User talk:Leocomix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Leocomix, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] reply

Actually, it is mostly americans, brits, and a few canadians. You must have looked at it during a slack time period. It actually has quite a bit of interesting personal experiences and "whatever happened to" stuff.--Fahrenheit451 13:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Kings in Disguise

Replied on my talk page. You can keep the tag off since there are some sources... and yeah, you do have to cite sources, or else I'll return the tag. Happy editing! -- VegitaU 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

Thanks for the heads up - I'd missed one ;) Thanks for doing all that. The James Vance in particular had been causing me concerns after problems with the main entry (see: Talk:James Vance). I'll fix things up there so it disambiguates the name. (Emperor 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] We are all new once

I am sorry I wasn't more succint, Leo. Since you are new to WP, allow me to provide you with a few links that helped me out hugely when I started:

These will be really helpful in understanding the currents of the deep water here, particularly ATT, RS and EXT. All of those discuss how to actually cite a source (and of course determine whether it is in fact citable). I wanted to reiterate that, because 300 is now n FA article, that all changes should go through the Discussion area first and get the thumbs up from the other editors there. You won't find that to be as stringent in non-FA articles (although it is always good to do that sort of thing anyway with edits that you think are going to cause disagreement - learned that the hard way :) ), but consider it an opportunity to work with your fellow editors, most of whom are pretty nifty people. i lookk forward to working with you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comics Project

I have no special status (or job) on the project I just happen to be there quite a bit ;)

Basically anyone can edit the project pages but those describing policy should only be changed if there has been discussion and a consensus reached. However, the talk page is just like any other (just working on a broader scope) and people are encouraged to update the appropriate section of the notice board if they have any relevant information (so if you have started a new article you can drop a note in - the comments provide help with formatting).

If there is any specific questions you want to ask or any pointers you need then let me know. Hope that helps. (Emperor 20:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Mary Jane

Hi, I removed the bit about the Judith O'Brien novel you added to Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane since it was unsourced. If you have a source that verifies your addition, feel free to re-add the sentence, along with your reference. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Any edit lacking a source may be removed", not just unverifiable edits. And, in addition to being unsourced, your original sentence read like original research, so removing it completely seemed like the better idea to me. Furthermore, I (and many other editors) feel that it is much more important for Wikipedia to become a reliable source instead of growing further at this point. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Macendale

This article you created was redirected. Did you see any discussion as to whether to undo the changes you made? 204.153.84.10 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no discussion as far as I've seen (and nothing in the edit summary). Best bet would be to bring this up with the Comics Project and see what consensus can be arrived at there so if the entry is deemed a good idea then it should get a good start. (Emperor 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
Well OK. Thing is someone had specifically requested it via the Project's to do list so there was probably a point to it so I might raise it. (Emperor 10:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
I have raised the general issue as I am curious about when it is the right time to split off an entry like that [1] (Emperor 11:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] re: Hi

In response to your comment on my talk page: I don't like handing out my email address to people, especially total strangers. I have enough trouble with spam as it is. Did you have a specific question or something? -- HiEv 21:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Flash

Well, surely, an article about the Flash is not the right place to explain a mess regarding the JLA (or DC Comics) continuity. This is why we have a Justice League article. There's no omission in there, but simplification. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 22:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Back in the 60s, when the team was founded, DC Comics' stories were pretty simple, there wasn't character development in those JLA stories. They used to follow the "super-heroes-fight-bad-guys" basic plot. So what would you suggest to be added in there? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Take a look. Is it good? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the character's history is not limited to the original stories. You know that, right? This is why we have multiple sources in there. Some may not like retcons but they're still part of the character history. —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This is my original point. He has two histories and as written it presented only one of those, the least known one. Two JLA year One is in question as recent events could mean it has been retconned. This is why I say we either present a neutral history or both histories. All clear now? --Leocomix 23:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, man, cheers! —Lesfer (t/c/@) 23:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romita

I'm sorry you've taken offense, but I've removed it because it's not just vague but incomprehensible. I don't know if you're a native English speaker, but there is too much here to edit without doing more research into exactly what you're trying to say. We can start with the use of the WP:WEASEL passive voice at the start, but there's too much more to get into. --Tenebrae 13:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. See that Romita section; it was the best way to illustrate what I'm saying. --Tenebrae 14:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essential Marvel Comics

Thanks for helping out with the dates on this page. It's tedious stuff and I appreciate the help.

I also think the Cover Art column should go since Wikipedia seems to like deleting those pictures so much. It ends up just being a lot of blank space and red links. What do you think? DrWarpMind 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can take care of it, I just wanted a second opinion. DrWarpMind 23:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

For what little it might be worth, and my apologies for not having noticed it earlier, the banner was placed on the basis of the Category:Fictional Buddhists. It hadn't occurred to me that it might be possible that the category was added without supporting text. On that basis, having made the mistake of not checking the content immediately, I came to the unwarranted conclusion that the text was there, and that somehow your objection was based on an objection to the idea of the banner on the article for other-than-content-related reasons. This regretfully does happen rather a lot with religion related articles, particularly when a given editor doesn't ascribe to that belief. I read through the article, at least partially out of thinking that the content might have been removed at some point, and find it never seems to have been there, but was based on an assumption (maybe, might be in the novelization, I dunno) based on the movies. In the process, I saw the apparent discrepancy regarding the template image. You have my profoundest apologies for my comments earlier. John Carter 01:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howard the Duck

I never said Howard appeared in Image and Vertigo titles. If that's in my edit, it's because I restored something after some vandalism. Leonard the Duck appeared in Nevada and The Savage Dragon/Destroyer Duck, but I didn't add that, either. Leonard is supposedly the "real" Howard that Gerber created under the Witness Protection Program or something like that, while MArvel's is an empty shell of a franchise. --Scottandrewhutchins 13:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read these. I believe it is one of the Winter's Edge issues. --Scottandrewhutchins 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MEDCAB case involving you

The Mediation Cabal: Request for case participation
Dear Leocomix: Hello, my name is Arknascar44; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-31 David Miscavige

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions or queries relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, Arky ¡Hablar! 21:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] category Superheroes blacklisted in the McCarthy Era

How come you are goin to delete it? - Redhead911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhead911 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC) For your information, Mothman from the Watchmen was investigated by HUAC, hence the reason for the Watchmen characters. - Redhead911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhead911 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Category:Superheroes blacklisted during the McCarthy Era

I've fixed you nom for the above at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 14.

You still need to supply a reason for your nomination of the category. Please go here and replace "Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion." only. This should be your reason for the nom along with your proposed out come, such as Delete, Rename, Merge, etc.

Thanks, - J Greb 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of The Scientology Handbook

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Scientology Handbook, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scientology Handbook. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)