User talk:Ace Class Shadow/Third archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Thing

Why did you change The Thing to a disambiguation page? There is already a disambig page with all this info at Thing. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but much of the information of the two pages is shared. There are many other disambig pages which show instances with and without a "the" or "a." See Sentinel for example. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 00:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Thing contains all the links on the dab you created, and then some. At best The Thing should have been re-created as a redirect to the existing dab when you moved the film. — J Greb 00:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is true, but notice that these thing are best known with "The" appended. The majority of the articles are titled as "The Thing", not just "thing". Plus, a person searching for "The Thing" is looking for these articles alone, like with The Joker and The Joker (disambiguation). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair point... though "The Joker" may not be the best example, since Joker is an article of a single topic that refers a reader to the dab for other uses.
Given the relative lengths of the list and sub-list, the rational seems a bit of a stretch though. If I logged in to find the song from 1950, there is all but no difference between looking through a list of 15 items and one of 6. — J Greb 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the way I reformatted Thing should help with that easy sifting. However, "Thing" is still a very ambiguous term. Far more ambiguous than The Thing. Even as a rehash of content from another page, "The Thing" serves the purpose of excluding all inrelavent content by one word. Plus, the listed uses are hardly representative of how many uses there are. As "thing" grows, "The Thing" will still be exclusive. Like...the BAU. The FBI's a big group and growing, but the Behavioral Analysis Unit is still only like...twenty people. Also, consider Mastermind versus Mastermind (comics). Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Better point... I also ran across Hand (disambiguation), The Hand, and Mr. Hand so I think I may be looking at this from the wrong perspective.
Looking at these examples, you're right. The structure and precedent is there for the dabs as you presented.
Also, looking at the "Hand" trio, it might be an appropriate idea to include a link to "Thing" at the bottom of "The Thing" as a "just in case" measure. — J Greb 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Another question: Why did you revert my edit to The Thing with the edit summary "Not really"? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another question. Why not discuss it on the talk page before moving it and making a disambig page? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Done. Thanks for the recommendation and coming around.
First, because you claimed cleanup when all you did was make POV content changes. It's a bad habit. I specified what "the remake" was recreating, but the game is a separate entity made many years later. Since they're ordered by time of appearance, it belongs at the bottom.
What's to discuss? Nothing's happened at that TP in almost a month. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's POV. The first two lines of the The Thing (film) article state that it's based on the original movie AND the novella. Also, I italicized the film title and fixed the wikilink formatting for the video game. I fealt that since the video game was a derivative of the movie, that it fit well tabbed beneath it. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 05:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was bad POV. Anyway, it's no big deal. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I concede to you on the redirect. So you know, I added The Thing to disambiguation link repair. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, what do you mean by "POV placement?" - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 17:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's more than that to the summary. Plus, you could always just check the edit. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I did read the summary and I did check the edit; I'm simply asking a question. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 18:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The edit moved everything about the alien thing to the top and made some other unwanted changes. I was just trying to correct them. You use the terms that fit best per situation. It's just a summary, not an accusation...yet. ;) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry; I'm not accusing you of making accusations. I'm just wondering if you're using the term "POV" to mean something like "personal preference." I'm just trying to clear up the discussion we were having above. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 18:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there any other definition of POV? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Point of view. Just kidding. Actually, I think the point I'm trying to make is that my edit to The Thing was inherently different compared to the anonymous user's. I was attempting to clarify information on the page which was incorrect (or incomplete) and organize it in a way that made it clearer. I guess that I fail to see how correcting information is a POV edit. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 23:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You see it as correcting, but that's not necessarily the case. The data was moved based on one person's opinion, not the existing policy to list by "date of release". The connection the articles may have can be made elsewhere. And no, POV does not mean the act is malicious, either. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 trailer

