Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David A (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 11 October 2009 (→Why the attempt to delete referenced and valid information?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comics: Marvel C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Animated series

Spider-man sucks him back to his dimension Okay, aside from some really funny visualizations there, has anybody seen this episode? Would you be able to offer an alternate wording that's not quite so.... suggestive? --El benito 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dim Dimension

Just a quick note here: In Nextwave No. 7 Rorkannu is referred to as master of the "Dank Dimension," but in No. 8 he is repeatedly referred to as the master of the "Dim Dimension(s)" and once refers to himself as master of the "Dim and Disgusting Dimensions." I know he's a parody character, but I thought that was worth note. - 66.68.242.12 02:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dormmspider.png

Image:Dormmspider.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bring on the Bad Guys

In the "Publication History: 1970s" subsection, I just separated the mention of the trade paperback reprint collection Bring on the Bad Guys from the description of new in-continuity appearances as it is indeed a different animal. I was tempted to add something to the effect that his inclusion there said something about his status as a major Marvel villain. I put it to my fellow editors: Would that be outside Wiki regs? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And I just pulled it as it is just reprints and lacked the introduction on Dormammu (and others) that I thought it had (and could have used). It must be another volume. Unfortunately, to make the inference you suggest is original research and speculation without a source. Asgardian (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, point answered. I thought it might well qualify as OR, hence I asked instead of just doing it. Also covered my thought in one edit summary concerning reprint collections, too. Thanks. --Ted Watson (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

I agree totally with Dr.Bat, and add that the lack of "copy" is a plus. I meant to post my dissatisfaction with Asgardian's change when he did it, but got distracted. So here's my vote now, in case they keep warring about this. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We will go with a full body shot. I just need to find one. Asgardian (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Then leave it alone until you do. --DrBat (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian posted: We will go with a full body shot.... Why? And who appointed you dictator of infobox image decisions? --Ted Watson (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages prefers this. Remember to be civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.185.218 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dormammu is not the focus of the cover that Asgardian wants to use. He doesn't stand out. It's a poor image. --DrBat (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But I have no understanding of his belief that the one that was already here not being a "full body shot" is a problem, or why he feels he has the right to unilaterally decree such. And "Misplaced Pages prefers this" refers to what? That this person doesn't even know to sign his postings tells me I shouldn't believe he knows anything about what administration (the presumed meaning) prefers, because they certainly prefer that. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ted, cut 125.63.185.218 some slack. He forgot to sign his post, oh darn. It happens to a lot of people. His comment is what's important, not whether or not he signed his post. So please listen to 125.63.185.218, Ted, and BE CIVIL. It's not like this is anything important. Spidey104 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the Jackson Guice shot that Asgardian has found to the Frank Brunner one that we've had. It is full body, which both he and the IP here have strongly implied are recommended in the regs. Guice's features no other character, whereas Brunner's work includes heads of Howard the Duck, Man-Thing, Sub-Mariner, the Hulk, Clea and Dr. Strange. DrBat's objection ("What comic is it from?") is at best hypocrisy and appears to be completely spurious, as he is demanding information that is not in place for Brunner's work, either. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The other image's original source is from Comicartfans.com

The image Asgardian is using wasn't created by that website; it was taken from a comic book. I'd be ok with the image if someone found out what issue it's from. --DrBat (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The image I've picked works because it is a full body shot without any distracting background. While the other image is good, it falls down on these points. In addition to not getting a clear look at the whole of the character, a layman would ask: "Who are all the people in the background?" They would have no way of knowing this and it becomes confusing, as the focus here should be wholly and solely Doramammu. Now I remember that shot coming from the Dark Wars from the early 90's, and just need to find the comic. That said, the image still holds up nicely, and as many other SHB images just mention the character and the artist without a source, it should be fine for now. I hope that helps. Asgardian (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.

I think the Dark Wars storyline you're talking about was in Doctor Strange, Sorcerer Supreme #21-24, according to comics.org --DrBat (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I also liked the old one much better. Dave (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The specific guidelines are here: WP:CMC/EG#Superhero box images and the current images satisfies this when the other didn't (as a commission and not an original piece of comic book art we should really be looking for an alternative - we have used one somewhere else but it was a special circumstance and there was no alternative image, which isn't the case here).

Some concerns though:

• We don't yet have the original source for this, which might cause problems for the licensing of this as fair use. There might be concerns that this was edited to that form for a use in other works like the OHTMU, which might rule it out. So getting this information is important.
• It also looks to be edited from another image and the original would probably be preferable.

Other than that I think it is an improvement and better fulfils the guidelines. (Emperor (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Emperor: It also looks to be edited from another image and the original would probably be preferable.

