Talk:Galactus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:FF48.jpg

The image Image:FF48.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Please discuss the changes proposed by Cameron Scott here. Asgardian (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note a lock of the article prior to the major changes may be required if this becomes heated. Asgardian (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is my position, I am removing the in-universe perspective from the article. If there is a good reason why this article should exist outside of policy and every single guideline we have - please list them here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

To start, I would disagree with the contention that the article exists "outside of policy and every single guideline". That is ignoring all the good work done thus far. The article also requires sub-headings so that such a large mass of information is readable. Asgardian (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It will have sub-heads, I see looking at the Living Lighting article that the problems with this type of article have been explained to you in detail (Writing about fiction as if it is real), so I don't propose to waste my time explaining to you in detail what someone else already has. Once I have finished my re-write, please feel free to outline a) notable bits you think are missing and b) how you think they can be written about from the perspective of the real world. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "Living Laser". Also, try and avoid being so confrontational. Comments such as "I don't propose to waste my time explaining to you in detail what someone else already has" aren't going to help if you want people to get on side with your edits. I note you were also quite sharp with someone here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThuranX&diff=247827732&oldid=247825290

You can disagree with other users, but try to keep your six-guns holstered where possible.

Asgardian (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I find bluntness is better than fake politeness. Anyway, you can see where the article is going - is there any specific points that you think are going to be a) missing and b) can be covered in a style that satisfies the MOS and our policies on writing about fiction? The article had an additional problem is that it presents elements of his origins as always being present rather than being additions over the years (for example making claims about the content of his Thor appearances that were simply wrong), this has largely been removed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on this but I'd hope it doesn't get "heated" and instead disagreements get talked through here first. I'm sure if everyone keeps these in mind we should be fine: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS.

Worth bearing in mind a couple of things while we are discussing this:

• Having subsections in the other version section is often very useful for linking to the relevant version - especially useful with Ultimate Marvel characters.

• This article needs a longer lead.

That should be enough to be getting on with. (Emperor (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

OK, someone reverted the page. This is not set in stone so there's no need to panic. I'm going to contact some other editors that have contributed to this page for opinions on the changes. I still think the page needs some work, but I'll hold off for now. Asgardian (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A mysterious IP editor... who'd have thunk it, "he" was already reverted by someone who wasn't me and also reverted back other editors who aren't me, so that's a no-no, rolling past other editors. So again - what's missing in the current article and can you write about it in a style that confirms to the MOS and our other policies on fiction. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I've added back the sub-titles that Emperor suggested (and added additional third party references that include quotations and creator intend, anyone want to have a go at the lead). --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the sections are accurate. Almost all alternative versions are within the Marvel Multiverse - Ultimate Marvel is as much a part of it as Marvel Zombies, the Mangavese is Earth-2301 and even the DC Universe is included. So trying to make a distinction isn't going to work.

Also that is some good out-of-universe material on Ultimate Galactus - it'd be handy if it could be used and expanded on in Ultimate Galactus Trilogy. It was three separate entries (Ultimate Nightmare, Ultimate Secret and Ultimate Extinction and was merged but it still looks like an awfully thin article. I've grabbed a few bits from the pages and will drop them in. (Emperor (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

The good thing about modern comics is that creator's do such much pimping that we should be able to expand it quite a bit - I'll put it on the list :-). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My thinking exactly. You can find interviews on most comics that you'd think meet notability, it just takes a little more effort to find it then hammering out 500 words retelling so minor plot point, but it is well worth it. (Emperor (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

What do you think of the current sub-headings for the alternative universe section? are those what you were thinking of? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes that is better - there are incoming links pointing to some of those sections and so that helps things work again. I'll need to check this but I think some of the versions in the DC crossovers were actually Galactus. Some, like the Amalgam Comics character Galactiac, were definitely other versions (there should be a section for the Amalgam Comics character - possibly that Galactiac article needs trimming down and merging with it, given the problems with Amalgam Comics characters in general). (Emperor (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

The article so far looks promising. That being said, there are editors of this article who have been regular contributors for quite sometime (myself since Sept 2006), Asgardian, Tenebrae, TheBalance, DCincarnate, and others-as such we must have a final consensus before any edition is finalized. I'm going to take this opportunity to address an issue that Asgardian mentioned in stressing that there's no place for curt statements. There are plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable people on Wikipedia; don't affect an air of impatience or superiority but rather make your statements/arguments with logic and reason. Being conscise and being civil are not mutually exclusive.

Going forward, I see the FCB has completely been eliminated. While there has been some information migrated to the PH, there is still a large amount of information that needs to be reinserted. The method of inclusion into the article may have been in-universe style, but that by no means indicates that it should forgoe treatment entirely. As I've pointed out to other editors in the past, the purpose of these comic book-character-related wiki articles is to give a *comprehensive* article that answers the inquisitive party's questions. Obviously that does not mean inclusion of every plot-point or summary etc. However major characteristics should be kept-such as Galactus' role in the universe, his relation with other cosmic entities, his amoral nature...in short, there short be information on why exactly Galactus is "beyond reproach" as Jack Kirby intended, and mentioned.

Pertaining to the Powers and Abilities section...that is in-universe style, but frankly I did some preliminary research in attempting to overhaul the secion, and I have found that other model articles (Silver Surfer, Storm, Watchmen, etc.) are of the same style. These are the same articles that I referenced when I greatly expanded the PH along with help from Asgardian and Tenebrae, which I see you've largely kept in your subsequent edits. So I can be confident that those model articles I mentioned previously are an acceptable standard to look against.

Regarding images...I have plenty of Galactus images from his comic appearences (admittedly, most are from Secret Wars on). If there is a need to excise irrelevant images, so be it. However I don't think we should strip the article of too many. I have tried inserting relevant images to the article. There are others I could proffer here, and see if others would agree regarding their inclusion.

In closing the article is looking good, and combined with input and contributions from regular editors we should be able to pull this whole damn article up to excellent standards.

Galactus is one of the 3 most important characters in the entire Marvel Universe. Personally, I translate that to mean his entry should be no less important in the Marvel Comics articles in Wikipedia. Mobb One (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While there has been some information migrated to the PH, there is still a large amount of information that needs to be reinserted. The method of inclusion into the article may have been in-universe style, but that by no means indicates that it should forgoe treatment entirely.

Yes, yes it does. Plot summaries should be used in very very limited circumstances, the fictional history presented here (as in as the clean-up I did over at Ultron) was misleading in many instances, and simply wrong in many other, his origin in particular was a complete fuck-up mixing up decades of story like they all occurred in a linear fashion. If you want to write about something, we write about it in an out of universe fashion, with limited reference to primary sources and analysis and critique from third party reliable sources. That is what an encyclopaedia does, Just because areas like this (and Gundam) have been allowed to act like ghettos in the past doesn't mean we should carry on like that in the future. Look at the recent rating fiasco, most of our B-articles are actually C articles, so reliant are they on plot summary and primary sources. So what do we want? To carry on in our little ghetto, writing sub-standard articles or are we going to get to grips with the problem?

However major characteristics should be kept-such as Galactus' role in the universe, his relation with other cosmic entities, his amoral nature...in short, there short be information on why exactly Galactus is "beyond reproach" as Jack Kirby intended, and mentioned.

Which can and should be expanded from third party sources NOT primary because they are largely meaningless.

Pertaining to the Powers and Abilities section...that is in-universe style,but frankly I did some preliminary research in attempting to overhaul the secion, and I have found that other model articles (Silver Surfer, Storm, Watchmen, etc.) are of the same style.

Two of those articles needs a rewrite, Silver Surfer is particular poor. Watchmen which *is* a featured article (and of the standard we should be aiming at) doesn't even *have* a powers and abilities section - so draw your own conclusions from that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Silver Surfer-as well as a litany of others- is deemed a good article by WikiProject Comics, of which you apparently are a member. Either you hold some double standards or you're just imposing your own particular view on this article.

Regarding plot summaries, you are utterly incorrect. Plot summaries are not meant to be used in "very very limited circumstances." No, again you impose your own interpretation of this. WikiProject Comics clearly states here that plot elements are to be "concise summaries." You're telling me that they are to be used in "very limited circumstances" when even the word "limited" is not used in the entire passage. I tell you this now because I guarantee you you will turn this article into a complete shitshow if you end up imposing your personal views and dismissing all others as you did right there in your response to me.

