User talk:Mrph: Difference between revisions

i strenuously object to the notion that the cameo appearances under the reintoduction heading should be removed; placing them under their proper "character" heading is a good idea, but i see no reason why they should not be in both places - especially when it highlights the fact that many of the creators were pushing for a reintoduction on the new u characters into the mainstream marvel u.

YOU SUCK

• Gosh. Unsigned fanmail. I feel so special now. :) Mrph 20:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I tried to come up with some phrasing that would fit your suggestion. Head over toTalk:Horacio Elizondo and take a look. Thanks! Vickser 18:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for apologies. I just wanted to be sure. If you ever have any questions about anything, feel free to ask me. If I don't know the answer, maybe I can point you in the right direction. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My compliments on categorizing the Nick Fury Other Media section. Makes the information much clearer and more useful. Thanks! And take Chris up on his offer; he's good people. Any thing I can help you with as well, just ask. --Tenebrae 04:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not quite sure this should be included...unless the intention is to list ALL of the alternate versions under one heading. even then, it further separates "newuniversal" from the rest of the listings. if anything - "newuniversal" should either have its own listing OR should be under the heading for the 20th Anniversary of the New U; especially since this is what Marvel and its creators intended.

Many of your changes thus far have either created redundancy or sometimes confusion. it is important to keep everything clear and concise. i agree with your assertion that space is an issue...hence some of the linkage for what was quoted material has been removed. once certain changes were made on your end, the Gruenwald perspective section didn't seem to fit anymore, so it was moved to the external links section. I welcome your comments and additions, but do try and keep everything "lean and mean"; some changes seem to be alterations for alterations sake - as opposed to constructive additions to the text...

personally, i would love to list all the promotional interviews that Marvel did to promote the New U, but don't because that would be excessive, and would turn the article into a "raging monster".

may need your help, though, on the picture. i erroneously deleted it (maybe?) while trying to figure out how to upload the newuniversal image to the article. would you be able to re-insert it or figure out how to help me relist it?

i would certainly much rather work with you so that we are not butting heads, especially since we both seem to have ideas on where this article should go...i would love it if in the future we could discuss it through wiki's "talk" before changes get made (maybe allow a day or 2 for discussion before anything gets added or deleted). i can definitely see that you are just as passionate as i am about the saga. my hope is that this page will serve as an excellent starting point for the uninitiated, and i would certainly welcome your help. best, nthman

These things keep changing; I was going by Spider-Man, which is usually pointed to as a high standard, but now that I see the exemplar's been updated, I'll put the Blazing Skull intro back the way it was and update the Spider-Man intro. Hey, I think it's cool that there even IS a Blazing Skull entry! Thanks for pointing this out in such a nice way; you're one of the good ones!--Tenebrae 02:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take down the notability tag I placed on the article. I tend to take a deletionist approach to all new articles, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. DesertSky85451 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A second note about this article. I added a summary of the story to this article and was going to add a section listing the charcters and their Marvel Universe equivilents. Then I realized that there are close to seventy characters and just how much space that would take up. Since you created that page, I thought I'd get your advice about wether its actually worth it. Stephen Day 05:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the work on Avataars. I was pleasently surprized to find that somebody had created that article. I thought I was the only one who remembered it. :-) Stephen Day 02:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, that's a real good question given his provenance as one of the first 1950s Atlas characters to make the leap to Marvel mainstream. (Thank you, Jim Steranko, back in 1967!). DO you think he has have enough history and background to fill a page by himself, though? What do you think of having a solid paragraph for him and other major SHIELD supporting agents in this similar range of notability (Woo, Contessa Valentina Allegra di Fontaine, Jasper Sitwell, Al MacKenzie, maybe Gaffer?). -- Tenebrae 22:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I say go for it. I'll help with copy editing and any of the early historical stuff if you want. Cheers, mate! -- Tenebrae 19:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Nice to see another body who is really trying to add a bit of flavour to the articles, many of which are verbose (as "tell the story") and poorly written. I can't understand why CovenantD insists on reverting text when many of the entries are a mess. The information's all still there, but in a more succinct form. I find mini-headings and dot points to list powers/abilities/traits etc (see Absorbing Man) help enormously. Well, managed to put back the revised text and keep both images for Super Skrull. Looks very sharp. Onward!

Asgardian 11:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So to speak. As you suggested, check out and flesh out Jimmy Woo. --Tenebrae 17:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you noticed that in Crossover too, and I know it was originally meant to be Superman, actually I believe it still is, just look at the panel not only are his features a lot more like Supes but it's mighty suspicious that you never get a full front look and you never see his chest, so I would say they actually drew Superman and to avoid copyright violations they just changed the colors to to those of the Sentry. this being said I suggest that it says "an unidentified infected hero" and I will change it as soon as I have the time-Dark Dragon Flame 06:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know I created the Ultimate Rogue article, but thank you for cleaning up my mess. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been tidying up the ratings section in line with other projects, and rating those articles for which one was requested. With this article, I've nominally rating it as a B-Class, but I think it may well be A-Class. I'd appreciate your view of it at Talk:Off*beat/Comments. Steve block Talk 14:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at this article after you drew attention to it over at WP:CMC. I don't know how closely you've looked at it, but I've been poring through all the revisions since you first reverted it back after it was reverted to the 2005 state, and it looks like Monkeyhousetim (who is 81.168.1.18, the anonymous editor - see his edit history) has been chopping out huge swathes of text through many intermediate revisions. It's hard to be 100% certain through the diffs, but it looks like he's hacked it back to something resembling the 2005 article again.