Actually, probably not (unless you mean in terms of fair use). If it was indeed "edited from another image" the purpose would almost certainly have been to highlight Dormammu, to separate him from other, distracting elements in the full image. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, even though I've become less of a fan of the "knock out" crops, the editing looks to have been done to pull focus on the character.

I'd prefer though that either the site where Asgardian found it (http://www.drstrange.nl/drstrange/sanctum/book/dormammu.htm) had provided an original sourcing or that he had tracked that down. I've got a nagging feeling I've seen this piece before and that ir was in a version of the OHOTMU.

- J Greb (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this one? Admittedly it does not show the entire body from the front, but Dormammu is the only displayed character, and the art quality looks much nicer (and far less goofy). Personally I think that I like this better though. It might require some minor editing to remove other characters, but othervise fulfills all the requirements. If that doesn't work there are plenty of alternatives available here. Just not the current image in particular. Dave (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The first one is a great character piece but not a full body shot. The second fails on the grounds of there being too many background distractions and he's not that clear. As for being "goofy", that's a matter of taste. There is comic art from talent from many decades ago on the site (a la Steve Ditko). Just because you think it is "goofy" by modern standards doesn't make it less historically relevant. Asgardian (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, the second piece is excellent is swiftly adjusted to remove background images. And "historical significance" is hardly of true significance in this case, as the point is to show the highest quality art piece which shows how the character is portrayed in recent time. Your selection makes him look as unimpressive as possible. Dave (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Marvel Super Hero Squad Show

Asgardian: Are you happy now? Besides, everything you said in your last edit summary was wrong.

We don't speculate and there is no third party source and we can't tag them all.

1. This was and is again a flat statement of fact, not speculation. However unsourced it might have been.
2. Cite request tags are standard operating procedure at Misplaced Pages; the option exists because it is supposed to be used, and the usage is→Give them time to work (that's why they are dated)! Given the FACT as mentioned in one of my edit summaries about this that the IMDb has a page for this series (and it corroborates the voice cast claims), it was reasonable to assume that a Wiki-acceptable source could be found given a little time (again, the purpose of a cite request tag)—and I have!
3. Even if it were true that "we can't tag them all"—and I don't think it is; we've tagged a helluva lot!— that is in no way, shape, or form a reason for not tagging the ones that we can. Not in the least!

Your handling of this edit has been indefensible and well out of line with regs. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the attempt to delete referenced and valid information?

Why do people keep trying to erase David A's well referenced bits of information? In the infobox, under Team affiliations, the Mindless Ones are listed. They are clearly important. But the mention of them in the article, brief as it was and containing a link to the Misplaced Pages article about them, was removed. The last part that was erased, has plenty of valid information for this character's article, and is referenced to an official handbook. It seems a couple of people keep trying to erase it. Explain your actions on the talk page please, don't just edit war back and forth. Dream Focus 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of what David A is trying to add is based on use of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, which is an invalid source : . He also uses terms such as vast which are inappropriate and subjective. We also don't do power match-ups as this is fictional matter and this is a subjective interpretation. See here:. David A has been advised of this repeatedly. He has also been advised to be civil.

As to the Mindless Ones, they are mentioned in both the SHB and text. Some of his changes have been kept, but in order to keep the article at encyclopedia standard, there are some concessions.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a valid reference. You can't say the comic books Marvel publishes are valid, and not the official handbook they publish to help people keep track of the information in those comics. Use some common sense here. Dream Focus 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the information at the links, did you? This is a Misplaced Pages requirement, and by no means ridiculous. Read this, where another user (an administrator), advises David A of exactly the same thing: .

And again, study his additions. Many are subjective speculation and inappropriate. An example is this statement:

1) Dormammy (spelling) is not all-powerful, (opinion) as his power is known to be dwarfed by that of Eternity and the Living Tribunal, (opinion) and presumably (opinion) even that of the demon Zom. The character's intellect is listed (where? Opinion) as genius-level by human standards, but is insignificant compared to that of most known mystical or cosmic entities of a comparative scale. (opinion)

2) This is backed by the inappropriate and incorrect OHOTMU (which is also wrong on many levels. An example is strength: characters repeatedly lift objects that must weigh more than the allocated tonnage they are supposed to be able to lift), which we do not use.

