TheBalance

Welcome to my User Talk page. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have.

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. Again, welcome!

--WillMak050389 04:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Last Statement

Odd to be sure, given that your History indicates that you seem to spend all your time policing one entry (cosmic fetish?). Have you actually crafted any articles from scratch? Made significant contributions? If not, perhaps more discussion and less snarkiness may help. Study the changes.

Asgardian 02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would ask Asgardian to please use civility in discussions with fellow editors, and to concentrate on the content of the edits rather than cast aspersions on the character of the editor. --Tenebrae 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanos

Hey, just wondered if you would like to put your feelings over the recent discussions on the Thanos article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCincarnate (talk • contribs)

Galactus

Just informing you and User:Asgardian that I've formally instituted an WP:RfC, and for all parties to not edit Galactus until issues are resolved. --Tenebrae 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&oldid=247883656 would be wlecome. Asgardian (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your support on the pages currently being haunted by a certain other user. He seems hellbent on elevating what I can only assume is a favourite character - Thanos - at the expense of all else. He can't seem to see how subjective his versions are. Well, we'll persist.

Asgardian (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Taa II

This article lacks citations to multiple third-party reliable sources to verify its assertions and assert its notability. Simply undoing the redirect without adding reliable sources isn't useful. Either add sources -- per Wikipedia policy, the burden of proof is on editors adding or restoring information -- or let the redirect stand. Or the article can just go to AfD, where I'm sure it will be deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In what way does the Taa II article qualify for speedy deletion? Assertion of notability is not one of the twelve criteria for speedy deletion, thus you are overstepping boundaries. TheBalance (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd put it up for speedy deletion. I'll fire up the AfD now. --EEMIV (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the article without discussion. TheBalance (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Taa II

I have nominated Taa II, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taa II. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --EEMIV (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Silver surfer

just to be sure, I've had a look at my comics and the Galactus mini explicitly states in TEXT that the silver Surfer is a) in a black hole and that b) he is at the core - so I concur with your analysis. I really don't plan to indulge any more of David's time wasting debates on something that is clearly stated on the page. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Discussion over Jim Steranko photo

Hi. Could you offer your opinion on the consensus discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Balance, please do not revert portions of an article that are part of an ongoing dispute and Talk Page discussion. Doing this can get you blocked. Discuss it on the Talk Page with others, and do not revert until some consensus has been reached. Nightscream (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Galactus

Yes, I've been absent from Wiki for a while and have seen the ensuing mess. I'm sorry but to be quite honest, I've grown so irritated with David A that I stopped using wiki for a month and half. I mentioned in the Galactus talk page that it was a partial reason for my absence but in truth it was the major one; I just didn't want to elaborate on that in an effort to sound more diplomatic. His edits on the Galactus article weren't worth my aggravation, so i'm sorry to say that I just didn't give a damn for a while. I see you've been having your disagreements with him as well. In any event Nightscream asked me to comment and I have done so, but won't be able to comment again for a week or so due to an upcoming obligation. I'm just honestly sick of the dude. I've got a lot more to say about him but i'll keep it to myself and limit it to the comments i've given on the talk page...so you're on your own for now man in terms of dealing with him, I apologize.Mobb One (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, David A is continuing to obsess over the Power Cosmic Template. All the reasons why this area can't be quantified have been explained, but he can't see it. His fannish obsession with this is a concern. Asgardian (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't _have_ an "anti-Galactus agenda". (What would that be? Cutting out the disproven lies about him containing the previous universe within him? That he's a third of the Living Tribunal? That you guys keep wanting to include some sort of power-ranking that puts him equal with Eternity, even though this has been consistently completely disproven?) I have an extreme annoyance with extremely selective disinformation, and Asgardian is the worst Wikipedia user that I have ever encountered in this regard. Habitual lies, deceit, and insincere manipulation is a red blanket to me. I've been engaged in cleaning up plenty of other pages from this kind of hyperbole as well. Your selected section is simply the first to be this completely unreasonable and fanatic in inserting them. If you think that you get annoyed with _me_ for inserting verified truths, just imagine how I get from having to counter Asgardian's deliberate lies and complete inability to compromise. He's a proven sockpuppet user with multiple bans and blatantly limited relation between his justifications and cutting, or highly contradictory systems for different pages. Dave (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dave, you have never been able to build a case for any of your agenda-driven changes. You continually accuse others of lies and half truths, but you are absolutely the worst I have ever seen in this regard. Your so called "verified truths" are 9 times out of 10 nothing nothing of the sort; and frankly, there's nothing worse than an editor that pushes his POV interpretations based on misrememberings and questionable reading comprehension skills.

