User:Britney Spears/Debate of Superhuman Powers of Wolverine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Oh. My. God.

Re: the stuff you posted on Nightscream's talk page (I've posted this there too).

This is why over-extending the "Superhuman Powers" sections is stupid. All it EVER does is lead to flame wars over tiny little insignificant details that NEVER get kept to in the comics. EVER. And that's not even COUNTING cross-media stuff.

And I think many of those pics are imagevios, possibly all the text ones. I'll tag them tomorrow and see what everyone else thinks... SoM 22:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I reduced the amount of text in the entry.

Yeah, from really hugely excessive to hugely excessive.

• And what does "imagevios" mean? If you are suggesting they are fake you are definately wrong. You should check things out before you acuse people. Saves you trouble. Britney Spears 22:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not CARE if they are "real stats"! Did you not read the tone of my post!?

The problem is that you are NOT ALLOWED under fair use law to take complete sections out of books, comics, etc AND THESE ARE COMPLETE SECTIONS. SoM 23:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That refers to when adding the sections to the encyclopedia entries. Not when posting them temporarilly on a Talk page so that someone can see them. You are trying to make it so that I can't even prove my point by showing the evidence. Britney Spears 23:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They aren't being put in entries. They were put in an area where a user could read them. You are saying I put these images in an actual entry and that is false. The only way I could show the guy the entries was to put them there. The fact that you don't care what is or isn't true makes it difficult to reason with you. Now settle down and drop the hostility and show me the same respect I have show you.Britney Spears 23:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am a Christian and I do not appreciate your taking the Lord's name in vain. It is against my beliefs and an insult to me personally and to every other Christian using this site. Britney Spears 23:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SoM, I agree with the current entry the way that you have streamlined it. I will support it as long as it remains in a similar wording. Be more careful with your sarcasm concerning religion. Thanks. Britney Spears 23:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia, which you are more than welcome to do. - Lucky 6.9 00:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I hope I'm doing this correctly, and in the right place. I just noticed a message from Britney Spears advising me that it would be better to do my editing under your user name than with your IP address, that my "vandalism" on the Wolverine page has not gone unnoticed, that I need to stop the "unnecessary editing" and the adding of such "profuse and non POV" text, and on the user talk page, Britney states her arguments as to why Wolverine's strength is enhanched. I don't know how to send a private message, as Wikipedia doesn't seem to make it easy to contact someone or make posting areas obvious, so allow me to take this in order here:

First of all, being new to Wikipedia contribution, I am not familiar with how to make revisions in one mode and not another. I was under the impression that records WERE being made that it was I who made those revisions, and indeed, the fact that Britney saw that it was me, and addressed me by name would indicate thus. I'm not sure what the difference is between using one's username or using one's IP address, nor do I have any idea of how to change this. I simply made the revisions in question under the assumption that it was visible that it was I who was doing so.

Second, I am not a "vandal," and I resent that label. Vandals generally destroy material, and usually for their own amusement. The fact that we have here a disagreement over the material in question does not mean that therefore, ipso facto, I am a "vandal." That is a pejorative term, and uncalled for. If I were a vandal, then the material on that page would've been deleted, or mutilated. All I did was add details, include information that was not there previously (interesting how some of those points remain there now, given that I'm a "vandal"), clarify points, add reference sources, and even incorporate alternate viewpoints from the other contributors, rather than delete them outright, since they made some valid arguments, which are hardly the actions of a vandal. Me, I just thought I was expanding the material to make it comprehensive, and to address different readers’ viewpoints. Just because someone's contributions are not to you aesthetic liking does not mean that you can simply call them vandals.

As for my additions being “profuse” and “unnecessary,” I admit to the former, but not to the latter. What is or is not “necessary” is subjective, and varies from one person to the other. The entry, as I saw it, was missing some vital information, and since one supposed complaint about Wikipedia was that the level of detail in the information located therein varies, I was enthusiastic to add some that was missing, and to point out information that contradicted what was previously there. I do not see why any of this was “unnecessary,” or by what criteria you made this assessment. This seems to be just your opinion, and I must respectfully disagree with it. As for “non POV text,” I’m not certain what you mean by this, but if you mean that text that is not centered around a particular point of view, aren’t we SUPPOSED to confine our contributions to that? Isn’t it supposed to be “non POV”? Again, I incorporated your viewpoint about Wolverine’s strength within my text, while trying to provide possible explanations to it. You seem to think that his strength is a foregone conclusion, based solely on the arguments and evidence you provide for it, but what about the arguments and evidence that indicates otherwise? Obviously, there is some question as to his strength, so I simply incorporated info illustrating BOTH SIDES of the argument. You would have us do what, exactly? Pretend that your conclusion is THE conclusion? Sorry, but that’s not right.

As to the actual argument about Wolverine, yes, you make a valid point when you talk about him hoisting those men over his head. But there is a problem with this description, and possible explanations for it. First, he did not necessarily do so “with one arm.” No one uses just one arm to do anything. You use your entire body. It may simply be that after running into those men, using his shoulders, back, etc., that in that one shot drawn my Buscema, that one of Wolverine’s arms had begun to move down away from the crowd, after he made the initial “lunge” toward them and the wall. You also seem to have ignored the other arguments I made that may explain instances like this (artistic license, adrenaline), as well as the fact that the Handbooks explicitly say otherwise (the statement that all editions of the Handbooks after the Master edition say he is super-strong is clearly false). Your argument also crumbles a bit when you ask me “how many 150 year old men I know of who can lift over 800 lbs?”, since we’re not talking about whether 150 year-old men can do this, but about whether Wolverine in particular can. As for Sabretooth, yes, he has enhanced strength, as in the first appearance by him that I read (Uncanny #213), he crushed a dumbbell that Psylocke threw at him. But this was after the Handbooks were first written, which is why their entry for him didn’t indicate elevated strength. In subsequent editions, the did.

Lastly, I tried clicking on that link you provided that you say shows a great feat of strength, but all I got was a Tripod logo. Pasting the url into my browser yielded the same result.

Unless you can demonstrate by what criteria and by whose authority you have made these declarations about “vandalism,” material being “unnecessary,” and why your arguments deserve mention, but mine do not (such as why it’s okay to mention in the entry that he’s regenerated eyes, but my pointing out that Uncanny X-Men Annual #11 made it clear that he’d die from having his heart removed is not), I see little reason to pay attention to your finger pointing.

• • Nightscream, its kind of pointless to say all of this if you are not going to sign your name. The links work, but only if you cut and paste them correctly. Your argument is largely rambling and spiteful. None of your points even make enough sense to attempt to refute them. "No one uses just one arm to do anything. You use your entire body." That statement alone speaks volumes about your reasoning. In both Marvel Universes after the master edition that include Wolverine (only two so far, excluding the upcoming age of apocalypse universe) his strength is listed as level 4 and in the appendix that corresponds with enhanced level strength (over 800 lb) through superhuman class 25. You can easily look that up. By the way, if you cut and paste the links I gave you into the browser they will work. You are wrong I have proven it and you are denying the existance of the proof. I am through talking to you. Britney Spears 21:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)