I'd be tempted to revert it back to the 01:29, 1 February 2007 by Pikawil revision again as so much has been chopped out of it. At a glance, the infobox has had unused lines removed, which is against the template guidelines, the Publication History section has been chopped, and much useful information through the article has died the death of a thousand cuts. For example,

The original 10 issue series, plus High Noon Tex and the relevant Doctor Who and Dragon's Claws stories, were reprinted in their entirety in a 12 issue miniseries, The Incomplete Death's Head, featuring new covers and a new framing sequence featuring Death's Head II replaying the original Death's Head's memories. The series also had Death's Head II teaming up with his original incarnation to battle a mechanical life form named Hob in a strange space station which existed outside time.

has become

The original 10 issue series was reprinted, completely this time, in a 12 issue mini series featuring new covers and an additional short story featuring Death's Head 2 replaying his memories.

I fear that Monkeyhousetim may be too possessive of his edits, and that no matter how anyone else improves the article, he'll just hack it back down again, which is why I haven't reverted it myself. Over on the Laser Squad article, his edit summary for his most recent edit (at time of writing) is "Fixed typos and grammar errors some moron introduced to my article." (emphasis mine).

I hope I haven't erred in talking about this here, and if I should've put this elsewhere please let me know. If your conclusions are similar to mine, it might be worth bringing this to an administrator's attention. H. Carver 05:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Further to the above, having read up on Wikiquette a bit, I'm assuming good faith and attempting to engage Monkeyhousetim in dialogue. H. Carver 07:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So nice to see people talking behind my back. I can call an article mine if I wrote it, honestly what's your problem H? I don't care if people improve on it, but when you see your hard work and research spoiled by some untermensch who failed his english classes, you'll probably want to fix it too. The DH article was fine as it was, concise, accurate, thorough. Recent edits turned it into an unreadable mess, which repeated information over again, was unnecessarily complex in it's layout, had entire paragraphs copied from the new DH trades, had section headers that weren't populated, had info box fields that were totally irrelevant to the character. If a little bit of new information that is useful got lost in the process, that's because the article was so messed up I only had time to fix the main issues. I figured someone else could fix the little bits remaining if they wanted, like you for example. Don't you think your time would have been better spent adding the information back in in a way that properly integrated with the flow of the article, rather than whining on the discussion pages? Monkeyhousetim 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have responded to this on your own talk page, but apparently you don't read it. [[[Mrph]] brought up some concerns he had about the article, and I shared my opinion with him. I am sorry if that offended you. I admit I may have erred in perhaps judging you too quickly, but you have to understand that your style is a little confrontational, and despite repeated warnings you keep removing other people's comments from the article's talk page and don't sign your own comments, which isn't really putting your best foot forward. Regardless of this, I think I have treated you with courtesy in my direct discussions with you, and I have refrained from summarily reverting or reinstating information into the article without first trying to discuss it with you.

Regarding your edits, I'm pleased that you've offered some explaination for them now. I am still concerned about information being lost - the infobox, for example. If fields aren't relevent, they should simply not be filled in rather than deleted outright. That part of the article was plagiarised outright from the trades is indeed an acceptable reason for removing the paragraphs, but I feel it would have been better if you'd let us know on the article's talk page so that we're aware of it, and so we have the chance to keep the information and re-word it in an non-copyright violating way.

I will, over the next week or two, have a bash at editing the Death's Head article myself. Far from it being 'whining', I felt it would be courteous to discuss the article with you before I made any edits as you clearly care about the character a great deal. H. Carver 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm replying here as Monkeyhousetim has stated that he doesn't want comments on his own talk page) I'm still of the opinion that the recent edits had brought the article closer to the WP:CMC/X guidelines and added useful information. The claim of plagiarism needs to be addressed, though - but that's now under discussion on Talk:Death's Head, which will hopefully resolve the issue. I can understand that you've put a lot of work into this article - but you might also want to read through WP:OWN, which makes Wikipedia's position on "your" (or "my") articles pretty clear. Thanks! --Mrph 14:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honest. I don't give a s*** on any opinion. He don't want his (birth-)name here, thats all I have to know to delete it every time is appears again. And I'm not alone, there are many fans that respect his will. 23.Feb.2007 21:08(GMT+1)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.62.165.77 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But if you - and the other fans - keep doing that without giving a s*** then sooner or later the article will probably just be semi-protected again, so that you can't edit it. As noted in Talk:Rogue (musician), his name is stated in a number of other public places, from magazine articles regarding his family to copyright info on his songs. Has Rogue actually requested that his name is removed? If so, that might be worth noting - and would be more productive than a series of quickly reversed edits. --Mrph 20:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello people. I can't beleive Rouge actually cares about this as muh as he does. Back when I knew him, it used to come up occasionally and I knew he didn;t like it but I never realized it bothered him to this level. So, go ahead, bring it, keep chnging the name, there's certainly enough of us to change it back.--67.62.103.180 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a Request for Comment initiated at Talk:John Buscema#Request for Comment: NPOV and images, concerning a dispute over alleged violations and which includes links to two versions of an article, for comparison.

You're a regular and diligent contributor to WikiProject Comics, and so might be a knowledgeable and disinterested party who could add an informed opinion. --Tenebrae 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]