I have little problem with Asgardian's latest edits. From what I've seen, he is removing edits that really don't have a place in an encyclopedic entry. It is Wikipedia policy to avoid edits that rely on the OHOTMU or have a fan-site tone (such as power match-ups, as that invites extremely questionable and POV edits). And before you accuse me of being an Asgardian sockpuppet, a quick review of our edit history search will show that we've had our disgreements in the past. TheBalance (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When the handbooks completely overlap (As they usually do. They are official editorial summaries of all appearances after all) with the information within the books that forms a coherent picture. I do however, have a fixation with matter-of-fact quoting of explicit, non-contradicted information, including the handbooks, and have very strong views of that the most npov accurate information is retrieved by combining these with upper limit first-hand sources. (For example, Galactus blowing up several solar systems during his Stan Lee-penned stalemated battle with Mephisto is a good power gauge, and so is converting a solar-system scale worldship into energy, being stated as an insect compared o Eternity, or gradually growing to consume the universe in an alternate future in FF, whereas an in several instances contradicted instance, including the issue itself, vague instance such as the supposed "galaxy-teleporting" isn't, and literally creates an annoyed itch in the back of my head that I can't get rid of), rather than inserting personal preferences. I don't ever deliberately lie on Wikipedia, and have never used sockpuppets. When I've discovered a mistake, I've made another edit to fix it. The very few times that I have been unitentionally logged off in the middle of editing, I have mentioned that it was me in the next post. What would the supposed lies be, removing your old mention that 'the power cosmic is the most powerful force in the universe and Galactus is the embodiment of it' referencing an issue wherein Thanos mentioned that there are more potent forces around. Or getting annoyed when some of you try to twist the text into showing Galactus as equal or greater than the Hunger entity, when the character stated himself that he was "less than nothing" in comparison, and was almost killed by a planetary impact right afterwards? That's the kind of misdirecting information-control that tends to drive me nuts. Insert the most impressive stuff that is actually there, great, it's appreciated, but don't ceonsor the rest. Ditto for Asgardian tweaking Dormammu to give a few minor but important misleading storyline summaries, removing explicitly quoted references to replace with pov phrasings, and attempting to severely understate the character from what's actually been officially stated. "9 out of 10"? Now that's massive hyperbole. As for the "questionable reading comprehension skills" I suppose that refers to that you keep inserting that Galactus cotnains an entire universe within him, even though the cited issue explicitly shows him and the sentience to be separate after being immersed in the Cosmic Egg, and that the Thanos series (and some handbook if I don't misremember) stated it to be Eternity (his self-referred "father") before being reborn in the Big Bang. Given that you apparently read my base so completely wrong, I'm not sure if you've been more unreasonable than usual in our past dealings. At least get my viewpoint(/itching habit, but I'm trying to break free) right, as a far less specific thing than your own. It's not centered on Galactus. It's centered on that there is a sum pattern of references that should be followed. But then again I tend to feel like I'm dealing with a fanatic scientologist, which may be very inaccurate and unfair as well. Dave (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If it looks like a supercharger...

