This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Minos P. Dautrieve (talk | contribs) at 03:19, 4 April 2008 (→Judicial tyranny article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:19, 4 April 2008 by Minos P. Dautrieve (talk | contribs) (→Judicial tyranny article: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Team America
That comment was priceless. I would have used the Super Friends, but as it was, your post nearly made me nose-boot. Thanks. :) - Arcayne () 07:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
4chan
Thanks for the heads up! Pedro : Chat 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidents Instigated Much?
An IP with a sense of humor it seems. :P I must say these are the most peculiar IP edits I've ever come across. -WarthogDemon 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see. Well, it's been quiet now so maybe not this time. -WarthogDemon 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Apathy
My apathy has depths that your apathy is too shallow to even imagine.Kww (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just An FYI
The Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe is held in very low esteem by the general comic book fan/Wikipedia editor subgroup. Lots42 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- You make valid points. But the usual method is to reference an example. Such as indicating that in BlahBlah Issue (number, month, year), EvilGuy, unaided, punched through an M-1 Abrams tank, then threw a taxi full of accountants into the sun'. That is more clear then saying 'The Handbook says he's really strong'. Lots42 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think you yourself just clarified why the handbook is not held in high regard. Plus, like I indicated, vague. Heck, IIRC, even the handbook itself said the comics themselves were more definitive. Lots42 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Heads up
That IP that just vandalized my pages is a sock of a indef-blocked known sockpuppeter. β 00:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Judicial tyranny article
I am curious as to why you summarily reverted my changes to this article, which removed a large swathe of unsourced material which had no relation to the subject, was in many cases indisputably factually inaccurate. I believe my talk page explanation was clear. The material I removed was an attempt to turn a reasonable article into a rather wacky soapbox, and should have been removed long ago. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)