Since I couldn't hear the trailer, I wanted to work out the information about Sandman. First of all, was he ever called Flint Marko, or was he William Baker the whole film? In addition, it seems that the Plot section could mention briefly this story arc, since the trailer seemed to go on about it. I don't think it would be disputable to say that Sandman was accused of having killed Uncle Ben, so we can tip-toe around wording that indicates flat-out accusation. (Personally, the dude seems like The Fugitive whose innocence will come out.) I'll mention this on the talk page as well. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedster

The expansion of the article is, like many of the expansions I've done, one I had been wanting to do for some time, and now seemed like a good one. Your continued condescending comments ("I fear you are trying to overgeneralize, perhaps out of the belief that you have no other options" and "I'd hate to see you lose your way") continue to be irrelevant, particularly in light of your history of irritating others with your uncivil behavior, as seen on your Talk Page. I'll see if I can get others to weigh in on the issue, so we can achieve some consensus. Nightscream 10:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Super Hero Template

Please explain why you are persisting in deleting fields from the Super Hero Template.

This template applies to BOTH Comic Book Heroes AND Cartoon Heroes, so it is only right that it should have details for both. If you want a template that is exclusively for Comic Book Heroes please make one and leave the general template alone.

Both of the fields that you deleted contain the IF clause, meaning that they only show up if and when they contain any data. This does not impact on any pages that do not contain such data, however, your removal of them actively prevents pages that contain this information from displaying it.

For example, a number of animated hero pages have been using the "voice" parameter to display their voice artists for some time, and so DO NOT contain this data in the article itself. You're deletion means that they now DO NOT contain this information AT ALL.

Unless you are prepared to go through every animated super hero page using that template and manually move the data about their voice artists from the fields that you have deleted to the page themselves, I seriously suggest that you leave the fields in place. Leaving the fields in costs you nothing, but deleting them removes content from pages pages already written by other people.

perfectblue 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your use of English, please be more clear. Anything abusive or pornographic must have been added by a different user. I looked at the edit history and found nothing distressing, I only restored what was there before without adding anything that might distress you or anybody else. If restoring the relationship distresses you because you have a personal issue with the person who originally added it in which is distressing to you, I appolegies, but I insist that added no distressing content.
Also, please show me this consensus. It was not listed on the talk page and there was no link to it. Unless I have a link, I am afraid that I can take this as nothing but your words which I can take no other way than being words.
18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)perfectblue

While the work "Comic" does appear on the info box page, it is also clearely labeled under "Fictional character infobox templates" an overriding catagory for all super heroes. It also contained a voice parameter, indicating that somebody intended it to be universal (Comic and animation). Please advise on the name of the correct template for character appearing in both comic and animation.

Please also advice on what the distressing content was?

perfectblue 18:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Oh! Burn!" ?

I don't get it... --Serge 23:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue Devil/Naming convention

Yes, I had read the convention. My understanding is that, short of the Roman numerals being part of a story title, they should be avoided.

Did I miss something regarding the Blue Devil in Kingdom Come? Unless there is something indicating that he was called "Blue Devil 2", it appears that the convention applies. — J Greb 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

He was. The article states it. That's what you're missing. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I'll take it on faith that you are referring to a text piece in one of the collected editions as opposed to being recursive. Again, thanks — J Greb 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Fountain

Since I got kind of tired of working on superhero films (particularly Batman Begins) for a little while, I switched my attention to improving on The Fountain, which was the film article that originally got me hooked editing similar articles on Wikipedia. I've expanded the article in the past week or so, and I'd like some objective feedback on it, being the only major editor. Do you mind taking a look? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 19:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just honored that you'd even ask me. It looks good. Have you submitted it for good article status review? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You did say a while ago that you were all about maintenance when I touched base with you to improve Transformers (which I gave up on -- Wiki-newbie's doing his thing with it). Plus, you know what's good and what's not good for an article. I'm not sure about submitting it for GA status because I'm concerned about its stability due to the film coming out in a week. Might have a flood of GIPUs (doubt they'd be as bad as the Spidey fanboys, though) coming in and trying to implement their own changes, especially for the Plot section, which I may not be able to write for a while if there's not a captioned screening in the theater soon. (You can ask me about that if you're really that curious, I don't mind.) Should I just try to go ahead and submit it now, even if the Plot and Reception sections are bound to be continually updated? And I'll respond about the Spider-Man film series article below. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections and disambig pages.