It probably is a supercharger, similar to the exact same one used on the production car. See also the FIA GT3 website and the Racecar Engineering article on the Matech GT3 car. You are however correct that the Doran GT in ALMS GT2 does not have a supercharger, but that has nothing to do with the Matech GT3 car. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the picture in Matech's PDF, but that actually appears to be the Roush-Yates DP motor. I'd also further point out that the other pictures in the Matech PDF are of the original 2007-spec Ford GT demo car anyway, they are not 2009 photos. I also suggest you reread the FIA GT3 site, as it does in fact list the displacement as 5000 cc. There's no mention there of it being 5.4 L. There is also no reference anywhere that I can find stating that Matech has changed the homologated engine in the GT3 cars. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 00:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well clearly there are several definitive sources saying various things, so some more sources are needed. The FIA GT3 website says both sizes but says supercharged, Matech says N/A Cammer, Racecar Engineering says and shows a supercharged V8 and says 5.4. One source doesn't trump another with this many opinions, so more sources are necessary, and simply stating that they changed the homologated engine in the car between 2007 and 2009 requires a citation as well. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 00:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that doesn't trump anything. First, that's the Mustang, we're discussing the Ford GT. And second, that's from 2006, which is before the 2007 picture of a Ford GT with a Supercharger. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 00:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But by your very arguement the GT and Mustang ran different engines in 2007. So clearly they're not completely intertwined. And considering how much disagreement there is across various sources, where does it say the 2007 engine isn't a 5.0, supercharged in the Ford GTs case by N/A in the Mustang? ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 00:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But as you point out, the FIA GT3 website has the bore and stroke incorrect on the Ford GT, and in fact lists the engine as supercharged, which you say are wrong. So then how can you use the same website as proof that it is an N/A V8? The FIA GT3 website is therefore entirely questionable as a reference. 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But again, those are the four Mustang variants, and we've already seen the Mustang and the GT have run different engine types in the same season. So saying the 5.0 Cammer is N/A isn't helping much because we need more and better references. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 01:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there needs to be more conclusive sourcing to back that up however. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 04:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Silver Surfer

Silver Surfer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Tom B (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Red Line Oil a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Undid your Ford GT edit

I undid your [1] to the Ford GT article. The 1/4 mile times are sourced, it appears you have selectively chosen to include a single performance measure which just happens to be the very best tested time ever recorded by a magazine, hardly NPOV. Also adding "There is no need for performance stats from multiple sources. Please do not modify this list; It WILL be reverted." to the article appears to violate page ownership. And including [2] as a source is a blatant copyright violation. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I undid your [3] edit again. This is your second warning about promoting a POV, page ownership, copyright violations, and now a warning for edit warring. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I undid your [4] edit again, this is your second warning for edit warring as well as continued POV, page ownership, and copy right violations. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you for 24 hours for Edit warring. Try to compromise in the talk page of the article next time. Thanks Secret ^account 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ford GT edit

I'm responding to your concerns from my talk page: User talk:Mr.Sakaki, [5]

1. List of major US magazines: [6]. Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords is not a major American automotive publication like Car and Driver (#69), Motor Trend (#85) Road and Track and the online Edmunds.com. And since MM&FFs target audience is Ford fans its not a good NPOV source either, wikipedia is not a POV encyclopedia.

Regardless a 1/4 performance figure consists of two parts: A time (sec) which highly variable by conditions, tires, traction, driver, temps, etc. and a trap speed (mph) which is not anywhere near as variable.

2. Then why not include any of the other less impressive 1/4 mile figures? There are at least two other Motor Trend tested figures, both much slower. Why include only the best performance time?