You have eliminated the FCB. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/exemplars clearly provides guidelines for treatment of this stage. I am arguing for reinsertion of critical plot points that are not written in-universe style. You dismissed this outright claiming the complete fuck up of his origin. From a publication standpoint, yes it is. In the FCB the character's primary continuity history is discussed. Major plot points can easily be tied to the real world while still maintaining continuity history, which is what I was implying by contracting all of this into my one word of "treatment." I'll be more explicit in the future.

Lastly, you should have really opened these mass scale edits to discussion. This article is not yours alone. There are established contributors here and people who have unilaterally implemented massive edits have had their efforts refuted until consensus is attained. I have outlined what I disagree with. Other editors may wish to put their opinions here but as it stands my position is to put back the excised content and work on it from there.

You want to bring this out of the ghetto? You want to improve articles which you deem as shit? Fine. Don't presume to be the only one who knows how to contribute correctly. Mobb One (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Who says I'm the only one, other editors have worked on the article as well? If you want to add back plot points that 3rd party reliable sources mention as critical, then I'm not going to stop you, indeed, I couldn't stop you. However if you are going to select "critical" storylines based on primary sources, well that's simply original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I need to have a thorough look at the two versions, but I'll say up front that the P & A section is necessary. It can be written in an out of universe style, but this is one of the sections laymen certainly gravitate to. The only other thing I'd say now is for everyone to be careful with their language. We don't want to have to humour a formal process such as Request for Comment.

Asgardian (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

On this: "most of our B-articles are actually C articles, so reliant are they on plot summary and primary sources." I have done a lot of the assessments recently and downgraded a lot of Bs to Cs (and one A) and it is rarely for those reasons. Part of the reason is because there was no C-class until recently so articles much better than a Start were being give B-class ratings but without actually applying the checklist. If the C-class had been available the majority would have been assessed as Cs all along. Equally the only bit of the B-class assessment that really touches on those issues is the part about covering the topic properly so articles without a Publication History would fail this. However, the area almost all former Bs failed on was referencing and this includes primary sources which are needed so we actually know what issue it was when something happened. It is perfectly possible to write a good B-class article which is largely plot and 95% of the sources are primary.

I suspect these areas become problematic when you push on beyond a B aiming for GA/A/FA and that is where the rewriting often starts (there are Bs that will either need a complete rewrite or, at the very least, a lot more work to go any higher). As I said on the Comics Project talk page when discussing FCBs, what you tend to see are is the improving articles expand their PH and the FCB is either absorbed or shrinks considerably, so the PH ends up looking at character development, the reasons behind changes, etc. as well as simply just what issues they were published in. However, these articles are also the most popular characters with long histories behind them and it would be impossible to cover all their plot in an article and the major stories will be covered in separate articles, so the plot will naturally become less of a focus. It may be as more articles get up to higher quality that we will see different patterns. Most of the high quality and high importance articles follow this pattern, the exception is Silver Surfer which is a GA. However, I suspect as that shoots for higher quality levels the plot is going to be trimmed back further. So it is a pattern and I can see why this occurs, it doesn't mean every article has to follow the same trajectory as they develop but I can see why this would happen and I'd personally prefer to read articles in an encyclopaedia which give me background information rather than just retelling the plot (as you read the comics for that). This article was one of the good Bs as the PH was expanding nicely with good background on character creation and development but it did need a rewrite to push it further, whether this rewrite is the right one is something we can discuss (again with a reminder to remain civil) but I think it is at least going in the right direction. As mentioned above it will need a longer lead which is worth keeping in mind as people go over the article. (Emperor (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Well here's a proposal - we sandbox the old "fictional History" and we rewrite it to a) make sure it does not duplicate the publication section and b) remove any use of in-universe tone. Then if we are happy with it, we merge the sandbox into the article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and for clarification, the Silver Surfer now seems to be a B article at best and should be listed for reassessment. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Then go for it. I think the main place most B-class articles are going to run into trouble shooting for a GA assessment is in WP:WAF, which could be read to suggest we should include no in-universe material. Personally I think that some might be OK if need be but too much plot and you are going to struggle to get beyond a B. We should certainly think carefully before restoring large chunks of it because, as has been said, this is an important article and does deserve to go all the way. Given the characters high profile things I would like to see are more scholarly analysis and there do appear to be quite a few discussion on him [1]. I have access to a few of those journals and some of the books (like Holy Superheroes) can be read online and there looks to be plenty of fodder there. It is that kind of angle that I think is worth pursuing. Flesh out those kinds of angles and the sky is the limit. (Emperor (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

I don't have many problems with the new changes. Readability has been diminished a bit, perhaps better organized sub-headings and some minor rewording will help. Most of the important information has survived the changes. TheBalance (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My edits today

I'd hate to be opening up a can of worms or wading into something that seems contentious, so I'm explaining my edits here in the hopes we can have discussion before any major changes or reversions are made.

Couple of technical things: Quotes aren't italicized. They're simply put in quote marks. Book titles, movie titles, comic-book series titles are italicized; story titles and story-arc titles are in quote marks. Also, we don't use the definite article "The" in subheads, unless it's part of a formal proper noun (The Grapes of Wrath). And if a section is just one paragraph, creating a "stub section," we can combine it with another section until the integrated part grows larger.

I've added a couple of identifying phrases as to who Stan Lee and Jack Kirby are, for general-audience, non-comics readers, and what Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer are.

Finally, I've removed a few sentences of detailed character history, such as the name of the first planet Galactus ate, from the PH. This is in-universe biographical material that should be in the FCB.

One additional point which maybe we can address later: The PH relies I think overmuch on Kirby's recollections, which are meandering and not always supported by other evidence; it's also a bit muddled — the Silver Surfer wasn't a fallen angel in the generally accepted sense of that term (e.g. Lucifer). But all that's a much more complicated edit, and I'm hoping the edits I've made will be seen as non-controversial. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, there are a number of spelling and grammatical errors, which I am ironing out. When the sentence structure is right, we can then take a step back and run a critical eye over the article once again.

Asgardian (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein, a number of fannish addition have had to be culled/reworked as the article must at least attempt to be encyclopedia standard. To this effect, other appearances are just kept to a mention and without POV. Otherwise, the article will simply read like an entry on a fan site. Asgardian (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be 'fannish' to give a very brief and completely accurate summary of what happened in Galactus major starring role in the Thanos series, when all other appearances below get one? The text in question being "Galactus then featured in Marvel: The End #1-6 (May-July 2003), and the limited series Thanos #1-12 (Dec. 2003 - May 2004), in which a remorseful Galactus actively seeks alternate means to nourish his hunger" and possibly ", and assists Thanos in repelling an otherdimensional entity." Also, I'd like to hear an actual explanation of the 'POV' claim, as the text is stated repeatedly outright in the book and thus indisputable as far as I'm aware. Dave (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

True Form?

Galactus did indeed assume the form of a humanoid star during his meeting with a manifestation body of Eternity, but Eternity stated that this was an act of courtecy toward itself, like it had mimicked the form of a man, not that this was Galactus 'true' appearance. Dave (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Galactus has assumed this form on several occasions, though I'm not sure who inserted that it was his "true form." TheBalance (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Devoured planets

any list of those planets?--201.9.248.89 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Galactus is weak?

WHY HERALDS?I also seen in Marvel:Ultimate Alliance that he uses a shield,to protect him and optronic drills to prepare the planet's core for eating it.why he relies so much in technology?Although in the game he did not have any herald.--201.9.248.89 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Golden Galaxy

Dave, it was explicitly stated in-comic that Galactus transported the Golden Galaxy to an unknown location. Regarding your interpretation of the artwork contained in the comic, it is irrelevant to this entry. Admittedly, the artwork did depict distant sources of light (in space), but what's to say this wasn't a depiction of distant galaxies? Neither you nor I know what the artist's intention was; however, we do know what the dialog stated. In my view, your speculations to the contrary border on original research. Regarding the information contained in the OHOTMU, the handbook is a second-hand retelling of what appears in-comic and is not permissible here at Wikipedia for a reason.