As a random comment, mentioned only becuase you're a somewhat prolific contributor... I noticed that you changed Thing to use section headers. For what it's worth, MoS:DAB indicates that they should generally only be used "If the list is longer than a single display page (more than thirty entries)", a position I'm inclined to agree with- no need to use 'em for short pages. If you do use a section style, then be sure to add {{TOCRight}} as well so that the links appear unobtrusively to the right.

On the Wikipedia Importance scale, this is about a 1.5/10, but just figured I'd say something. SnowFire 05:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:EddieBrock2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EddieBrock2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Spider-man film series

I'm not sure how much we need a film series article. I looked over at Spider-Man#Film, which seems to accommodate the film series nicely enough. But if you're keen on creating the article, I'd suggest plot summaries (no more than a paragraph for each film), as well as a paragraph per about box office information. Not sure if I'd go into detail about anything else such as production information unless it was really relevant, since the links to the films would be right there. Also, I suggest not worrying about the state of disrepair of the first two film articles; that's just how Wikipedia is, there's a bad wiki-link in every article. I checked out lotus position, which I had linked in The Fountain, and some wise guy edited that it was popular in breakdancing. (That's wrong, right? I hope so.) I'm hoping that after dealing with The Fountain and Batman Begins that I'll help improve the Spidey film articles. Bignole's trying to do a little bit with them, too, but I think he's busy at this time. I'll see if I can get Wiki-newbie on it, too -- he's done some worthwhile LOTR stuff (I guess there is that LOTR film series article, so go ahead and do the Spider-Man film series one). Hope that helped; let me know if you have any questions. I'm not "done" with superhero film articles, but I might drop some lesser articles that I wouldn't typically care about, like The Punisher 2 or Fantastic Four. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Templates

I noticed that you created a couple of templates regarding uncited edits. In case you didn't know, Wikipedia also has Template:Needsource and Template:Needsource2. There's also Template:Verror, Template:Verror2, Template:Verror3, and Template:Verror4. Also a hardcase one: Template:Anon vandal. More user talk templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Just giving you a heads-up on that. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I know about them, but mine's a little more concentrated, direct and in the middle—verrors are too harsh and needsources are too sugary and long. I did find some templates that might work better for nonsense and content removal, though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaked Venom Pic

I read about that in the discussion for Spider-Man 3, about how it's violating what Sony said and is illegal or whatever, and yet the image still hasn't been put up for deletion. Should someone get to that? I don't think I can as I don't know how the image deletion policy goes. Just to let you know.--SUITWhat!? 42! 03:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Yo, man... thanks for watching out for the Edwin Scheier page i've been working on. Much Appreciated.ThuranX 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

anytime Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Superheroines,Roulette

Apparently I added Roulette (Marvel Comics) to the lists of superheroines page.She's clearly one that belongs on the supervillainess list.Where and when did I apparently add her? I actually wasted my time to verify this.I checked through all the R characters that I added or edited since I decided to "help".I've added or edited Rapture,Ricochet,Replica,Rainmaker,Rose and Thorn,Rhea Jones,Raptor, and Riptide.No Roulette added to the list by me.Checking the dates and times--the last one I "worked on" was Nikki.If I'm wrong show me please.

Otherwise checking through the list currently, there are Deathbird,Devastation,Delilah,Domina, and Titania which shouldn't be there.

One that I added and got yanked later was Dark Angel (or Hell's Angel)Shevayne Haldane.She's one of the Marvel UK characters like Motormouth.