3. That Ford GT I consider a ringer has a trap speed far better than any other tested Ford GT (from any major publication) by a very wide margin (124-128 mph vs 131 mph). No identical car can possibly go from trapping 126 mph to 131 mph. And nowhere in the Motor Trend article was that Ford GT dyno tested, so how do you know how much power it makes? Of course ringers aren't new to magazines exactly why Consumer Reports buys their cars to get acceleration figures. [7] (vid: 0:45) Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

There is a discussion involving you at Administrators Notice Board/Incidents you can find it here. I am not involved I am just letting you know so you can weigh in on the dispute about the Ford Gt.--Adam in MO Talk 10:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I reopened this discussion again on the main noticeboard [8] Mr.Sakaki (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has moved to the three revert rule board which can be found here.--Adam in MO Talk 11:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for continuing to remove sourced material and insert hidden comments implying article ownership that have no justification in Wikipedia editing policy. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. EyeSerene^talk 10:45, 4 December 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) 05:54, 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 your 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) 00:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, last time I'll bother you. :) Just wanted to remind you that the Asgardian RFC is up and running, and has had a few different viewpoints posted for public consumption. If you wish, you may endorse one or more of these, as well as the main statement or Asgardian's response (not yet posted), and/or you may add your own viewpoint as mentioned above. Thanks, and happy editing. :) BOZ (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support here [9]. Unfortunately, when I address the RFC, it isn't going to be pretty for some as they've really shot themselves in the foot in recent weeks (the proof is all there). Hopefully, however, it can all be resolved amicably. Regards Asgardian (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As usual I say exactly what I think, i.e. I play with open cards, as opposed to yourself, so it's obviously easy to link to that, and you have shown just how underhanded you can get in even trying to use my handicaps as basis for discrimination, but I and the others don't think in terms of your own "shoot oneself in the foot" manner, only in terms of truth, that enough is enough, and that there is absolutely no reason for you to continue to get away with every dirty trick in the book over and over. TB is not particularly informed about your own behaviour, he simply chipped in because he dislikes me personally because I had the audacity to want error corrections for his favourite character around a year ago. And regardless what accusations you bring up, attacks even against other underhanded sockpuppet users like yourself such as DrBat, is far from a rational reason to invalidate your own certified instances. Also, stop with the "unfortunately", as you've taken actions against people, including myself, for far less valid reasons than what you are facing. Dave (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, there you go. :) Asgardian (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And that smilie and taunting admission proves my point exactly. Dave (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

The help on Galactus is appreciated. Nice to be backed up by someone else who has read the stories. Thanks too for helping to tone down the Living Tribunal. I think that one is prettymuch complete. Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

By the by, you get a mention here: [10]. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I try to ignore Dave as much as possible. It's apparent the guy is never going to learn and evolve as an editor, in my view he's a lost cause. TheBalance (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

On Dave, you may want to seek outside comment on the whole cosmic affair. His actions come across as a tad obsessive, and I think he'll revert everytime he logs on. Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that Asgardian personally agreed with placing the Infinity Gauntlet there after being shown an evidence image, taking advantage to make a big deal of it now smacks of his standard deliberate manipulation and information-distortion for just such a severely misrepresented purpose. Given that this tends to go on all the time it's not particularly strange that I have such a low opinion of his moral character. Dave (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• The above comment aside, I've placed Korvac; Nemesis and Sise-Neg in an Anomalies category all their own, as while they displayed cosmic power they all only appeared in one story. It seems like the best compromise for those characters that are in the grey area. I've also opened a section at Talk if wishing to discuss further. Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ford Modular Engine page

I can only assume that you are a loyal and devoted follower of Ford engines since you, like so many other people I have come across, refuse to acknowledge the problem with Ford's Modular Engine design. I just coughed up 900 bucks (cheapest mechanic I could trust to do reliable work) to fix it, and it blew another plug on the way back from the shop. My vehicle is a 2001 Ford Expedition, but I have researched this online for many hours since the first occurence and found people with vehicles as new as 2007 models having this problem. My mechanic (who has been one for over 30 years) claims that this is cause by a combination of an aluminum head and by a spark plug model with too short of a thread length. I have contacted my Ford dealer here at home, and they not only acknowledge the problem, they are surprised that FMC has offered no real solution other than a complete head replacement. Wikipedia is a source of information for countless people world-wide, and they have right to know about this if they research it here. Also, if you google the words "Ford spark plug problem" on Google, you get over 300,000 results, most of which relate to the ejecting spark plugs. You should do more of your own research before simply refuting someone else's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyroborg1986 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your user talk page. TheBalance (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2010 (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) 04:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Galactus discussion