3) Finally, note that David A has a history of such inclusions, which are not supported by others: Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

4) I checked the regulatory page linked in by Asgardian to disallow the use of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, and apparently he hasn't read it. That is expressly about statistics only! The examples Asgardian gives above are of that very type. What is said there does not in any way, shape or form disallow it as a source for objective facts. Also, the linked-in discussion between David and Nightscream—who is the only other person in that discussion but is not identified on his profile page as an administrator despite the fact that Asgardian asserts that he is one—doesn't help him at all if one reads it, for the same reason: Nightscream asserts the reg to make the same blanket denial of OHMU as a source that Asgardian does which, as I've said, it simply does not do. Finally, understand that Asgardian's profile page, like Nightscream's, gives no indication whatsoever that he is an administrator, and therefore he cannot guarantee/threaten protected status for an article any more or less than I can. Is this really the same Asgardian that I dealt with here? --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

5) Study the situation. An editor is using the OHOTMU to justify power matchups, backed by frequent use of subjective and opinionated terms. This is not an encyclopedia standard effort. Yep, same Asgardian, who is capable of seeing what is in the best interests of the articles so they don't slip into fan efforts. Asgardian (talk) 03:2

None of which justifies falsely calling the other person in the discussion linked-in at your "" an administrator or claiming in an edit summary that you yourself have the authority to place protected status on an article, thereby very, very strongly implying, also falsely, that you too are an admin. And as Dream Focus stated in this thread's opening post, you have cited your fallacious misrepresentation of this reg to delete other, objective material because it was sourced to the handbook. You didn't deny this, but made an attempt to justify it that was, at least to him and me, gibberish. I have already conceded that this reg does indeed ban the book as a source for statements such as those you give in this most recent post, but that is by no means the entire situation here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

6) An odd take. Nightscream does have administrator privileges and I can easily enough contact someone to protect the article if the constant introduction of flawed information continues. These are both facts. You would seem to be looking for a fight where there is none. Asgardian (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, Nightscream's profile page does not include any more acknowledgement of administrator status than yours, which I cannot believe would be absent in the event he was one, especially given the significant amount of information and various tags that are present. Nor does he suggest in the thread you linked-in that he is one, let alone actually acting in that capacity there. Therefore, not "An odd take" at all. Your being able to ask for protection for an article does not at all guarantee that it will happen. Some time back I asked for that for Doctor Who when it was being vandalized several times each day, and was denied. Here are your words in the aforementioned edit summary: Any more of this, page will be protected. You expressed no doubt whatsoever that it would happen at your discretion, which would lead—if not force—anyone who did not know better to assume that you are an admin; I checked your profile, because that's what that indicated yet your apparent inability to make proper internal Wikilinks between talk pages suggests otherwise. Finally, you still say nothing about the actual limit of the reg, your describing it in fallaciously broader terms and your consequential use of it against other edits to which it actually does not apply. I am not looking for a fight (although one certainly seems to exist here if I was) but, in the best interests of the encyclopedia, I am trying to do something about your shortage of ethics and abundance of arrogance, a combination that very definitely is detrimental to this project. (Note to admins: To borrow from Thomas Jefferson—It's true whether I say so or not, I might as well say so. Furthermore, in Jefferson's case and mine here, "might as well" is a gross understatement; the situation needs to be pointed out as part of doing something about it.) --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, an odd take. There's a great deal of inference there. The original points still stand, and please remember to be civil. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeating "an odd take" doesn't change the fact that I proved it invalid, nor substantiate your claim of administrator status for Nightscream, nor defend yourself for falsely suggesting yourself to be an administrator; there's a lot of evidence there, and declining to deal with anything specific with the implication that you believe it will accomplish something in your favor just adds to the aforementioned arrogance. As for civility, I was and am about as civil as I could and can be and still deal with your behavior. MY points still stand. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're now done with the Holier than thou routine. You didn't grasp the original point, made inferences and failed to be civil. Moving on. Asgardian (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If one of us has copped a Holier than thou attitude, it is you, refusing to even acknowledge some of my points and repeating statements that have been proven wrong. As I said, when dealing with behavior such as yours, it's impossible to both be truly civil and accomplish anything substantial. Your repeated implication that making inferences is inherently unacceptable is nonsense. The above post has absolutely zero validity and still constitutes evasion of my points. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

0, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Just a note here, the spelling is an obvious minor glitch and doesn't warrant major vandalism in the slightest, and no those are exact word by word QUOTES from the linked handbooks, which in turn base those exact statements on the linked comics. YOU on the other hand insert personal bias twists such as "deemed worthy to challenge" rather than simply stating "reached a draw against, when outside of his seat of power and inside that of Odin" which would be the matter of fact version. And I probably have much more limited filters than yourself, so twisting things around in my head into something other than exactly what I read in the first place is less of an issue than for most.

2) No, it is the official tightly editorially controlled character to character _comparison engine_. The strength ratings are a symbolic system based on this, as stated several times before, and no this blatant aspect does not make a "on so many levels" valid.

