User talk:DeadpoolRP

Longneck

Thanks. And yes, it's very annoying how some people here just revert correct info based on gut feeling or vague recollections - where are these "experts" when blatantly false info is left on pages unchallenged for years? That's not aimed at you btw - from what I've seen you check your sources and cite proper references, unlike most people. 94.14.53.148 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User 87.112.115.8

His edits to List of X-Men members are fanwank. They aren't in the handbook. (And I'm the guy you talked to above, and who brought up the Nemesis/Holocaust mix-up - floating IP, changes each time I log on). 86.137.6.122 (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info and for taking care of the reverting. I was pretty sure he was just making crap up (especially since he kept changing everyone's last names). But since I've been accused of "hijacking" the "List of X-Men members" page and being too dependent on the info in Marvel's handbooks (What's your take on all that, by the way? Have you read all of the stuff on the talk page?), I was trying to be extra careful by taking my time about reverting stuff and giving fair warning so the guy could either verify or change his posts. DeadpoolRP (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem on the fixing the vandalism. I'n fairly aware of who was and wasn't named in the student list in the handbook, and there's been no further students named since, so I knew those names were dodgy. With regards to using info from the handbooks, I think you are being entirely reasonable. It's Marvel's right to say who is and isn't considered an official X-Man, and they have set the criteria for membership and thus know who does and doesn't qualify. And I think the criteria used makes sense: initially Prof X was the one person who could make someone an X-Man - if he said "you are part of the team" then you were, regardless of whether the others liked it or how into the "dream" you were (c.f. Mimic, Changeling, Havok and Lorna Dane). Once Prof X started leaving the school to jaunt around space, the right to give membership passed on to Cyclops and/or other leaders of the group - so if they said you were, you were. Hence people like Gambit joining, without ever having been students or even met Xavier. No one argues them being members. Nobody seems to query Armor being a member, yet she joined in not disimilar circumstances to the "Street Team" X-Men, basically being in the wrong place at the right time and having the established X-Men present go "okay, welcome to the team." And on the basis of the "Cyclops can make anyone an X-Man if he wants them to be, because he's boss, and has thus been given that mandate" then if he wants to turn round and say that Utopia residents who help the X-Men on active missions are X-Men, then he's the one whose opinion counts.

As to infiltrators (like "Skrullverine") vs "traitors who joined without buying into the dream" (like Mystique or Sabretooth) - if I join the US military but intend to betray them to the Soviets, then I am still a legitimate member of the military, albeit not a very good one; if I join by disguising myself as someone else who is a member, then I am not. Same deal. Swordsman was considered an Avenger before he redeemed himself, even though his original term was while working for the Mandarin and planning to betray them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.63.12 (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Handbooks

A bit of reasoning on why using the Marvel Handbook is generally avoided is because it is a separate encyclopedia (albeit published by Marvel) and using their information to cite information in another encyclopedia (Wikipedia) is a copyright issue. Information on Wikipedia should be derived and summarized from either source material (ex. someone in the comics says Character A is part of the X-Men team, or it's implied by the title's roster) or from reliable third-party sources (i.e. not Marvel). We can only go on the source material, not a separate encyclopedia. I got in a similar issue over images that were from the Official Hand Guide's character profiles and had to revert them because they aren't classified under free use. The information/summaries therein aren't either. Hope that helps. I've started a topic here at the Comic Project that you're more than welcome to join and also contribute to WikiProject Comics. Hope to see you there and I hope that explains things a little! Best!Luminum (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a bit vague. If you look in past changes (probably a year back), I tried to add the X-Men team affiliation to her page (how it got there now is beyond me) under the basis that Marauders refer to the opposing force as "X-Men" and Monet is part of that team. However, someone pointed out that the writer actually has her state that she's "on loan", differentiating her from the rest. The idea that I eventually accepted is that even if a character fights with the X-Men and even if the public might consider all the teams part of the "X-Men", they shouldn't be categorized with that team unless they're actually part of the actual X-Men team. I just wrote it up on the Project page, so maybe that'll expand a bit.