I've started a discussion at Talk:Galactus to try to "referee" and avoid an edit war User:DavidA and User:TheBalance. I hope you can join in. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Would you be interested in trying out Wikipedia's formal mediation process regarding this article? I've been though it myself, and found it very enlightening both in better understanding Wikipedia's content guidelines and policies, and in better understanding why the person I disagreed with felt the way he did. It would also be a good way to avoid a situation that results in a long-term topic ban for you and David on that article, and you might just learn to work together (heh, no promises), or at least how to work without fighting each other. Let me know what you think; if you agree to do this, I will set up a case page. If you think MobbOne should also be involved, I will contact him as well. Thanks for listening. BOZ (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to it; however, I've been fairly busy as of late so I won't be able to contribute too much time to it. TheBalance (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If your situation changes, drop me a line on my talk page. BOZ (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good; I really wasn't liking any of the other options I was seeing, so hopefully this will help. I last did this I think in 2008, so I'll have to review the procedures. I'll set up the case, and I'll participate at whatever level the two of you are comfortable with. BOZ (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

You have agreed to mediation, so I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Galactus. I have included a (hopefully) appropriately neutrally worded statement as to my feelings of the case. I encourage you to add your own statement under the "Additional issues" header. This should be brief (preferably no longer than what I wrote) and discuss succinctly the issues you have with the other editor's opinions on article content, not how you feel the other editor's conduct. For example, you would want to say "I feel the article should include X, but he removes it; I feel the article should not include X, but he restores it; I try to rewrite parts to fix them in a particular style but he reverts it", and describe, in brief, why you feel these edits are appropriate. Brevity is the key here; assuming the case is accepted, you should have ample opportunity to explain your feelings later. Remember that Mediation is about trying to resolve your differences, not about proving who is right or wrong, or getting the other editor in trouble. It is not about providing evidence of wrongdoing on the other editor's part, because this is not an Arbitration case. The idea is not to discuss how you feel about an editor's conduct, or what kind of person they are, or focus on the negatives – this is an attempt to state your case and try to see the positives in the other person's point of view and find a middle ground, even if you don't see how that is possible at the moment.

So, after you have added your piece in the "Additional issues" section, make sure to sign the agreement, as mediation cannot proceed until all partied have agreed. Thank you, good luck, and I will do my best to be there to help the mediator and the both of you. BOZ (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you feel that I have included any articles in the case which should not be included, or that I failed to include any articles which should be included, please let me know as I can change that before the case begins. BOZ (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there - just a reminder that you would need to sign under the "Parties' agreement to mediation" in order for the mediation to proceed. Thanks. BOZ (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Galactus

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Galactus was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 14:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Galactus, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Galactus

Hello TheBalance --

I have agreed to mediate this case, and I wanted to confirm with you (and, of course, the other parties) whether (a) the issue discussed therein still exists and (b) you agree to me mediating the case. Please get back to me on my talk page or the talk page of the mediation case. -- tariqabjotu 08:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, just checking to see if you're still out there? If you've gone inactive, the mediation case will probably be dropped. BOZ (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Still here... TheBalance (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool - did you reply to the mediator? I think he is waiting to hear from each of us. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just notifying you that I closed the mediation case as stale. If the dispute flares up again and there's a need for mediation again, you are welcome to file a new mediation request. -- tariqabjotu 15:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

David A

Hey. I'm a fellow editor here, and, I just wanted your own advice: A user called David A has engaged himself in an extensive and tiresome argument with me here, and, to be honest, I don't really understand why. After removing my own dozens of edits and inserting his own awkwardly written and truly biased version to the article, which some users seemed for some reason to tolerate, David is just basically plain out insulting me on the talk page of the article, calling my writing "awful", and his own style far, far better, expressing distaste for the writer, for religion, for the writer and his works, for supervillains from other comics, among many other things, which, like, I seriously don't think is even appropriate for a talk page. I mean, I don't even understand how we came from discussing how best to improve a comic book article to such a complex argument about ideology and symbolism...