Regarding the link to the Sphinx, I do not believe it is required. All that is needed in the P&A section is an example of Galactus' ability to transport objects through time, not an in-text mention of the specific event. TheBalance (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked it up, made an image of the pages referring to the incident, and still think that it's really ambivalent. (And yes the text should be worded in such a way that it's specified that Galactus did not move a galaxy through time, just a person) It is available here with the relevant segments of the text marked for check-up. What I can make out from the somewhat contradictory mentions within the the last page of the story, and the clearer specification within the handbook, is that Galactus A: Stopped whatever effect that caused the 'Golden Galaxy' to move towards 'the dark nebula', but B: moved the planet Galador away from its position within it. Dave (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave, you're performing some rather impressive mental gymnastics. Rom flatly states that the Golden Galaxy has been moved by Galactus, there is really nothing to discuss here. TheBalance (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave is increasingly ignoring on-panel evidence, or perhaps unintentionally misrepresenting events due to forgetting the true events as they transpired in the comic. This is not an accusation, this is a fact. He is free to make edits, but I as a fellow editor will undo his edits if they continue to misrepresent facts. This is not "Galactus-inflating" or "Galactus-boosting" as he likes to label the edits, THESE ARE THE ON-PANEL FACTS. If you do not like it, then express dismay to Marvel.Mobb One (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. Dave is showcasing the images for all to see so he most definitely is not deliberately distorting facts, and thought that you could look past your own biases long enough to admit the discrepancies. To showcase the contradictions:

Galactus teleported Galador:

Handbook profile: "Galactus used his vast power to move Galador to another location in space"

Last page: "...To reappear on this asteroid" "Why? Where has Galactus sent us?" "Scan your vector circuits. This is the sector of space occupied by the Golden Galaxy... but Galador is nowhere to be seen." The knights are surrounded by lots of planets and stars (planets not being clearly visible to the eyes from other galaxies, much less as large spheres in the sky, to say the least, as pretty much anyone knows), stand on an asteroid, state that this is space-sector of the Golden Galaxy, but Galador is missing from it.

"Far from devouring Galador, he has relocated it in space. Galactus has saved our world." Also strictly referring to that Galador is missing.

"Drifting among the stars the Spaceknights hang their heads." Again with the stars clearly not missing/littering the sky together with nearby suns and planets.

Unspecified:

Last page: "Galactus will now show his magnanimity by preserving your world from harm!" World on its own could mean either Galador or the GG.

Galactus teleported the Golden Galaxy (whatever the nature of this is):

"You said that your Golden Galaxy has been moved from its rightful position in space... That an evil genius has sent it hurtling towards certain destruction in the Dark Nebula!" Specification of the main problem.

Last page: "The Golden Galaxy is no longer plunging towards certain destruction in the Dark Nebula... but neither is it anywhere where we spaceknights can hope to find it." Suddenly contradicting themselves by referring to the GG instead, and wouldn't it be pretty easy for a spaceknight to find an entire galaxy, or whatever it is?

Meaning, the reason for the confusion is that the story in itself is shoddily done in terms of being specific, with the characters switching their references back and forth. We know know that A: The Golden Galaxy is first moving towards the "Dark Nebula", and it shouldn't. B: The spaceknights are clearly present in very occupied space and they state that this is the sector of space occupied by the GG. C: Galador is missing. What makes it uncertain is that the main defined 'problem' of the story was the GG's movement, and that this contained Galador within it, yet it is not clearly consistently defined how the problem was dealt with.

Given that the official editorial word a few years later specified/clarified that it was the planet itself that was missing, the best I can make of it is that Galactus either A: teleported the Golden Galaxy back to its original position, except for Galador which was teleported somewhere else (Did anyone read later issues of "Rom: Spaceknight" which addressed this?); B: That he teleported Galador away and stopped whatever said "evil genius" did to cause the GG's movement towards the "Dark Nebula"; C: That he simply preserved their world Galador as the handbook states. In any case it's far from clear-cut.

In any case, if you need a big explicit/blatant Galactus 'feat' to mention, the greatest one I know of was during his Stan Lee-penned graphic novel conflict with Mephisto. According to memory they apparently blew up, or at least threatened, multiple solar systems within it, and may have reached further than that. Dave (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dave, there's no need to rewrite the dialog. We can see the scan and I own the issue.

What it boils down to is this: Rom stated that Galactus prevented the Golden Galaxy from plunging into the Dark Nebula AND that they could no longer find it. This is a clear indication that that the Golden Galaxy was moved along with Galador!

You keep focusing on the surrounding stars, but as stated in the scan, the Golden Galaxy wasn't in its proper position to begin with! TheBalance (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite the dialogue. I like that blatantly false accusation as I wrote it down word-by-word, which was apparently necessary as you're sticking to vaguely focusing on only only one instance in the page. In any case, you still haven't addressed all the discrepancies above, which shows your clear enormous slant on this. I'm the one saying that it's uncertain, while you're even unwilling to admit the various instances wherein it was questioned. Meaning, yes, the dialogue should definitely be changed to reflect this uncertainty~, regardless of yours and Mobb's personal biases. Period. Dave (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are going out of your way to obfuscate on-panel evidence. TheBalance (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Another blatantly false nonsense claim on your part in lack of any logic or arguments whatsoever. Your fanatic Galactus fanboyism apparently completely blinds your sense of logic. My impression of very conflicting information is apparently irrefutable. Point proven. Dave (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's really quite clear, Dave.

One of the space knights says, "this is sector of space occupied by the Golden Galaxy."

Then Rom later states, "The Golden Galaxy is no longer plunging towards certain destruction in the Dark Nebula -- but neither is it anywhere where we Spaceknights can hope to find it!"

Given that the Golden Galaxy's imminent destruction was averted by Galacus, AND that the Golden Galaxy no longer in the same position in space – stated very clearly by Rom – the intent of the panel was clear. Galactus moved the Golden Galaxy along with Galador.

You have proven nothing other than you wish to obfuscate the evidence in order to further your personal agenda. You have become an increasingly disruptive editor who has also made a string of bad edits over the past several days. My patience with you has worn through. TheBalance (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Obfuscating the evidence" is the sort of completely and utterly biased and pretentious BS claim that I've come to expect from you. You're the one who's consistently enforced a personal agenda to blow up Galactus anywhere and anyhow you're able to. I'm the one trying to find a neutral, accurate, and npov wording, and the cosmic section used to be the worst and most fanatically enforced that I've ever seen in that regard, which severely gets on my nerves in the long run. Also, by now you should know that I virtually never intentionally lie. In fact near-inability to filter my thoughts is part of my condition. Heck, you've complained about the stream-of-consciousness writing style yourself. Silly me for assuming that you could set aside the tiresome blinders and go objective for a moment.

In any case, the "scan your vector circuits" quote simply states that they have been transported to the Golden Galaxy, and "but Galador is nowhere to be seen" follows straight afterwards. I.e. Galador is not found within it/has been taken away from it. Since I am objective enough to see and showcase more than one side of an issue, the second quote is one I mentioned myself as supporting the "Galactus moved the entire Golden Galaxy" alternative. The discrepancies/contradictions are the main issue. What you're doing is to stick to one quote and ignore the ones saying the opposite i.e. "Far from devouring Galador, he has relocated it in space. Galactus has saved our world." and the official editorial statement/handbook's "Galactus used his vast power to move Galador to another location in space" It should be clearly defined that I am not in fact advocating strictly mentioning Galador, just to keep the matter as ambivalent as presented within the article. If I were going your exact path I would have strictly mentioned those quotes as irrefutable evidence that the spaceknight's last statement had not in fact taken place, but it's still one statement against 2 + the official word/clarification from the company. I think that I've been very objective in that conclusion. Dave (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, you are purposely trying to obfuscate the scene. Had the Spaceknights indeed been transported into the Golden Galaxy (not simply to where it should have been), Rom would have not stated that it would take them centuries to locate "The Golden Galaxy"!

Here, Rom was really quite clear that it was the Golden Galaxy that he was referencing (not just Galador). The fact that the Golden Galaxy is relocated is also reinforced through Galactus' "dues ex machina" resolution to the Golden Galaxy destruction sub-plot.

It seems that the confusion for you lies in the shifting references to Galador and the Golden Galaxy. And it's true, Galador and the Golden Galaxy are alternately referenced, but where you see "contradiction" in these alternating references there is in fact none at all.

The handbook provides nothing but speculation regarding this instance. Moving Galador and moving the Golden Galaxy are not mutually exclusive as you seem to believe. The Handbook states Galactus transported Galador, which is supported by the comic; however, the comic also supports the notion that Galactus transported the Golden Galaxy beyond the Spaceknight's ability to locate.

And to answer your question, "wouldn't it be pretty easy for a spaceknight to find an entire galaxy", the answer is clearly an emphatic no. TheBalance (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I most definitely was not "purposely trying to obfuscate the evidence". It wouldn't even make any sense for me to upload the page for public viewing if I didn't believe in what I was saying, and even less to additionally try to list any potential interpretations of the scene. The reason that I considered it ambivalent was due to the combination of different mentions (making it seem as if the writer didn't keep track) and that the spaceknight were situated in very populated space, filled with nearby suns, asteroids, and planets. Hardly the case of an entire missing galaxy, in combination with the handbook mention and reading the same thing in an old RPG profile. However, to make sure I recently had some time to browse through the last few issues of the Rom comicbook wherein Galador showed up again. All written by the same writer as the one for the much earlier Galactus/Terrax/Wraithworld story, and to quote:

Rom 73: (Flashback to a council of Galador in session) "Galactus moved Galador to a new Galaxy. It will take our spaceknights eons to find us."

