, supercharged in the Ford GTs case by N/A in the Mustang? V_IX (Talk) 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But as you point out, the FIA GT3 website has the bore and stroke incorrect on the Ford GT, and in fact lists the engine as supercharged, which you say are wrong. So then how can you use the same website as proof that it is an N/A V8? The FIA GT3 website is therefore entirely questionable as a reference. 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But again, those are the four Mustang variants, and we've already seen the Mustang and the GT have run different engine types in the same season. So saying the 5.0 Cammer is N/A isn't helping much because we need more and better references. V_IX (Talk) 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there needs to be more conclusive sourcing to back that up however. V_IX (Talk) 04:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you recently tried to give Red Line Oil a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Undid your Ford GT edit

I undid your to the Ford GT article. The 1/4 mile times are sourced, it appears you have selectively chosen to include a single performance measure which just happens to be the very best tested time ever recorded by a magazine, hardly NPOV. Also adding "There is no need for performance stats from multiple sources. Please do not modify this list; It WILL be reverted." to the article appears to violate page ownership. And including as a source is a blatant copyright violation. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I undid your edit again. This is your second warning about promoting a POV, page ownership, copyright violations, and now a warning for edit warring. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)