David, to be blunt, needs to grow up, whatever syndrome he may or may not truly have, as he has claimed on his own user page. This is Wikipedia, not the real world, but even so, we are a community, and members of any community, online or not, should always try to respect each other and their own views. David, however, has not done so. Have you had any experience dealing with this user in the past? If so, maybe you can help us resolve our own argument; I dare not even contribute to the talk page for fear of further inciting David and causing him to add yet another four-paragraph post insulting me. Like, what does Dave want? He's gotten what he's wanted, erasing everything I (and others) took months to write and replacing it with his own favored version in several minutes; I just don't understand now what the basis of his continued complaints are. Would leaving Wikipedia be the best option for me, if Dave is so displeased and angered at this point? Aidoflight (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have had run-in after run-in with DavidA, as have numerous others. I do not suggest leaving Wikipedia over David A, as he absolutely needs others to keep him in check for the sake of Wikipedia. You may try mediation. TheBalance (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"For the sake of Wikipedia" is a serious exaggeration, and you know it, but it is true that I tend to actively ask sensible people what to do. Dave (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "for the sake of Wikipedia comic book entries" would have been a more accurate statement. TheBalance (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also a serious exaggeration, and you know it just as well. I could easily make the same statement about yourself on the same grounds, as it is just as warranted. Or rather, neither of us is a "threat" to the comic book entries, we simply have conflicting viewpoints. I'm usually more reasonable about them though. Dave (talk)

You are only more reasonable in your own mind. Your threat to comic book entries is exemplified by your continual tell-the-story edits, edits containing blatantly incorrect information, and persistence in inserting POV information. Yes, when left unchecked you tend to diminish articles, not improve them IMO. TheBalance (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I as good as always attempt to collaborate, find compromises, or change my mind when shown othervise, so yes, I'm generally reasonable. If I get things wrong it's never intentionally, and it's not like you are innocent of this. There were plenty of more extreme personal bias (as in pure speculation) examples that you had inserted (or simply defended) into Galactus, Power Cosmic, and elsewhere that I have had removed. The thing with Wikipedia is that ideally we keep each other in check, as bias is unavoidable. That's the beauty of it. And like it or not, I have in fact been of help in improving the quality or/and information in several articles. I do tend to have a problem structuring it concisely though. Dave (talk)