Rom 74: "Galactus moved Galador from its proper position in space." "I have been scanning the spaceways trying to ascertain where in space Galactus shifted Galador."

Rom 75: "The first generation of spaceknights sought to return home after the Dire Wraiths destruction, but Galactus had since displaced their worlds."

So apparently this is from where the handbook and RPG gathered their information, and the teleportation entry should be modified accordingly. On the other hand, you could probably interpret it as Galactus being able to use telekinesis to stop the movement of the entire Golden Galaxy towards the nebula, just not teleportation beyond the planetary level. Dave (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream titles featuring alternate realities

The most recent entry in the PH discusses Galactus' recent appearance in FF in the form of an alternate reality Galactus (Galactus 500 years in the future) being used as a power cource for a glorified time machine.

The problem with including this in the PH is that we now have to include provision for all other "alternate reality versions of Galactus that have appeared in mainstream 616 titles." One glaring example is the Black Celestial arc from Fantastic Four, wherein Galactus' hunger reaches such levels that Mr. Fantastic muses that all the energy ever produced in the history of the universe's existence would not satiate him, and that Galactus would eventually consume the Marvel Omniverse. Ultimately, Galactus consumes the Black Celestial (aka Tiamut the Dreaming Celestial) and uses the Ultimate Nullifier to destroy the entire universe and timeline, to stop his mad hunger. However this story has not been included in the PH due to its "alternate reality" properties. I don't care either way, just saying if we include the recent stint from FF, then by definition we cannot pick and choose "alternate reality" events to include in the PH...all must go in, or none.Mobb One (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It's included in the main text because this version of Galactus actually appeared in the present day official timeline, and slightly because it's a high-profile recent arc. The further back in history we go the more the history tend to get compressed, but yes it is a touch-and-go whether it should be in the alternate versions section or the main section. Dave (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The flaw with this argument is that you implicitly give more weight to appearances that are "recent." PH does not give weight to events that are recent, but rather events that are significant in the character's history. I understand your position in alternate Galactus' appearance in the official time line, but do not agree that it warrants inclusion due to its recent publishing. In the next few days I will add the (more high-profile) Galactus appearance in last summer's Nova 13-15, in which Galactus was hyped as a central character, as opposed to a shock device, which is what he was used for in this FF story, as it focuses on alternate reality heroes.Mobb One (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Which of course wasn't my main point at all, just a sticker in terms of what most readers find interesting, and the tendency of comicbook character articles as a whole. Not to mention that a low-tier book like Nova isn't remotely comparable in attention to the Mark Millar juggernaut. I'm stating that all alternate universe appearances should preferably be mentioned in that section, and that the only reason there is uncertainty about where to place this case is that future Galactus appeared in the present mainstream timeline. Dave (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Union with the Sentience of the Universe

I don't understand why all the back and forth. Now before I say anything I have to disclose that I don't have any comics with me to refer to as I've lost them all in an incident, so I have to go based off of my memory, which other editors are free to confirm.

I don't ever recall the Sentience of the Universe conversing with Galactus himself after the merger, as David A claims. If that happened, then (to my memory) each of the 4 on-panel, canon depictions of Galan merging with the Sentience to form Galactus would be rendered invalid, because that would imply that the Sentience and Galactus are two separate beings, which is false, according to on-panel depictions.

That's why there's a big distinction between "the product of the merger" and "a product of the merger." The former constitutes a singular result, the latter implies either multiple results, or the possibility of there being more than one. This is a HUGE difference and I'm amazed why David A would try to surreptitiously slip this by with a "minor edit" mark. Grammatically, yes it's trivial. This is not a grammatical issue.

Galactus has been presented to us, in the context of his modern origin, as the SOLE SURVIVOR of the previous universe. To use the phrase "a product of the merger" would mean that there must be, at the very least, some accommodation for the idea that the merger between Galan and the Sentience produced more than 1 offspring, i.e., the merger produced more than Galactus. Given that Galactus has been canonically presented to us as the Sole Survivor of the previous universe repeatedly and frequently, logically that means there needs to be some on-panel inference (at the least) that Galan and the Sentience had more than one "offspring," and that in the interim between gestation in the cosmic egg and the birth of the current universe, all of those offspring died/ceased to be except for Galactus, and Galactus alone.

Obviously, there is nothing in the comics, in any depiction, that suggest these events. And these events have to have occurred in order for us to use the phrase "a product of the merger" correctly and logically.

So where is it explicitly stated that Galan and the Sentience possibly had more than 1 offspring??? No where. Not even inferred, or suggested, or hinted at, by any source, primary or otherwise. I see this is the reason for David A's edit given in the history of edits section, that it was not "explicitly stated" that the Galactus was the sole product. Well, where is the evidence that suggests (which is a far weaker phrase than "explicitly states" - meaning, there's a lot more room for speculation with "suggests" because you are given some form of ambiguous confirmation, vs. "explicitly state" which means there is no room for misinterpretation) that Galactus was NOT the sole product? There's far more supporting evidence that he was, vs. inferences that he wasn't. Yet, use of the phrase "a product of the union" supports the latter, whereas "the product of the union" supports the former. It would seem that David A is imposing his POV, while claiming that another editor is guilty of the same.

That is why the use of "the sole product" is superior to the use of "a product." Feel free to disagree, supplying evidence, circumstantial or incontrovertible, that would say otherwise.Mobb One (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I too am unable to reference the issue at the moment. But I do seem to recall the Sentience making a statement to Galactus as he left the cosmic egg, something along the lines of "Now go forth and let a universe aborning beware". But I also recall the text indicating that it was the "Sentience of the Universe"'s last act, as if it was passing/fading away while making that last statement. There was certainly nothing in the dialog to contradict "sole product", and there is actually plenty to support it in the Sentience's initial statements to Galan which is already depicted on the Galactus page. TheBalance (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That final statement is my reason for considering "sole product" as inserting personal pov. I interpreted it as the sentience making a heir, dying and being reborn as Eternity (hence Galactus making the "father" comment during the "Trial of Galactus" arc) but not metamorphosing all of itself into the current Galactus. Then there would have been nothing left except Galactus himself after the Big Bang. Meaning "a product" is npov and accurate. Dave (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(1)You interpreted it? In other words, IT'S YOUR POV. That alone perpetually ensures that I or someone else will revert your edit which injects your POV. It boggles me how you use words such as "I interpreted it" and "Then there would have" and yet you incredibly come up with your "interpretation" as "npov and accurate." Amazing!

(2)It explicitly states that the Sentience and Galan will BOTH die. It's in the scan that I uploaded depicting Galan merging with the Sentience. Clearly, you have either not bothered to read it, or have ignored it.

"But though we BOTH must die, we need not die without an heir. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace AND LET US BECOME AS ONE. Let our death throes serve as birth pangs for a NEW form of life." - Galactus Origin

(3)This is depicted again in Thanos #3, and once more, literally verbatim, in FF #522. Further, Thanos #3 has the narrator stating: "The initial guilt [of devouring planets] soon drowned in an ocean of rationale. Was not Galactus the brother of Eternity and Death?" (Emphasis is not mine).

(4) So, in order for your INTERPRETATION to be true, you must have SOME source, that clearly states that the Sentience of the Universe did NOT metamorphose itself entirely with Galactus. Your entire statement hinges on the Galactus addressing Eternity as Father, yet clearly these relations are not so simple and linear as you would simplistically assume. How can the relation between Galactus and Eternity be solely that Eternity is Galactus' "father," when Death herself has paradoxically called Galactus husband, father, brother, and son? You cannot put a premium on one statement. Eternity and Death were born at the same time, to assume otherwise would be an unnatural universe. In Silver Surfer volume 3 Etenity calls Death his "sister" twice in one comic, and in the cosmic meeting that Galactus and Eternity had with each other, Eternity explicitly stated that he acted to prevent harm coming to Galactus, which thus saved Galactus, which thus saved Eternity himself. Clearly, there is more going on here than "Eternity is Galactus' father, and that's the only way to look at it" that you've been stamping your feet about. It doesn't make Galactus' statement false. There are various ways to interpret Galactus' address of Eternity as "father." You interpret it literally. I interpret it as in the same vein as Death's statement to Galactus (meaning, all relations of brother, father, son, and husband), as well as Galactus addressing Eternity in an honorary and respectful fashion, just as I would address a priest as "father."

