User talk:Antiyonder

While I don't agree with Strotha's attitude towards unregistered users, calling him/her a loser is out of line. Antiyonder 20:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you had to be harassed by someone who is currently stalking me. He's blocked indefinitely, but keeps finding ways to make new accounts.--Strothra (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Antiyonder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Strothra (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the discussions on the WikiProject Comics talk page. An appearance in other media is not considered an alternate version. Doczilla (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a comic based on a comic probably isn't another medium (I've been dealing with hundreds of these lately), but it's hard to call that an alternate version. It's the same character. Like I said in my original edit summary, it's just an appearance. We don't have to describe every appearance by every character. And as we've been discussing at the WikiProject Comics talk page, we also do not have to describe every alternate version either. They're rarely meaningful parts of a character's encyclopedia-worthy history. Doczilla (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh, no. Anybody is welcome to contribute. Please help discuss these things. It's not a simple issue, and we need a LOT of input to help figure out some guidelines on these things. Doczilla (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, neat! The Nerd has a new video out. Thanks for updating. :P --Kizor (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I see that there's not much of an introduction, there's no organization to the article (e.g., section headings), italics are missing, it belongs in more categories, and there's no real information about its importance or impact on anything else. Doczilla (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say it should be a category. I said it belongs in more categories. Doczilla (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I overreacted when I first saw the merger. While I still can't say I am in total agreement with you, I think it was best to merge the article so it does not get deleted. Again, sorry, I won't try to change it again. 76.189.125.215 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She seemed to be sort of losing it while she was in the DCU, and I vaguely remember Kurt Busiek suggesting that maybe the DCU is why she snapped in Disassembled in a panel, but I can't provide proof of the second one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.20.207 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually unwise to merge that many articles without discussion. I'm not sure that putting diverse and unrelated (except for the lead character, of course) games together makes sense. I've posted on the article's talk page and I'd appreciate it if you make an argument for this combined article there. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to check something on Secret Wars, as I may be confusing it with an editorial screw-up on the mutant Inferno storyline. I hope you can see why Acts of Vengeance needed work.

Regards

Asgardian (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, "greatly similar" is vague and meaningless without more specific details about the similaritie. What's speculative is the relevance. Either one character is known to be based on another, or it's not. Doczilla _STOMP! 20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar" is still a vague, POV-laden word. It would be best to cite an outside source which describes the specific similarities instead of inserting your own observation. Doczilla _STOMP! 09:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivia best reserved for a fan site. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not notable unless you have a reliable secondary source makign a big deal about Avengers members showing up in the comic adaptation of the show. Mentioning the spin-off comic in the first place is bordering on unecessary nonnotable information as it is. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's a violation of any rules. I'm saying if there's no secondary source documentation then it's not notable. Find a reliable secondary source to talk about the comic spinoff and especially the guest appearance by additional Avengers members. Otherwise delete it. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I woud suggest looking up issue reviews or feature articles in magazines, if any exist. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both links appear to be from self-published fan sites, so they wouldn't be considered reliable references. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have my good faith, but you do need references. You could always ask people at the Comics WikiProject for help in acquiring sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with you personally. Our guidelines are anything that is unsourced should either be verified or removed. You can always reinsert the material later if you find a source. As far as comic websites go, www.comicbookresources.com and www.newsarama.com are the most notable. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Shrinking Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ted Adams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Antiyonder. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Antiyonder. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Antiyonder. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Antiyonder. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]