Jedi Master Stewie 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know what your definition of superheroine is.Feedback would be much appreciated. I see your point with Mystique and Man-Killer(I added only b/c she was Amazon in the Thunderbolts). I also can understand pulling Asp,Black Mamba,etc.Does that include Diamondback (Marvel)?The ones that fall into what I would call the "grey area"?Recent examples being adding the female Wetworks members,Avengelyne,or Aspen Matthews? I'll take Amanda Waller off the list of course.I only added her b/c I saw Angela,Lara Croft,Red Sonja (etc) were already on the list.None of which are superheroines, but are heroines.I was mainly adding what I considered relevant or important females to the list. Just would like to get this clarified so not wasting your time and my own limited time.Thanks! Jedi Master Stewie 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility B

I agree, the pics are completely unnecessary. But attacking Legs of boe personally is crossing the line. You seem to have a real problem dealing with people, Ace. I've read many of your posts, and your malice towards others is astounding. Being an editor doesn't mean belittling others for their lack of Wiki savvy. Help them out instead of tearing them down. Take a cue from other editors, such as Bignole and Erik, who are professional AND polite.

"People like you", as you referred to Legs of boe, take all the enjoyment out of contributing to such a noble site as this. I'm not excusing Legs of boe's posts, but two wrongs don't make a right. Reynoldsrapture 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sad for you, man. Hypocrisy is very, very sad. In the future, I'll obstain from commenting personnaly on article talk pages. Granted, that was a mistake. But for you to lecture me on what and what not to post is ludicrous. You treat others like they were children, Ace. I have nothing against you as a person or member of this encyclopedia, but have everything against you as a mean spirited mouthpiece who takes every opportunity to stomp mercilessly on user mistakes. Reynoldsrapture 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, another thing- what did you mean when you said "people like you" to Legs of boe? I'm guessing you think language like that is okay? Or neutral? Reynoldsrapture 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
To the second thing, I didn't really think much of it at the time. It's just how I talk. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
You'd save yourself a lot of time and energy if you changed the "way you talk". Don't you see a pattern developing here, Ace. People are frequently rubbed the wrong way by you. It's not just me. Reynoldsrapture 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Possible, but must people get over it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Gotch ya. I'll take that as an unwillingness to change. Reynoldsrapture 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Boe Legs

I'll pass your message on to Legs. Hope he's bright enough to understand. Reynoldsrapture 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ace, I'm sure you're well conscious about the concerns regarding some of your remarks. Obviously, your remarks are established in a fairly public environment, as Reynoldsrapture so kindly demonstrated. I don't know what to suggest to you, as you've heard from those in our mutual contributing circle already, but you're a good editor. I just suggest that you acknowledge the fact that people have different learning curves. I jumped aboard ship fairly easily, but the experience isn't the same for everyone. Believe me, I know the feeling about constantly reverting, especially a leaked Venom footage tidbit from Spider-Man 3 for the umpteenth time — but generally, in each case, it's a different person who doesn't know any better about image policies and such, and it's easy to group them as one entity that keeps coming in and bumping out of form a decent article. Swallow your pride if it's necessary — your edit record speaks for itself. If anything, I'd suggest your course of action by leaving a message on Legs of boe's talk page to amend the bite you allegedly took out of his calf. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Try again, Ace. Leave any mention of Reynoldsrapture out of it. Your original statement to Legs that provoked this situation did violate some aspects of WP:BITE, such as criticism and not saying what you did in the spirit of being helpful. On the other hand, you can choose not to. I'm not trying to parent you, but I'd really prefer not to see this situation again. I've talked to Reynoldsrapture about his flair, and I'd suggest the same for you. If you can't be diplomatic to him (as I can tell that neither of you are going to really listen to each other), don't say anything at all. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 04:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an apology?!