(5) The primary difference between us is that your interpretation is necessary to be true to support your POV (which, as I have proved above, you fallaciously claim as "npov") of "a product" whereas my argument is supported by the comics (which makes a clear distinction from my argument being just my "POV," and my argument acting as provision of on-panel depictions, narrative support, and editorial confirmation). Even if my interpretation of Galactus' statement is wrong, I don't need to rely on my interpretation of that statement to support my argument. The facts speak for themselves.Mobb One (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) You're either completely missing the point in that "interpreted" means that it can have different interpretations, and inserting a definite sole product, rather than the neutral a product which includes any possible interpretation means that the latter should be choosen, alternately it's a deliberate play with words.

(2) That both are united to produce a 'child' does definitely not mean that they are both embodied in the child. Especially given that the sentience does speak to Galactus shortly after the transformation, and that the universe is still around.

(3) The Trial of Galactus was the first time Galactus' modified origin penciler John Byrne followed up on the special, so yes, I definitely read "father" as very telling regarding the nature of the relationship. The "brother" bit was added later, but in the context of the original creator intents this is the best we have to go by. Also if the sentience had not been reborn as Eternity the Marvel Universe wouldn't be around in the first. Galactus would be the only product of the previous creation, and that's the completely illogical wording which I have a problem with.

(4) I do recall an official reference of the Phoenix force enabling Eternity to be reborn into the current creation, but that's not the issue here, nor is it required to say "a product". You're making the "in order not to be the killer you have to prove that you are not, rather than us proving that there is no doubt whatsoever that you are to make a conviction" statement, which has always annoyed me. The point is that "a product" is completely neutral in that it includes any possible interpretation under its banner, while "the only single product" does not based on the origin issue/segment. It's your favoured pov interpretation. You'll note that I've never removed the 'has been described as the embodiment of a cosmos' quote, which should satisfy your intents to full satisfaction anyway.

(5) No the difference is that I didn't insert my pov into the text itself, while you did. If I had, I would have worded it as "One of many products as it makes no sense that he would encapsule the universe within him when it, and Eternity are still around and his father/mother spoke to him after his transfiguration/birth. Hence there are at least 3 known products and the statement is completely illogical". I inserted "a product" which, you know, per definition is ambivalent. In order to insert "sole product" there must be no shadow of a doubt or logical fallacy whatsoever, period. Dave (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I hope you don't mind, but I indented your post above to make it easier to distinguish from the others at a glance. I hope this is okay with you. As for this dispute, which you asked me to mediate, can you provide the specific diffs that illustrate the dispute, so I can see the exact wording that you two are disagreeing about? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously no problem at all. Starting with the edit conflicts (more to be added later), the first one is:

(1) "Galactus is the sole product of the union between the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe" and Galan" which I consider slanted and subjective, and wish to make neutral by rewording it to "a product", or preferably "an offspring".

This referring to that going by the 1996 "Origin of Galactus" reprint, Galan was told "We need not die without an heir. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace. Let our death throes serve as birth pangs for a new form of life" by the Sentience of the previous Universe to (a very explicit mating allegory as I understood the story), gestated and was transformed inside the "cosmic egg", and was shot out/birthed into the universe at the time the cosmic egg exploded, producing the Big Bang, Eternity, Death, other cosmic entities, along with the current Marvel Universe. Or as the story puts it "There is an eternity of seeming nothingness. Then the Cosmic Egg of the universe explodes!" We see the ship hurled away from the explosion, and the Sentience says "Go, now... and let a universe a'borning beware!" from the origin of the explosion. Thus it remains separate per definition, and is not somehow embodied within Galactus. It is his parent.

Galactus' 1985 deluxe edition handbook profile called this "presumably a previous incarnation of Eternity" and "finally the "Cosmic Egg" underwent another "Big Bang," thus creating the current universe. Eternity, and Death, the ethereal embodiments of the new universe, were created in this "Big Bang," and the being that had been Galan was simultaneously hurled outward in his recreated starship. (It is because all three were created simultaneously that Galactus refers to Eternity and Death as his siblings.)" He also called Eternity "father" after summoning him to his trial, since it's a bit ambivalent (the sentience died and was reborn at the same time as its offspring). Galactus' most recent (2004?) handbook profile puts it as "Galactus was filled with new energy and saved by the Phoenix Force of the dying universe. The sentient energy spoke to Galan as it brought him into the Egg. With the next Big Bang, the Cosmic Egg matter exploded outwards, eventually condensing into stars and planets. The future Galactus and his starship were re-created simultaneously with the embodiments of Eternity and Death, though he drifted inert for billions of years as life began to populate the universe." The (2006? 2007?) "Nova Corps" Galactus profile puts it as: "Phoenix Force saved the dying universe's inhabitants from eternal damnation, while Eternity, the sentience of the universe, Galan into the cosmic egg as the universe collapsed in the Big Crunch. Reborn anew in the succeeding/present universe as Galactus, he possesses immense power, requiring an entire planet's energies to survive." It's fuzzy in the details with the Phoenix Force, but the Cosmic Egg definitely produced more products than Galactus, if the second "embodiment of a cosmos" claim had any validity whatsoever there wouldn't be a Marvel Universe in the first place. It's utter nonsense, and I still didn't remove it, since at least it's an accurate quote. I just made the slanted POV interpretation of the origin wording completely neutral, and 'TheBalance' keeps on reverting it no matter what.

(2) The second major one is the whole teleporting Galador between galaxies mess, and that the teleportation and time-travel references are mashed together rather than kept separate. It is detailed pretty extensively above, but in addition the, the 2004 (?) Galactus handbook profile say: "The magic of Wraithworld and its Dark Nebula proved too much for Galactus, but he nonetheless honoured his agreement to spare Galador, though he transported it to a distant location unknown to the spaceknights."

(3) The third being the whole wordiness point, which I concede could turn into a problem. I tried to accommodate MobbOne in the most recent edit, but "TheBalance" immediately reverted it all nonetheless.

As a side-note, when checking through the references I also noticed a handbook reference to that that the whole "destruction and illusory recreation of Zenn-La" story is referred to as officially highly dubious, so I'm not sure if we should include it? I also checked up the Rom story, and my memory seems to be diffuse. Although Galactus 'only' grows to a size equal to the "Queen Mother Dreadwings" that grapple with him, and are supposed to be about the same size as regular starships. He is stated to eclipse the Black Sun from the ground. I mistakenly thought Mobb meant "eclipsed" in the "vastly larger than" meaning. Regardless, it's too diffuse for the reader, and depends on the distance to whatever is hidden from view. Dave (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities section

(1) DavidA, what is the point of making these (imo) senseless edits? For example, teleporting the Sphinx through "millenniums of Earth time." Why is teleporting "through time" insufficient? Why does it have to specify "millenniums of Earth time?"

(2) Should we then specify that Galactus alters his size from 13 feet tall to enough solar mass so that his frame eclipses an entire sun? You reasoning indicates such. In fact, your reasoning indicates that all of Galactus' powers and abilities which are quantifiable in some fashion should be quantified.

(3) The moment we start saying "well, Galactus can teleport the villain known as the Sphinx 60,000 millennia into Earth's past" and "but you should also know that Galactus can immobilize over 100 heroes with a push of a button as seen in Infinity War #5" and "additionally, it should be explained that Galactus has the energy capacity to detonate TWO universes! That was confirmed in Annihilation! And, that's only AFTER dedicating an unknown quantity of energy to keep Abraxas at bay!!!!" we descend into a in-universe -driven fan factoid fun fest.

Now, if you believe that everything needs to be specified, well I will go ahead and put in the above facts. Then all the editors can step back, take a look, and decide whether the section looks sufficiently absurd, or not.

(4) BTW Dave. If you're going to revert someone's edits, don't revert starting with "a.f.a.i.k." which basically means "well I'm going off my flawed memory, and I'm not going to check the reference that was explicitly provided. So I'm going to revert his edit anyway, because assuming that I'm right is better than checking the facts to see if I'm wrong."

Check the facts buddy. Because I just caught you red-handed reverting my edit just because you have some agenda. And yes, it is an agenda because you would have checked the referenced source before carelessly reverting the work of a fellow editor who did his proper research if you did not have an agenda.Mobb One (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Because I much prefer the extents to be specific. Rather than saying "immeasurable force" of something in that vein, state that the extent has proven sufficient to destroy multiple solar systems. Rather than mashing together the sentence in such a manner that it seems like Galactus has transported a planet across time (which he may very well be capable of, but has not done) state what he was shown to actually do. I'm usually an extreme stickler for stuff like that, and think that I am correct in doing so.