Additionally, if I may respond to the Armor comment posted by another user, Armor would be considered an X-Man because the Astonishing X-Men title is just another title featuring the X-Men team. As an example of this "officially recognized" in source material business, she's stated multiple times by a character to be part of that team. Other characters, like the Cuckoos, no matter how prominently featured in the franchise, haven't, so their membership doesn't technically exist based on source material. They would just be franchise characters, while Armor is both an X-Men team member and an X-Men franchise character. Hope that helps! I'm glad you could join the project. I know its confusing and frustrating to navigate as a new person here, so if you have any questions, definitely bring them up at the project page or feel free to ask me and I'll be happy to help as much as I can.Luminum (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"A bit of reasoning on why using the Marvel Handbook is generally avoided is because it is a separate encyclopedia (albeit published by Marvel) and using their information to cite information in another encyclopedia (Wikipedia) is a copyright issue." Not actually correct. So long as you are only referencing it, or quoting small excerpts with proper accreditation, then one reference text can cite another reference text without any copyright issues. So, in areas where there is ambiguity (like who is and isn't a member of the X-Men), Marvel's official word on the matter, as given in the handbooks, can be used and cited as evidence. Copying down the entire history of a character from a handbook would be a copyright breach; noting that character XXX is an X-Man, with a cite note that says XXX worked with the team in comic A in a way that suggested they may have become a member, with said membership status later confirmed in handbook B (or, conversely, handbook B confirmed they had not joined), is not a copyright breach. 86.136.85.97 (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to X-Men template

If you are going to erase characters from the template because they are not X-Men then you should erase the following:

Cypher: not an X-Man Karma: not an X-Man Magik: not an X-man Magma: not an X-man Mirage: not an X-Man Sunspot: not an X-Man Warlock: not an X-Man

These are all members of the New Mutants —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaf2675 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Cypher, Karma, Magik, Magma, Mirage, Sunspot, and Warlock are all X-Men, as has been discussed on several talk pages, including the talk page for the very template we're discussing. It has been said throughout the current New Mutants series that the "New Mutants" are a squad of X-Men run by Cannonball. Cyclops, who's the current leader of all of the X-Men, has called them Sam's squad of X-Men on multiple occasions. During "Second Coming" they are called the X-Men's beta team multiple times. And Marvel's handbooks have listed all of them as current full-fledged X-Men members. (Plus, Mirage was already an X-Men member during Claremont's second X-Men run, and Magik was on the "Second Coming" ALPHA X-Men team.) So yep, they're all X-Men.

Similarly, Lady Mastermind was a member of the X-Men during Mike Carey's run on adjectiveless X-Men before it became X-Men Legacy, as pointed out by 68.55.153.254 in the edit summary to his recent change to the template (he says it was issues #188-200, which sounds about right).

Finally, Jamie Madrox has never been a full-fledged X-Man. He was offered membership but declined, and he was later on the "Muir Island X-Men" substitute team, but never on the main X-Men. Similarly, Wolfsbane has been on two X-Men sub-groups--the "New Mutants Graduate X-Men" and "X-Force (X-Men Strike Team)"--but never the main team. DeadpoolRP (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The status, relatives, previous alliances have all been deleted from the Infobox. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up. DeadpoolRP (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Need opinions on photos

Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Death to False Metal

Sorry for changing all of the Weezer info, I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing and did it without any thought. My opinion on whether or not it is a studio album is unchanged however. It seems that every music source considers it to be a compilation album. I know Rivers Cuomo says it is logically Hurley's follow up but other band contributors (Karl Koch) have not described it as a studio album. The main point is that Wikipedia should be consistent with the other music databases in which Death to False Metal is a compilation album. NHLgoalie1 (talk) 9:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, when you do stuff on Wikipedia for a while, you can forget what it's like to be new. Basically, when something's controversial like that topic, there's a discussion on the talk page where the general consensus is the opposite of the change you want to make, and there's a note asking you not to change something, you really just need to go to the talk page, present your argument, present your sources, and see what the consensus is. And as a side note, Wikipedia isn't worried about being "consistent with other music databases" if those databases are wrong and/or overly simplified. Whatever your opinion on Death to False Metal, I'd hope you'd at LEAST admit it's not a SIMPLE, CONVENTIONAL compilation album. Think of every compilation you've ever seen before: Tracks recorded at all different times; mostly tracks that have already been released elsewhere. DTFM is neither of these things; sure, the tracks were written at different times, and the basic tracks were recorded at different times, but lots of studio albums are like that: tracks written at different times, tracks with lots of different takes, early takes being reused and modified in favor of newer takes, etc. All of the songs on DTFM went through extensive re-records, reworkings, part additions, part subtractions, etc., as the album was recorded and crafted into a consistent whole. And none of the tracks had ever been released before. You can argue that it's a non-traditional studio album, but I can argue just as strongly that it's a non-tradition compilation, and lots of bands have non-traditional studio albums that are still considered studio albums. Just look at R.E.M.'s New Adventures in Hi-Fi or Jackson Browne's Running on Empty, to name a couple off the top of my head. DeadpoolRP (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Aurora

