Talk:Captain Marvel (M. F. Enterprises)

I do not mind that someone has taken the information that I had added regarding the android Captain Marvel to the M. F. Enterprises page and set it up on its own page, in fact I really appreciate it as I was planning to do so myself. However, I do mind that all my hours of referenced research were so clumsily edited, especially the removal of such important data as the Captain's "magic words" ("Split!" and "Xam!") that allow him to divide and reunite his body parts and the fact that most of the major characters were plagiarized from other sources, data that is considered central to this superhero in all available articles on the subject. And to top it off when I try to put this information back my work is referred to as "unencyclopedic fancruft" and cut back out, which, considering my research is respected by such industry professionals as Roy Thomas, is more than a little insulting. Understand that I don't mind being anonymously edited, it is of course one of the central tenets of Wikipedia, but I do not think the knowledge of a subject I happen to know a great deal about should be so handily dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.18 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 15 December 2016‎

First of all, anyone can claim to be anyone on Wikipedia; there's no way to prove who we are, and so making claims such as "Well, my my research is respected by such industry professionals" is meaningless. Secondly, if you think the magic words are necessary for the article, make a case for that here on the talk page and try to derive a consensus among other editors. But I can tell you this: 1) What I read was very poorly written — meandering, clumsy, list-like without context — and provided an overabundance of trivialities better suited to some M.F. Captain Marvel fan site. 2) It included your personal, POV interpretations and uncited claims, both of which violate policy (bluelinked here). And 3) It came off as a loving essay and was hardly in [{WP:TONE|encyclopedic]]. I'm sorry to be harsh, but these are objective editorial problems that as the writer you're too close to see.

Now let's get to cooperating. I don't have final say — no one owns an article — but after content is removed, it's protocol to come to the talk page and convince other editors why that content belongs. I would certainly encourage asking other editors to comment — there are formal and informal avenues for that. But why don't we start with the magic words? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days with no response by you or other editors. I had wanted to work with you to show you how to work at developing consensus with other editors, since I happen to agree about "Split!" and "Xam!" (as we mention "Flame on!" in Human Torch-related articles). But if there's no interest in learning about that, then fine, you've got consensus on the talk page as far as I'm concerned. I've added those terms to the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back. Actually, aside from having other things to do with my life over the past couple of days, I was taking my time to gather data and references to back up my claim re. his "Split/Xam" magic words, including Dick Lupoff's chapter "The Big Red Cheese" in All In Color For A Dime, Jeff Rovin's Encycopedia of Superheroes, John Clute's highly respected The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and even a Nov. 13, 1967 story in the Wall Street Journal which includes information on M. F. Enterprises publisher Myron Fass' legal battles with Marvel Comics over who really owned the name "Captain Marvel". However, I am glad to see that the question was resolved on its own. I am quite willing to work with you on this page, but please understand that, as hard as it may be to believe in this age of instant communication, my responses will not come in seconds or minutes or even hours but in days or sometimes even weeks as I have to take the time to think things through. That's just the way I am. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.60.104.18 (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

That ref. should have been put into the article. Placing it at the legal troubles section in lede. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)