(2) Not "eclipses", "is able to grapple with it but is overpowered" and the magical dark Wraithworld star was of unknown size and nature, so it's harder to quantify, and if I recall correctly the Dreadwings that attacked Galactus in its defence were large enough to be seen, and they were at Galadorian starship size. The entire story was very nebulous, so I'd be far prefer some instance of growing to the size of a regular star, to avoid any possible misinterpretation, but something along the vein of "growing large enough to grapple with the magical Wraithworld sun" or similar. Will check up when I have time.

(3) Not really. We simply have to stick to the relevant ones, and any unambiguously shown extent within them. Specifying already existing statements isn't a problem, or any different than your own "recreating entire worlds in every detail" or "simultaneously resurrecting himself, Silver Surfer, Doctor Strange, and Nova" (which I reinserted after checking up that it was correct), but it might turn a bit wordy if there is too much of it. "Transporting the Sphinx through time" might be enough, as long as it isn't implied that he transported a planet through time.

(4) No I reverted it because I usually remember these things, and have bad experience with you two inserting anything that pumps Galactus due to your own more identifiable 'agenda', and as usual checked it up and found out that it was mostly accurate, although I might have turned it a bit wordy, so you could shorten it down to "reconstituting himself from discorporation" or similar. The reason for your "resurrecting himself" wording not triggering the memory is probably that Galactus did not in fact die. Magus 'merely' attempted to delay him through a technobabble "astral disruption wave" sufficient to destroy a solar system. It did not destroy Galactus life-force enough to cause his demise, in the manner of the Devourer series. Dave (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DavidA asked me to "mediate" this dispute. In looking at the Edit Summaries in the article's History, the first thing I would suggest is to stop it with language like "fanatic" and "agenda-driven lies". These comments violate WP:ATTACK and WP:Civility. So stop it, right now. As for the content of the edits themselves, I'll try to look them over when I get home from work tonight. But I would ask that all those concerned who have used such language chime in to affirm that they will not do so any more. You can't have a consensus discussion if you're insulting one another. Nightscream (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

David, as I requested above, if you could provide the diffs that illustrate the points of conflict, that would facilitate my aiding you guys here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It was in direct mirror/satire of 'TheBalance's' preceding edit accusation, and the editor in question systematically reverts any edits whatsoever, regardless that he knows for a fact that his claims have been blatantly disproven, or worded in a highly subjective pov manner, but I mostly try to rein myself in regardless that I genuinely believe in my view of him from myriad experiences, and will try to do so to a greater degree. The latest edit conflict can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&diff=287029309&oldid=286895592 Dave (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem, Dave, is that your so-called "disprovals" are just as incorrect as the multitude of edits you've made based on nothing but own misrememberings.

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraxas_(comics)&diff=269972017&oldid=268626016

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&diff=256647173&oldid=256566119

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&diff=261867839&oldid=261865691

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&diff=269972639&oldid=269972472

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&diff=270406431&oldid=270406237 (not what he stated)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&diff=286502076&oldid=286486151

And there are literally too many other instances across a range of articles to mention.

I will continue to revert any changes you make to the Galactus article if made without prior discussion. Your history of bad, sloppy, and POV edits to this entry is simply too extensive. TheBalance (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The current changes done have all been explicitly checked up, explained in the Talk, and referenced. And in the cases of my own misrememberings I've usually corrected them myself right afterward (as soon as I've re-checked the references). I don't see any reason whatsoever to undo them uniformly. The shortened sentences or specifications can be arguable, as can whether Galactus should be called a "product" or an "offspring". The mating emphasis and gestation in a 'cosmic womb' was pretty heavy-handed after all, but the ones excessively proven, or blatantly pov before the slight modification? Not so much. Also, while a few other cases have been flat out wrongly remembered, the linked ones turned out not to be, just fuzzy in the exact quote details. Dave (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached regarding your recent edits. In fact, you have been met with little but disapproval regarding most of these recent edits. See the above discussions for what they are, not through rose tinted glasses. TheBalance (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it had been proven beyond doubt that you were enforcing inaccurate information. If agreement from an extremely subjective and completely unreasonable party such as yourself, or even MobbOne who has made explicit statement that he in all seriousness considers Galactus as the second best thing to the Infinity Gauntlet and Heart of Infinite, well the article is in serious, serious trouble as far as reliability goes. The discussion was ended, with yourself unable to make any counter to the explicit facts, which is the reason I want neutral reliable evaluators to handle this. Dave (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Or to put it another way. If two people were consistently enforcing that the Moon is in fact made of cheese, the World is flat, and stated that no matter how much evidence the one party provided and how little objective rationale they had, they would not allow any changes to the article, then that 'requirement' turns completely nonsensical. Dave (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dave says: The point is that it had been proven beyond doubt that you were enforcing inaccurate information.

Actually Dave, you have proven no such thing. In actuality, you're arguments have been dismantled rather thoroughly time after time, you're simply either too dim or stubborn to accept that simple fact. Your inability to grasp that fact is the primary reason you're considered by so many here to be a disruptive editor. TheBalance (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Except of course that as seen above I've thoroughly referenced and quoted that the sources in question explicitly contradict your inaccurate POV slanted wordings, and that you haven't responded, simply continue to revert without any arguments to counter. Again I'd really like some objective non-Galactus favorising editors to check over and find sensible ways to word the section in a completely matter-of-fact manner. A "disruptive editor" per my definition is a deliberate vandal or liar, very far from a "everything should be accurate" truthsayer. Dave (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) Your recent edits on the Galactus page are blatantly agenda driven. Blatantly. You try to paint yourself as an accuracy stickler, yet out of all the regular editors of this page you are far and away the sloppiest and least accurate. A person who claims to have OCD -- being "obsessed with accuracy" as you so often claim -- wouldn't regularly insert misquotes, misinterpretations, and logical fallacies in the way you do. Your recent edit, stating that "Galactus is the product of Galan's incubation within the "cosmic egg," transformed to possess "the matchless power and appetites of a galaxy" by the Sentience of the [previous] universe." couldn't be more inaccurate or poorly constructed. Galactus is the product of the merger of Galan and the Sentience of the previous Universe, this "conception" occured in the Cosmic egg; Galactus did not "incubate" within the cosmic egg. Are you the product of your mother's 9-month pregnancy or of your initial conception? Does pregnancy occur without conception? Do you see how ridiculous your edit is? Yet another agenda driven edit, done in an attempt to minimize the scope of Galactus' origin and implied power.

(2) In the end, I have lost any semblance of respect for you as an editor, and have no desire to enter discourse with a brick wall.

The edit in question for any parties concerned: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&diff=287864354&oldid=287835757 TheBalance (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) No, I'm not trying to 'paint myself' as anything, which would be nonsensical. I'm definitely OCD. I have a diagnosis, and I consistently revert or modify any mistakes of my own that I discover, or try to find better ways to word something factually, which you definitely don't, so that certainly fits. My experience with other Aspergers is that the specifics shift quite a bit from person to person, but my personal life isn't remotely of any interest here. To put it in your words, your edits are blatantly 'enormously fanboyishly blindsided agenda-driven attempts to slant the information into blindsided hyperbole POV inaccuracies.

Incubation (nky-bshn) 1. The act of warming eggs in order to hatch them, as by a bird sitting upon a clutch of eggs in a nest. 2. The act of keeping an organism, a cell, or cell culture in conditions favorable for growth and development. 3. The maintenance of an infant, especially one that is ill or born before the usual gestation period, in an environment of controlled temperature, humidity, and oxygen concentration in order to provide optimal conditions for growth and development. 4. The development of an infection from the time the pathogen enters the body until signs or symptoms first appear.

Yes, this certainly seems like the least slanted manner of wording it. Galactus entered the "cosmic egg", was preserved and transformed within it by the conscience of the previous universe, and when this was finished and the egg exploded into the Big Bang was shot out into the Universe, with his 'parent', the consciousness, giving him a farewell speech. Yes, I'd definitely say that this is the most blatantly matter-of-fact way of putting this, rather than putting an enormous slant to it by deftly wording the sentence in such as way that it appears an entity that is proven as a fact to have stayed separate and produced many different products

Merge (mûrj) v. merged, merg·ing, merg·es v.tr. 1. To cause to be absorbed, especially in gradual stages. 2. To combine or unite: merging two sets of data. v.intr. 1. To blend together, especially in gradual stages. 2. To become combined or united. See Synonyms at mix.

