User talk:Xero/Archive 5

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kingarthurdcu00.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kingarthurdcu00.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Image Screening Bot (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Madame Xanadu and the Grim Reaper

It appears you made the edit to Death (DC Comics) claiming that Madame Xanadu met the Grim Reaper. Where did you get this information? If it appeared at all, it would have to be in an issue of The Spectre, as it's certainly was not in any of her early appearances. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't even remember editing that article, there have been so many. Checking the history that was a year ago, and it is also very obvious from the history that I was not the originator of the Madame Xanadu information, it predates my edits. For future reference, I never add arcane information without references. --Xero (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was using diffs, but I must have been mistaken and simply seen you move the paragraph. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and knowing this will save you a trip next time. --Xero (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Check your facts

Hello! Please take better care of attributing statements to sources, such as your edit to WebM; the decoder is not unoptimized, nor was 65% speedup claimed anywhere. And do note that this is a primary source. -- intgr [talk] 14:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected, after actually reading the article and looking at the charts I interpreted the data explaining the decoding speed increase, as it being 65% faster than libvpx. The testing data is freely available on that page, and the 65% increase was claimed elsewhere like here on Slashdot, and if you looked at the data you would see that "Benchmarks show that it's as much as 65% faster than Google's official libvpx." --Xero (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

First, you claimed that ffvp8 was "unoptimized", which clearly is untrue. Second, taking the best-case performance and then presenting it without any context it is a deceiving technique frequently used by marketeers. The Slashdot story actually says "it's as much as 65% faster" which is technically true, but you dropped that "as much as" part as well, making it a false generalization.

Doing this sort of "analysis" is called original research and is not welcome on Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 18:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

However, I do apologize for calling your contributions "blatant lie", that was uncalled for. -- intgr [talk] 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, I'll ignore the rest of your rant. --Xero (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Merlin

You need to provide some evidence that the Merlin in The Demon (vol. 1) is not the same as the Merlin in The Demon (vol. 2). If you can do so, I will stop making my changes.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are a little confused by the fact that the currently Madame Xanadu is a Vertigo book set in the DCU. Have you actually read any of the books in question? I have, I had to reread them when I was researching before building the page. The 1972 Demon version of Merlin is the one being used in the current Xanadu book, but the 1989 Demon version of Merlin was the one linked to the Vertigo universe, it ran concurrently with Neil Gaiman's Sandman which then went on to be a Vertigo book, while the Demon was a DCU book set in the Vertigo Comics universe until their versions of Hell (DC Comics) diverged. The mainstream DCU Merlin from the 1972 Demon is just a wizard, the 1989 version is the Demon Etrigan's half brother. It can a little confusing for new readers which might be why you don't understand the difference. And please don't threaten to make regressive edits on an Editor's talk page, it's bad form. --Xero (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Are the two Merlins really separate characters or simply a retcon of the same character? By that, I mean is the idea that Etrigan is his half-brother a revelation about the original character rather than a newly-introduced character? I haven't yet read the issues in question. I have them, but I'm still three issues from the end of volume 1 and looking for the Detective and Wonder Woman issues that featured Etrigan.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that the DCU version of Hell debuted in The Demon (vol. 1) #1 is an unencyclopedic inference that would fall under WP:OR. Hell is never shown or mentioned until issue #14, and even then, it's a dream sequence. In the 1970s, Marvel's "demons" were shown to be interdimensional beings who would use concepts of Hell and Satan, but were distinctly separate from it, although Marvel's writers eventually changed this in the 1990s and depicted four Hells that met in a corner and were ruled by Pluto, Hela, and two original demons that went through various regime changes. Considering any time Kirby makes a reference to "Satan," he always places it in quotation marks as if highlighting such an assumption. In-universe, it might be appropriate to say that the concept of Hell debuted in this issue, but otherwise, it is unacceptable, because it is not a concept that derives from Kirby. Who's Who in the DC Universe claims that the Lords of Chaos and Order debuted in More Fun Comics #55, but I defy you to find any reference or depiction there beyond the retcon of saying Nabu is in the Doctor Fate helmet and that Nabu is a Lord of Order. And as far as the Lords of Chaos, where are they? Steve Gerber said that one of the reasons he used Negal as the principal villain in his Doctor Fate run is because he was not portrayed as a Lord of Chaos, a concept he found boring. The Lords of Chaos are nowhere to be seen anywhere in The Golden Age Doctor Fate Archives.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, telling me to "behave myself" when I acted properly is a violation of WP:civility.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up the Lords of Chaos and Order, how are they relevant here? I'm not interested in discussing or arguing continuity with you Scott, I am not your confidant, and this is not a message board. I chronicle the events as they happened in the books, I'm not interested in interpreting what Kirby meant, or figuring out where they fit in continuity, I save that stuff for my blog and keep it out of the wiki. If hell is mentioned or shown in a book, if a representative of Hell like Etrigan is shown, then that is the concept of Hell. Maybe you should have taken the time to read the header on my talk page Scott? --Xero (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a scan of where Silver City, Lucifer, and The PResence appear or are mentioned in The Demon #1, since you keep reinserting it.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hell (DC Comics)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hell (DC Comics), you may be blocked from editing.