Man, even your apologies are a joke. Does an apology to one include attacking another? Hmmm. Anyway, I'm not the one who started this ordeal. Take a cue from Erik: QUIT BITTING THE NEWBS AND YOUR PROBLEMS WILL CEASE TO EXIST. For that matter, quit attacking everyone you disagree with.
Listen dude, I have no doubt you're a smart cookie. I frequently read your posts, and nearly always agree with your rationales and conclusions. If I had an issue adding something to an article, I'd have no problem coming to you for help.. were it not for your forked tongue. The solution, as prescribed by so many others, is simple: stick to the facts and quit interjecting venom into your conversations. You know someone I admire Ace, that's Bignole. Read his posts. He is fair, comes right to the point, but doesn't snap others heads off. Bignole takes the time to explain his point fully and justly. Being smart isn't a license to be a jerk; brains don't equal bullying. Feel free to respond to my post angrily if you desire Ace. Let me have it. But know this: I'm confident others will deal with you effectively in the future, because I trust what's fair will triumph on Wikipedia. Nuff said. Reynoldsrapture 01:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility C

Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

  • Remain polite per WP:Civility.
  • Solicit feedback and ask questions.
  • Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
  • Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks! --Elonka 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Bette Kane

Hello, my fellow Ace. What I meant by "nonsense" is that what the article said about Kane's relation to Earth-Two was unnecesarilly complicated, and mostly a conjecture. Flamebird was not transported to Earth-Two because she "had originally been the Earth-Two counterpart to Bat-Girl". Rather, it was because Bette Kane, both as Bat-Girl or Flamebird, had always been an Earth-Two character. DC's current editorial stance, according to their 2004 book Batman: The Ultimate Guide to the Dark Knight, is that all characters and events featured in Batman books before their 1964 revamp should be considered part of Earth-Two's history. Though DC's reasoning is a bit flawed due to the fact that there had obviously been an Earth-One Batman running around in 1960 working with the Justice League and Superman (and also because Bette Kane - along with Air Wave, Vigilante, Sargon the Sorcerer, Zatara, and others - was among the Earth-Two characters who in the 1970s started appearing in Earth-One stories without any explanation), we must accept it (unless we disagree with DC's decision to keep the late 1950s stories where Batman fought dinosaurs and aliens out of Earth-One/Post-Crisis continuity). Check the "Silver Age" section in the Batman article to see how other problems arose because of Batman not having been updated significantly for Earth-One until 1964, while most other characters which DC had published in the interim between the Golden and Silver ages (Green Arrow, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, etc.) had been revamped around 1958/59. --Ace ETP 15:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Utility Belts

I chose to change Batman's utility belt to Utility belt (comics) so that it can use variants of many heroes in the DC universe. If you have a problem with it, TALK TO ME FIRST— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgunn2 (talk • contribs) 22:45, November 16, 2006

Venom

Do you know why there are 3 different Venom pages? Venom (comics), Venom (Eddie Brock), and Ultimate Venom; they should probably all be under one name: Venom (Marvel comics). At least there shouldn't be a page about just the "venom" symbiote. I've looked over it and it seems to fail NPOV, there is a lot of assumption on the page. The first paragraph says "Since Venom is the result of symbiosis between an extraterrestrial symbiote and a human host, the name "Venom" can also refer to the alien symbiote alone." That's an opinion, seeing as Peter never called himself "Venom" when it was attached to him. The (Comics) page doesn't seem to contain anymore information that the (Eddie Brock) page. The character started out as Brock, so everything else should just be some subsection under that page, at least I would think so. Bignole 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's all kinda sloppy, but I'm trying to make the best of it. I consider myself maintaince; I revert the vandalism and fix/spruse up where needed. I might work on the links/articles and try not to make it so much of a tree. (i. e. V (c) to Mac or Eddie to Jr.) Still, I'm okay with the situation as is. I mean, the symbiote's notible and the movie will further that. Jr will get notibility from his adaption for the film. I'd say having the three articles—four, counting mac—was just bound to happen. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It just seemed a bit much, but if you are taking care of it then ok. I mentioned the "symbiotes name is Venom" because that was a theme on the "Symbiote (comics)" article. What happens if the only thing taken from Junior's history is his name and his appearance, then there won't be much to say in reference to his page. Oh well, I just thought people had started creating the same page over and over again (kind of like that one guy just did for Venom (Ultimate), before you redirected). Bignole 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see, he will be an amalgamation of past Eddie Brocks, but, having a thing for Gwen, Blonde hear, taste for black and such are all ultimate qualities. Still, the name alone is a big deal. That alone will have fans associate more with Ultimate Eddie than mainstream Eddie. Kind of like Tim Drake in The New Batman Adventures. He was really more Jason Todd lite, but people people know him by the name the writers chose to slap on. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as long as you're on it I think it'll be ok. I may stop by from time to time to read over it to see how it is doing. I know that most fictional character pages tend to end up highly "in-universe" anyway, but I at least want to make sure that it's all factual things and not fan opinions. Good luck. Bignole 00:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack?