3) "Others" meaning a bunch of rabid Galactus fanboy scientologist wannabees that you had personally assembled to enforce personal bias (Galactus is teh kewlest poster child for rationalised genocide evah!), and in direct contradiction to a multitude of explicit facts, but I don't have a particular problem with the current less misleading version.

4) And bear in mind that even that depends on the extent, especially given inclusions of stated contrasts between these and the comics themselves.

5) No said editor tries to find as many and varied sources as possible to give an accurate sum image, and you somehow manage to rationalise sweepingly delete any ones you disagree with on a personal level regardless if these statements were based on the handbook or not. If you had simply edited out specific parts that would at least given you some benefit of doubt that you are sincere, but given that I always see you edit out or twist the same type of information, including inaccurate story summaries, I literally and very sincerely perceive what you are aiming for as deliberate systematic widespread information-distortion, but I don't remotely have enough time and interest to deal with it all anymore. You've very much exhausted most of my energy and efforts for Misplaced Pages, and somehow always manage to talk yourself out of what you're doing never mind sockpuppets, multiple bans, or similar complaints of systematic vandalism to make a point from other editors.

6) User Nightscream does indeed have certain administrator privileges, and has made statements of noticing similar types of methodical deceit from you as I have. The "drive people mad with annoyance of what you actually do hundreds of times in a row and then use the "incivility" shield whenever they point it out" defence is one of your standard tactics against pretty much anyone. See it this way, Nightscream is usually extremely nice and level-headed and you even manage to make him annoyed no matter what rationalisations you use to try to sweep it under the rug, and I'm the sort who immediately forgave ThuranX or Cameron for consistently chewing my head off for limited reasons, because they were honourable and sincere, or for that matter even JJonz who used to stalk me or even send me death threats, but at least was honest about it. You on the other hand use any dirty trick that you can get away with, and apparently don't have any honour whatsoever. Dave (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding Asgardian claiming to "know what's best for articles", others would apparently disagree. Dave (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those links labelled "others," "would" and "disagree," proving that we are by no means alone in recognizing Asgardian's behavior for what it really is. However, judging from what is on one of them, Nightscream seems to have been stripped of his administrator position. On the page that the last link leads to, Emperor says, "Nightscream's actions are...being dealt with ." What he linked to has apparently been archived, and I do not have the time to search through such with so little idea of what to look for. As I have stated previously, he has no This user is a Misplaced Pages adminisatrator tag on his talk page, which I perceived as and still consider proof positive of a lack of such status, and therefore assume that what Emperor referred to resulted in the loss of his. This also means that his espousing the same position as Asgardian does the latter no service. Whether either, both or neither of you were aware of and willfully ignoring that I wouldn't know. I wouldn't put it past Asgardian, given the above, and you linked in the page that led me to the conclusion. Did you just miss the implications of Emperor's statement? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I simply didn't have the energy to read through the first linked thread, and it's been a month since I read the two later ones from J Greb's talk. All I knew was that Nightscream had protected pages from edits earlier when Asgardian was having some of his edit-wars, or more specifically in this case, apparently overdoing the "spelling out the references on-page" style (in effect making them uninformative appearance lists) just to make a point. Anyway Nightscream does not like Asgardian's tactics at all, so it was odd for him to threaten with that particular backup. Dave (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw here is another example on the tactics Asgardian tends to use (with emphasis on "use" i.e. severely twist any situation). "Bait others". Oh yeah, that really sounds like me, and doesn't even rhyme with when he instead tried the tactic of calling me frothing-mouth labile to allied editors. Reacting to hundreds of these ongoing situations with Asgardian and telling the truth about it is more like it.

And let's not forget the old or newer ones, or that he even admitted deliberately using misleading editing summaries, and that other users have also noticed his systematic tendency for manipulation. It's what he does... and I suppose getting pissed off about that he gets away with it is what I do. Dave (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• More reverting it seems. I agree with David A, and think Asgardian's deletion of material totally inappropriate. Consensus seems to be to leave the information in, with apparently only one editor wishing to remove it. Dream Focus 10:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it not encyclopedia to show how the character was changed throughout various shows?

• I'm curious about the most recent edit: Would it not be encyclopedic to list the details of how the character was portrayed differently in his different appearances? Dream Focus 03:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. That's more for the fan sites. These articles need to be out of universe and present an overview. If we go down that road, the whole standard will suffer very quickly. Game summaries, issue by issue narratives etc. Not a good look. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Strange Tales #131 - 146 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Strange Tales #156
3. Cite error: The named reference Handbook2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference Handbook3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• C-Class Comics articles
• Mid-importance Comics articles
• C-Class Comics articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class Marvel Comics articles
• Marvel Comics work group articles
• WikiProject Comics articles