The first one works, but could easily be misinterpreted as the last 3, which just flat-out isn't true, as referenced and quoted several times above. Incubation is what was explicitly shown in the reference itself as Galactus waited for the explosion. It also includes the first option. As a footnote, in addition the explicit emphasis here was on mating, to "produce a heir" which includes #3 below.

Mix (mks)

v.intr. 1. a. To become mixed or blended together. b. To be capable of being blended together: Oil does not mix with water. 2. To associate socially or get along with others: He does not mix well at parties. 3. To mate so as to produce a hybrid; crossbreed. 4. To become involved: In the case of a family argument, a friend should not mix in.

(2) You're doing that thoroughly insincere 'avoiding the argument and playing for a perceived audience' BS demagogue thing, since you don't have any counters whatsoever to all the multiple blatant facts I've laid out above. The fact is that I'm definitely not a brick wall, which would imply that, for example, I followed your path and kept out the "reconstructing himself from an astral disruption wave" statement after it was proven to me that it was correct.

You repeatedly revert to the whole "merged", not in the mating interaction manner that the story used, but blatantly contradicted actual combination of two things to the explusion of everything else/encapsulement of the previous universe within himself, along with the likevise blatantly contradicted 'galaxy teleportation', simply because you prefer to slant it that way, and the best you can come up with is a non-argument of: "You're not worth talking to, hence I don't have to justify why I fly in the face of a little things like facts" or "You have reading comprehension deficiency, so there. But I won't admit the parts which contradict this presentation. I still won't allow a wording which sticks to the non-arguable facts"? Right.

Again, I'm the one who keep things far more proven-without-a-doubt matter-of-fact, while you try every trick in the book to justify your insertion of blatant POV, and undoing of any attempt of fact, yet you think crying agenda makes anything all right. I still consider it more than a bit coincidental that you even share a handle with your perceived vision for the 'allmighty importance' of the character, and somehow still don't have conflicting interests of any kind? Meaning: Let's return to discussing the quoted facts, and finding better ways to word the sentences in a matter-of-fact npov manner please. At least I'm attempting the tricky task of different solutions. Dave (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw: Here are my edits of all the things I've discovered to currently need fixing on the page for overview by objective editors. Improvements are very welcome. I also uploaded a higher resolution version of the main incubation image (as in "actually possible to read the words"). Dave (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding the superfluous aspects of your latest response, we are left with the accuracy of your edits regarding Galactus being the product of his "incubation" or of his merging with the Sentience of the Universe.

Galactus is a undoubtedly the result of Galan's union the Sentience of the Universe. Without the union, there would have been no incubation.

The Sentience says to Galan, "But though we BOTH must die, we need not die without an heir. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace AND LET US BECOME AS ONE. Let our death throes serve as birth pangs for a NEW form of life."

That quote single handedly destroys any POV-based reasoning on your part. What continues to baffle me is your ridiculous assertion that the Sentience's parting statement in any way contradicts the P&A writeup.

Regarding the Golden Galaxy, you don't have a leg to stand on. Once again, you are placing your own POV misinterpretations over an explicit in-comic statement. The Handbook never trumps an explicit in-comic statement. Once again, we see an agenda driven edit from you.

You simply cannot argue with Rom's quote, "The Golden Galaxy is no longer plunging towards certain destruction in the Dark Nebula -- but neither is it anywhere where we Spaceknights can hope to find it!" This statement, in conjunction with Galactus' prevention of the Golden Galaxy's plunge into the Dark Nebula, completely dismantles your argument. It completely, totally, absolutely disproves your POV misinterpretation of the event.

I have no desire to enter into yet another circular debate with you; the facts are there. Continue to make poor edits based your misrememberings and your lack of comprehension, and I will continue to revert them. Continue to make incorrect POV edits for the sole purpose of artificially minimizing the scope of Galactus' origin and implied power, and I will continue to revert them. Continue to make controversial edits without reaching a prior consensus on the discussion page, and I will continue to revert them. TheBalance (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) Not anywhere close to "undoubtedly". It's your personal preferred interpretation of the sentence. "Become as one" in the mating respect referring to the "produce an heir" and that it did show itself to remain separate as a matter of fact. The only way to word it neutrally, rather than a deliberately slanted pov interpretation, is to use the incubation wording, or similar.

(2) Regarding the Golden Galaxy I have plenty of legs to stand on, your own lies to the contrary do not remotely not make it so. In the preceding issues it is stated that the Golden Galaxy had been moved from its original position towards the Dark Nebula by the Grand Director. In the issue itself it is stated that Galador is missing while the spaceknights are standing in the populated Godlen Galaxy. In the issues that Galador eventually shows up again, written by the same author, it is further explicitly stated/clarified that it has been transported to a differrent galaxy, which is mirrorred in all versions of the official handbook that I have read. The only thing that can be verified as a fact is that the planet Galador was transported. You are personally inserting a very arguable preferred personal interpretation. I did also attempt to be perhaps overly 'fair-minded'/appeasing by inserting "galaxy-spanning telekinesis", since the only thing that can be even remotely blatantly inferred from the issue is that the Golden Galaxy stopped moving towards the Dark Nebula, but even that has some potential doubt. Again, teleporting planets is fine, since it's explicit, but the galaxy is your preferred and extremely arguable slant. Similarly different cases should be kept separate. A sentence should not be worded in such a way as to infer that Galactus has teleported galaxies through time. I've similarly improved the structure in the section overall, which you still remove regardless that you don't have a leg to stand on. As detailed above, there are plenty of errors with your claim, including that Rom was just previously stated to stand in the middle of the Golden Galaxy, and that he also said that Galador in particular was missing from it. Any clarifications by the writer and editors on the issue state that Galador was teleported away from the Goilden Galaxy. Meaning: Going by all the collected contradictory circumstances it's very very likely a badly worded sentence on the part of the writer, and the only way to keep it neutral is to strictly mention the non-arguable part, i.e. teleporting Galador.

(3) Meaning: You won't address all the discrepancies which have been much further explicitly quoted and clarified earlier. You will simply make nonsense-statements of 'pov', while what I'm doing is the exact opposite. I'm removing all of your pov interpretaions to keep it matter-of-fact, and I don't roll over for liars. I really, really hope that some editor will check this over, since I'm really tired of keeping you in check. Dave (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And so begins the circular discussion. This is my final reply to you as these discussions do nothing but waste my time and clutter the discussion page.

(1) Your edit is blatantly incorrect.

(2) You have no leg to stand on. It's been proven, the information has been presented and is there for all to see.

(3) Meaning, entering into a never-ending debate with you is pointless, as you are agenda driven and stubborn beyond all reason.

(4) You are not an asset to Wikipedia, as can be seen by your long history of incivility towards fellow editors and generally substandard, POV, fanboyish edits. Many editors have lost all patience with you, and I can be counted among them. TheBalance (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) That's a very legless counter. No, because unlike yours it doesn't state a very slanted non-explicitly worded opinion. You keep inserting the "sole product" and merged in the "he contains the universe within him" respect, which is not stated anywhere within the issue and in fact blatantly contradicted by the context of the Sentience being shown to be separate straight afterwards. I keep it strictly to the explicit facts, but will accept almost any other wording that does the same in a manner that is not slanted in such a way as to be easily misunderstood by the reader. You are inserting biased pov and contradicted slant into the descriptions rather than sticking to the raw facts, not myself.

(2) I'm the one playing with open cards by quoting up every single scrap of information I could find for all to see, including that one, remember? The difference being that unlike yourself I admit all the conflicting information. I.e. the spaceknights just stating that they had been transported into the Golden Galaxy and shown to be standing on an asteroid surrounded by nearby planets and stars. That the next time we see Galador it is explicitly stated that it had been teleported away from the Golden Galaxy, and that this issue was written by the same author, that the handbooks and rpgs apparently all strictly describe the incident as Galactus teleporting the planet itself, rather than the entire galaxy. I was even magnanimous enough to insert "galaxy-spanning telekinesis" even though that's (less) debatable as well, even though I severely dislike this type of ambivalence, just to throw you a bone, since Galacuts scale of power is very important to you.

