Ghidorah

Juggernaut

At present you are reverting back to an inferior version (poor grammar; mistakes; no sources) with no rationale. This is not appropriate. The username has also been reported to a Checkuser to determine if this account is a sockpuppet. Asgardian (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that comment means, as there are accurate sources in the version you persist in reverting. As indicated, this account is to be investigated. Irrespective of the outcome, the blind reversions are also vandalism. Asgardian (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect and often missing sources. Use of weak colloquial language. Poor placement of images and an unnecessary second image. Fixation on current storylines when the overall article structure should be considered. Take note. Asgardian (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article only requires one image after the SHB. It can be moved up a tad, but obviously cannot cram text or be too close to the SHB. Aesthetics must be considered. Asgardian (talk) 07:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The change was temporary and later stories proved the Juggernaut is a villain without redemption. Asgardian (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

More corrections have been made in the version with correct information, sources etc. If you wish to make changes, you must present a case, and take it to the relevant Talk Page. Blind reversions will not help your cause. "Because I say so" is not valid grounds for such sweeping changes. Asgardian (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to make the information accurate. Again, accurate. Read what I have said and try to realize that here on Wikipedia we try for encyclopedia standard. Repeated reversions to weak material will not help you or the article. Asgardian (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, another blind reversion. What is going to hurt you here is the complete lack of a rationale. To judge by your language you perhaps don't grasp what I am attempting to communicate, so this has to be taken further and investigated. Asgardian (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your latest reversion: true, and there are many appearances that are not mentioned in the Juggernaut article. The article features just what is required - all the app. from the 60's - 80's and the milestones from there on. Please do not revert back to a sloppy, colloquial version that has a tag asking for more detail (done! It's all there). The sections are not written correctly and the language is poor. The updated version has all the information in the correct sections with correct sources. Please study the revisions, then ask questions, but do not blindly revert. Another user has also reverted you, so I would advise you to not do so again. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have a issue with a sentence, then we can rework it, rather than reverting an entire article back to a substandard version. You also didn't study the changes as I requested, as you would have seen that the article has been reworked to conform to MOS Guidelines. No one will have issue with this now. Please think it through before attempting an edit. Asgardian (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

All the appearances are not listed. There are many, many appearances from the 90's onwards that are not listed. The 60's - 80's are all there is, and they are important as they chart the early years when there was also a great deal more focus on continuity. The inferior version of the article focuses on the later years and provides no insight into the early issues, and this would probably be due to the fact that the editors who came prior on the article simply haven't read them. Asgardian (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You also find that it is a case of "just the gist" on summaries, as younger fans have a habit of wanting to tell the entire story, when an abbreviated version is all that is required to fit in with the overall article. Asgardian (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, if there is an issue with a story summary, we can change the wording. We don't revert the entire article. You are now being very disruptive. Do you understand? Asgardian (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read all the issues, albeit many years ago in some cases. The "civilian" trick is relevant as it was also a ruse the Juggernaut used on the Hulk, which I am about to mention in the article.

Now, I would like you to answer my questions please. Why do you persistently revert when the reasons against have been provided? You are welcome to change a sentence etc as needed without removing correct information. Also, do you have a medical condition or is there some other side issue users need to be aware of as there is inevitably interaction? Asgardian (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You will need to make suggestions/additions to the corrected version, which does use material - albeit only correct material - from previous versions. Also, please answer the questions. Asgardian (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Of possible interest

I am neutrally stating that there is a "Request for Comment - User: Asgardian" that is ongoing here, and may be pertinent to the edit war at Juggernaut (comics). -- Tenebrae (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC/U

Hi there. I was wondering if you would help me finish up the RFC/U regarding User:Asgardian. I'm going to put the RFC into place before the end of the year, so it would really be great if you could provide any help you are able to give. What I need most are diffs displaying the disputed behavior. I have some already here, but could use some more. I mean just a list of diffs to put in the first five or so categories I listed there, as I already have more than enough illustrative examples. Anything that you think is edit warring (mutiple similar edits to the same article in the span of a few days), incivility, inaccurate edit summaries, or other similar behavioral problems. List them on the RFCU talk page - just the diffs is all I need, because I want people reading the RFC to be able to draw their own conclusions.

Also, I have come up with a desired outcome and a description of the case based on the comments that have been gathered, and I would appreciate any responses to that on the talk page.

Thanks! BOZ (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm just letting you know that the Asgardian RFC/U has begun.

If you like, you may post an "Outside view" below Asgardian's response section, detailing their own feelings on the matter. Likewise, you may endorse the main statement, Asgardian's response, or any other view posted on the page.

Thank you for your participation. BOZ (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian RFC closed, now at arbitration

Hello,

I am informing you that the recent RFC/U regarding Asgardian‎ has been closed, and the case is now at arbitration. You are neither required nor requested to participate, but you may view the initial statements for the case (please do not edit that page), and you may view the evidence presented and add more evidence if you wish, or simply follow the case. BOZ (talk) 04:05, 24 February 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) 04:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)