As stated time and time again, I have never inserted personal bias or anything of the sort into Wikipedia, and certainly none that has been corrected by you. You continually make unfounded assertions about my past edits, when in fact the only real distortion is your recollection of said edits. Simply put, your recounting of these "encounters" are no more accurate than your recollection of Chaos War #2. Yes, you are one editor who needs to be kept in check. TheBalance (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You were not involved in all the rampant speculation in Power Cosmic then? My apologies if that is not the case, as there were some other editors with similar por-Galactus bias involved, and it has been a long time, so it is hard to keep you apart. Still, your own former concern largely seemed to be maintaining a pro-Galactus bias, which was a case wherein I kept it in check. The page is far more balanced than it used to be, so again, take a few steps back, relax, view ourselves from a distance, and don't see the situation as more than a limited area storm in a teacup/not necessary to get hangups about/demonize each other, or not admit double-standards. Dave (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I truly do want to not involve myself in any further argument here, but I am truly growing very tired of Dave A's continued severely misguided actions here. Another user has also attempted to edit the Chaos War article, which at its present state is truly, well, in one word, more or less ruined, but David's long-time friend Tenebrae reverted his edit instantly and sent him a warning not to ever to so again. These people are seriously biased, and are just damaging these articles with their own contributions, and by preventing anyone else from adding their own edits. However, I no longer really think it is worth my time to try to "fight" them over mere Wikipedia articles any longer; I have lost my respect for them, and find doing so thus beneath me. Given his various conflicts with so many here, though, why exactly is he still allowed to at all edit on Wikipedia? Aidoflight (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why David is allowed to continue with his generally substandard edits and hostile demeanor towards fellow editors is a question the needs an answer. TheBalance (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I find his efforts to continually impose his own versions on characters which he has admitted in the past to have a great dislike for, to be quite exasperating. I have left wikipedia for prolonged periods of time because of him, and him alone. However, I have returned and have decided that I will not be deterred. David A does NOT edit with the comics in front of him. This has been proved over and over and over and over again. It is TIRESOME. However, the Galactus article deserves far better than the efforts of one editor. I don't know if you've noticed, but a lot of comic writers have started using Galactus' entry here on Wiki as a source of reference. Van Lente admitted that he uses Wiki entries to provide him with some character background. Notice how in Chaos War #5 Cho states "the oldest life in the universe is screaming at me" in reference to Galactus. That's a pretty clear reference to the line in Powers & Abilities.

A more overt example is the "talk back" section in Galacta: Daughter of Galactus. Those include direct verbatim quotes from the Galactus article.

If anything, those indicate why it's important to have accurate information posted in these articles. There is no room for bias and inaccuracies or "spur of the moment" edits.Mobb One (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have you back, Mobb. I haven't had the time to put much effort into Wikipedia lately, as I've begun a new business venture. I'm glad to hear that you will not be deterred by the antics of other editors this time around. IMHO, you get Galactus along with the Marvel cosmic landscape and your edits are consistently of a very high standard. I will gladly support you as needed. Good luck! TheBalance (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

One-Above-All

Please, could you possibly be willing to add your input on the One-Above-All deletion discussion? A user, by the name of MBelgrano, is trying to delete the article, and now its image, apparently mainly because he is upset that no one supported his proposal to merge the article with Fictional portrayals of God. I have myself made many points on the article, such as comparing it with other comic portrayal of a Supreme Being, but Belgrano avoids addressing many points I have made, ignores my direct pleas for him to possibly consider or at least compromise, compares the One-Above-All with Batman and the Ultimate version of George W. Bush, and mentions irrelevant issues to the article, such as atheism.

This user seems to have nominated many articles for deletion in the past, and what bothers me the most is that, from his own comments, he plans on removing the article now because he feels personally slighted that other users restored much of the content he removed some time ago, and that some apparently disagreed with his choice to have the article merged. Thus, while the article may indeed contain some original research, he is using that as more of an excuse to attempt to justify this than as an actual reason. He does it more to satisfy himself rather than as an effort to help improve Wikipedia.

The article was made in 2006, and has lasted to this day, with overall hundreds of users having edited it. And now, because of a single user's tag, it is about to be permanently deleted. Not a single other person has chosen to have this article deter, and every day, according to the logs, hundreds still view it. And, what is more, many articles and templates link to it; even other language Wikipedias have this article. Please at least consider offering your own input on this, my friend. Aidoflight (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ford Modular engine assessment

Hello, I have assessed Ford Modular engine as C class, but don't worry! Once you add more references, I will gladly up it to B class (few {{cn}}'s and unreferenced sections. I haven't copy edited the article but I will once I get home in an hour. Keep up the good work. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TheBalance. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• While I find the lede needs work with regards to the statement you are trying to revert, I do NOT agree with your WP:BLUDGEONing attempt to do so. Please stop. Either discuss on the talk page to gain consensus or cease editing the page altogether. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• • One can only hope Elon Musk buys Wikipedia next so garbage tier propagandists who defy encyclopedic standards can be ejected from the platform. TheBalance (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)