It is clear that you have read neither The Demon (vol. 1) #1 nor DC Special Series #8, or you would not repeatedly make the erroneous assertions that you did. Again, Hell, Lucifer, The Presence, and the Silver City neither appear nor are mentioned in The Demon #1. DC Special Series #8 does not feature a dream sequence. It does, indeed, show a man signing messages Lucifer, but Lucifer himself is shown on several pages with a council including the spirits of Hitler, Nero, Fawkes, and several others, and he is explicitly controlling the man who is signing the messages. An imposter Lucifer appeared in Blue Devil #31, but I didn't even mention him, although he does die and go to Hell at the end of the issue. Trying to claim that the DC Universe concept of Hell appeared in The Demon (vol. 1) #1 is a violation of WP:OR and WP:Manual of style (writing about fiction). Please refrain from making such edits. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If you had actually looked at the most recent version of the article before reverting it you would have noticed that it had already been changed. But you didn't actually do that did you? No instead you made a regressive edit to the page that removed a large chunk of relevant content. I'm curious which part of the divergence do you not understand? The fact is that when DC moved these characters to the Vertigo imprint, they created an entire separate ecosystem and Karen Berger mandated that none of these former DCU characters or concepts could cross over from Vertigo. So they created separate versions of Hell to service both imprints. This can't be made any more simple for you, any more objection on your part, says to me that you are being deliberately and willfully disruptive. --Xero (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I did read it, and I deleted your disruptive edits, as discussed on the talk page.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Hell (DC Comics), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not reinterpret what your sources say, nor generalize from a specific statement. It is not encyclopedic

Heh heh, you vandalize the page and yet want to threaten me with a final warning. Listen making edits to pad your edit count is one thing. Making disruptive edits to pad your edit count is another thing entirely. --Xero (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one violating the Wikipedia guidelines to which I have repeatedly referred you. I have asked for third-party intervention, and it seems that you have, too. Given how Wikipedia guidleines are written, they can only fall on my side. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 15:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Failure to follow the guidelines of WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Manual of style (writing about fiction) on your part does not constitute WP:Vandalism on my part. You have now been reported to admin as a vandal for your wholesale deletions of my contributions to the page. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that I had to report you as a vandal, as you obviously know quite a bit more about recent DC comics than I do. However, considering that I had to refer you more than once, as seen above as well as on the discussion page, and in an edit to your talk page that you deleted, to the Wikipedia guidelines to which you were not adhering, this was the only correct way to characterize your persistent blanking of my edits and reinstatements of false claims. I hope you will continue to edit on Wikipedia with an awareness of its guidelines. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What I find amusing Scott is you lecturing me on Wiki etiquette as if I just got here. I created my first Wikipedia account in 2002, this is my second. If I just combined the edits and experience actually building pages from my second and third accounts, anything you've done while trying to pad your edit count would be a drop in the bucket. What I have realized is that ever since your post on my discussion page I've seen way too much of you. You seem to be thriving on this conflict, I created that page, but you seem determined to squat there, so I'm taking myself out of the equation, it's all yours Scott. --Xero (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your unsupported accusations that I am merely padding my edit count (you are obviously not reading what I post) also show your flagrant disregard for WP:civility.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Scott, I consider any business between us to be done, so go away now. For your own future edification, read the top of my talk page before posting. --Xero (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Having been here since 2002 doesn't mean you understand Wikipedia's rules, or I couldn't cite five that you've broken.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)