I don't think the strawpoll qualifies as a personal attack, because WP:Personal attacks says this:

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.

If you agree the survey qualifies as "civil language used to describe an editor's actions", please remove your comment. Thanks! --Serge 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fear: nervous, uneasy feeling brought on by something perceived as immediately dangerous. Embarassment: instant trade of pride for shame due to a failling being made public. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You'd think my comment wouldn't matter if you were secure in your beliefs and actions. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

SamRaimi

See followup on User talk:Tawker#SamRaimi. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Calvin Trillin

Congrats, you appear to have introduced a factoid which annoyed the subject sufficiently to bring it up in an interview. [1] Frankly, the phrasing was pure supposition to begin with. --Calton | Talk 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Time travel antics of Hiro Nakamura

I hope you don't mind that I continued this here, but I felt that the talk page for the article wasn't the appropriate place, since I'm getting into the realm of pure speculation. Of course, after next week this question hopefully will be answered.

So I'm confused. What you're saying is that when Hiro went back in time, he wasn't around to write his blogs, so they disappeared. This doesn't make sense to me, because, the way I see it, he was there to write his blogs. As of the end of "Homecoming", there are now two Hiros. One is in Japan, about to discover that he has super powers. The other is in a restaurant in Texas, trying to save a waitress. The one in Japan should live his life as we have seen up till he travels back in time to try and save the waitress. Which would include writing those blogs. What I conclude is that Hiro A(in Japan) is prevented from writing his blogs by the actions of Hiro B(in Texas). Is there some fatal flaw in this theory that I'm not seeing? WorldsCollide 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply put: Heroes isn't the most practical show in the world. A supernatural fan had to point this out to me. I wouldn't over think it. Logically, though, let's just say certain things will never add up. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
But logically it does add up. Hiro wrote his blogs, Hiro travels back in time six months and the blogs disappear. Ergo, Hiro actions in the past prevented him from writing the blogs. WorldsCollide 22:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Jellybeans

You have been awarded these Jelly Beans from User:-The Doctor- I hope you enjoy these Jelly Beans.

Jelly Beans for you.. I am being weird today and I decided to give some to a Random Person to hopefully make people a little bit happier.. Enjoy these Jelly Beans.. (I Like the Lime ones)

An Apple a day keeps -The Doctor- Away.. Or does it! (talk)(contribs) 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You got the random part right. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tags

I refer to this edit. Do not remove requests for citations. A basic principle of wikipedia is verifiability supported by reliable sources. Both the article has been tagged and that specific section. Each and every assertion in that section needs to be referenced or that assertion will be removed.--Golden Wattle talk 21:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

category:terrorists

Hi. Thanks for getting involved in that CfD debate. However, can you be a bit more explicit than this? I really feel that Wikipedia is making a dumb mistake by keeping this category and I think the case for deletion will be stronger if people carefully explain what's wrong with the cat. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 19:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ace_Class_Shadow/Third_archive&oldid=1141291006"