No problem. Honestly I don't have a stake, but the X-Men is one of the pages I watch (as an a comic book guy from my youth) and I thought your last revert was well thought out and reasonable. I agree that I don't want to get into a revert war. I have one of my own on another page - very minor issue, but the person has put in the same info (of questionable intent) about 7X. So far, I'm the only one that cares and the editor doesn't respond to talk requests... After hearing so many awful things about Wikipedia (how basically its a free-for-all and nothing on any of the pages is correct), I'm trying to bring in at least a little sanity. Ckruschke (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Symbiotes - dispute resolution

Can you request a dispute resolution on this, as I am not a registered member? Spidey104 is just ignoring requests to provide evidence for his claims the symbiotes have official names, and ignoring requests to discuss it. Every single discussion on the various symbiote pages has ended the same way: agreement that most of them have no official names. All the editors who say "No official name" go through the proper procedure - discuss change, then make it. But editor after editor who erroneously thinks they have official names just ignores the all the rules, say something like "I'm sure they do" (e.g. I think I saw it somewhere and am going on this and not hard evidence) and changes it back based on their inaccurate assumption. 90.219.225.168 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. I've never done that before and don't know quite how it works, but I will look into it and do what I can to get the ball rolling. DeadpoolRP (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this might not be exactly what you had in mind, but the page on dispute resolution recommended trying some less formal methods of dispute resolution before requesting official mediation or arbitration, so I posted here about the problem and asked for help. I also asked if I should jump ahead to official dispute resolution measures since it's a recurring problem. I guess we'll see what happens. Feel free to weigh in on the matter! DeadpoolRP (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ben Templesmith, again

I apologize for asking, but can you offer your opinion on the latest round of the Ben Templesmith Photo Saga? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glen Phillips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All I Want (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could use your comment

Hello, you may recognize me from some of the various X-Men articles. There has recently been a content dispute on a couple of them, and since you and I have worked together to discuss many of the various problems that have come up in the past, I wanted to come to see if you would help resolve this one as well. You can find the discussion that's been had so far on the List of X-Men members talk page in the Doop section. Thank you. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Quicksilver

You're right, he never was. I was running on no sleep when writing it; don't know what I was thinking. Thanks. JosephSpiral (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Haha, no problem! Happens to the best of us. :)

X-Men Template issues

Hi, I was looking through the archived entries for the X-Men template talk page, and it seems you were a major contributor to the template. Would you like to give your input to the current state of the template? Namely, there are a few characters who no longer have their own wikipedia pages because other editors have deemed them not notable enough, and I have reservations about the inclusions or exclusions on that page. Wikipedia is all about notability, so I hope you can join into the discussion. Haleth (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of X-Men members page reverted edits

Hi, I was just wondering why you reverted some of my edits on the page? Changeling has also gone by the name Morph so why did you revert that? Also Why did you get rid of the link to Warbirds page? I checked and made sure it lead you to the right Warbird page. And why did get rid of the Unreaveleds I added for secret identities?

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, so regarding your changes:

On the one hand, the version of Changeling that was on the mainstream Marvel universe's X-Men team never used the name Morph, and in fact he died many years before any version of the character used that name. So we can't list a name the character never used.

On the other hand, X-23 in fact IS now using the name Wolverine, so I restored that.

There is no Wikipedia page for the Shi'ar Warbird, and the link you posted was to a page that doesn't exist (go check it).

And as far as the unrevealeds go, (1.) you had Forgetmenot's name listed as forgotten, not unrevealed, which isn't a standard thing to put and seemed like more of a joke or tongue-in-cheek thing, and (2.) I don't know Kymera well enough to know if her name is unrevealed, but since I had to change the other four things I listed, I figured I should change that one back too.

I hope that helps, and let me know if you have any questions/concerns with any of that. DeadpoolRP (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dude, can you take a look at the X-Men members page? I'm not canvassing you to "take a side". We just need more voices and input. One person seems to think that no one else can have collaboration and has basically commandeered the entire page unopposed, not taking anything to the talk page, and then cites "harassment". They leverage having logged tens of thousands of wikipedia edits for ownership of the article. Tomahawk1221 (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. TheHotwiki (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. However, I've looked over the canvassing rules, and while I'm sure I made some good-faith errors, my actions seem fairly in line with the outlined acceptable ways to get feedback when there's disagreement. I tagged and contacted people who have been actively involved in discussing the page and didn't skip users I've had disagreements with--including you and Tomahawk. I went through the talk page archive and looked for repeat commenters. If you feel I missed someone significant, let me know and I will gladly contact them in a neutral way. DeadpoolRP (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I need your help on the list of X-Men members page!!

I need your help on the list of X-Men members page!! Please..

HOTWIKI is a monster dictator and this page is now completely commandeered and rendered ruined! Nothing is taken to talk page and he makes sweeping deletions and everything is based on his opinion. I hope you see this and contribute! Tomahawk1221 (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)