(3) Given that we're both in the same position as far as stubborn reverts go, that's a complete nonsense 'playing for a perceived gallery' statement. The difference between us is that your 'agenda' (as you're fond of using that word) is motivated by a need to inflate your pet character, while mine is that over-the-top inaccuracies really grate on my nerves, and this article (and the sub-articles connected to it) used to literally be the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia in this regard before I came along to clean some of it up, and it still has some way to go regarding the "just the facts please" and npov indisputable parts. I've also been far more open to reason than yourself. I can and have repeatedly been convinced with blatant facts, and am very open to wordings better than my own. I have a stickler thing with accuracy however, and the cosmic section has been some of the most slanted I've ever seen. Once I'm done here I'll probably move on to clean up White Queen and others that suffer from the same problem. The difference at this place is that rather than the regular article managers (such as Hulk) keeping the pov in check, they are the ones mostly responsible for inserting it. Possibly it's the whole 'cosmology' angle. It tends to build up strong opinions, but ideally we should all keep each other in check as far as pov goes, and this place is your Achilless heel, due to your personal investment in the character, but that includes building up various viewpoints that have never been explicitly stated or blatantly contradicted in other instances.

(4) I've improved, referenced, beautified, or cleaned up plenty of comic book articles, and you have repeatedly inserted heavily slanted speculation, so suddenly describing yourself as some sort of beacon in comparison is nonsense. Like Thuran I'm admittedly a direct and off-and-to (depending on my mood) irritable sort when it comes to lies, vandalism, propaganda, stalking and similar, but sticking to the context, rather than the very complex circumstances you are attempting to divert interest to, you have been at least as offensive towards myself. You simply put a haughtier slant to it in hopes that this somehow makes it superficially less severe. Dave (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Nightscream had indefinitely protected the page (quite rightly in my opinion).

However, in reading over the talk page, it seems to me that a big problem seems to be interpretation of a primary source.

And unless such interpretive claims concerning of the primary source are actually presented in a secondary source, then such claims cannot be presented in the article. Period.

So I've reset the protection for 3 days, in the hopes that in that time further discussion will resolve this. However, if after the protection expires, an editor still attempts to add such claims without clear verifiable reliable sources which make the same claims, then that editor may be blocked by any administrator.

I want to state as emphatically as I can that continued disruption of this article due to positing such claims (such original research), must cease immediately.

That said, I wish to commend all present who are attempting to discuss and who are attempting to come to an amicable consensus. - jc37 01:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I'd be willing to protect it for longer, but I will defer to your experience level. I will follow your lead which indludes blocking any editor continuing in this disruption. I again urge the involved parties to seek mediation. I recommend seeking out Vassyana, whom I worked with very positively before. BOZ (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Though he'll probably kick me for attempting to volunteer him (again), Emperor is probably one of the best mediators that the comics project has. (Though we are fortunate to have several.)

And if he is disinclined (too busy or whatever), I think that you (User:BOZ) would also be a good choice. (For that matter, perhaps you both working together : ) - jc37 11:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, and having had a look at the material do not see this as insurmountable. Instead of arguing over red or blue, let's try for purple. I can see some information in both versions worth keeping with some careful editing. I'm happy to do a rewrite and post comments here as I know the character, and will keep the colloquial, POV etc to a minimum.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that idea would be that if you were to rewrite the whole deal without involvement from any of the other involve parties, that's likely to get them more riled up than not. This is why I'm suggesting an RFM: I went through it once, and that allowed us to sit down and actually focus on working on the article together. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than fighting about it, no? BOZ (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. This is fairly simple. There is some POV etc that needs to go and wit some rewording it would be fine. One editor sees to be somewhat less xperienced than the other and if shown why certain things can't stay, it should be OK. Let's not make a mountain out of molehill. I'll post a rewrite here for discussion. Asgardian (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The bulk of the disagreements stem from the origin/Eternity and the Powers and Abilities section. IMO the other parts of the article, namely the PH and the "Other Versions" section are quite acceptable. Tenebrae started the first full paragraph for the PH...I spent about 1.5 weeks in April 2008 doing research and built the basic frame that the PH section has now. Asgardian, Tenebrae, TheBalance, and others have made subsequent contributions/edits/alterations what have you pertaining to the actual research or comic book issues in question. I believe that has the most concrete footing in terms of facts and mostly a lack of any "misrepresentation" which has been the issue with certain edits for the past several months.Mobb One (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at Mediation

To DavidA and TheBalance, both of you need to step back a bit, and cool off. When I look in the Edit History and see comments in the Edit Summaries like "rvt DavidA's edits...We can do this everyday, Dave.", "Yes, and I still think that you should get perm-banned", "The feeling is mutual. Wikipedia would well served by your absence.", No, we're not going to do this every day. What we should be doing is attempting to use the resources of Wikipedia to resolve this dispute, and without the personal comments. Because of my job and family commitments, and I unfortunately do not have the time to give to this dispute that it deserves, given the details of the disputed edits, and your respective arguments and counterarguments, so I will instead refer this matter to other administrators with comic book article experience. Until then, I've protected the article from further edits. Nightscream (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm an administrator with way too many comic books in my possession, and I think you're both being idiots. Pak or Warren or Abnett-and-Lanning or Van Lente is going to read this argument and devise a third option that completely invalidates both your interpretations. Give it a rest, guys. DS (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I know I recused myself from this, but calling other editors "idiots" is hardly in keeping with WP:Civility, and hardly the example you should be setting as an admin, Dragon. Nightscream (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the two of us have built up a lot of irritation towards each other after this much time, and any attempts for matter-of-fact argument seem useless. I personally want to leave this horrible article behind me to move on. Could someone simply modify all the thin air slanted or heavily contradicted/arguable pov parts and I'll be off? Meaning: If it's not explicitly stated, is heavily contradicted, includes thin air speculation, is worded in such a way that it is read as something other than what was shown etc, please just cut it down to a neutral wording.

If Abnett and Lanning wish to explicitly show Galactus juggling galaxies with his toenails, being the One-Above-All or Fulcrum in disguise, or the Living Tribunal being a facet of him, then that's fine to include at that point, but currently there is no solid basis for the personally preferred biases which are encapsuled into the page. The page used to be even worse in this regard, but it has some very important steps left to go. Dave (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dave says, "simply modify all the thin air slanted or heavily contradicted/arguable pov parts and I'll be off? Meaning: If it's not explicitly stated, is heavily contradicted, includes thin air speculation, is worded in such a way that it is read as something other than what was shown etc, please just cut it down to a neutral wording"

If that was really your objective, why do your edits generally accomplish exactly the opposite? TheBalance (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple: They most definitely don't. I've taken away your extremely debatable heavy pov inserts, and scaled them down to what's blatantly shown. Moving planets between different galaxies? Yup, it's there in every reference to the incident. Moving galaxies? Extremely blatantly contradicted. Containing the Sentience of the previous universe within himself? Not mentioned anywhere in the referred story, in fact directly contradicted by showing them to be separate, and pure slanted conjecture on your part. So thin air accusations from yourself or not, I usually don't, unlike yourself I fix it when I notice doing so at some point by correcting my own old edits, and definitely not in this case. I don't really see why you could possibly have a problem with the current fixes. Dave (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You've taken away what is in your opinion "extremely debatable heavy pov inserts" (debatable would have sufficed, Dave) that have been inserted through general consensus reached among numerous editors, and replaced them with far more questionable [mis]interpretations. Moving the Golden Galaxy was never "extremely blatantly contradicted" (contradicted would suffice here, Dave). See above. The "product of the incubation" edit is laughable at best, and is bordering on ridiculous. What you have provided are points of contention, not "fixes". "Bad edit" is a far more apt description of what you have provided for this entry. TheBalance (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, in case you're not aware of this, continuing to revert an article while there is still an ongoing dispute regarding the material in conflict is a violation of policy, one for which editors can been blocked, and regardless of whether the article has been protected. Stop edit warring, and stop using personal or rhetorical terms like "tripe".

I've protected the article again. I don't know if I can address every single conflicted passage, but I will try to address some of the things I notice offhand, and ask for clarification of others. If my understanding of any of the facts is in error here, please chime in and let me know.

• The Caption A caption should indicate the most relevant action taking place in the image. The most relevant thing happening in the Galan/Sentience of the Universe image is their merging/mating, and producing an heir. Not merely the Sentience's "revealing" itself to Galan.

• "joint heir" This is redundant. It is not necessary to mention that an heir is a "joint" heir.

• Who is the sole survivor Is Galan the sole survivor, or is Galactus? Is Galen Galactus, or his father?

• "Sole" If the word "sole" is in dispute, and there's no evidence one way or the other as to whether Galactus is the only product, then I'd say drop it. The thing about comic book writing is that anyone can come along and say that "another" product was made, in addition to Galactus. Or, Joe Quesada could come along and say that, "Yeah, that panel pretty much means Galactus is the only one." My feeling is, if those of you who favor including it insist there's evidence to this effect, then I would ask: Is in the cite at the end of that sentence? If so, then you're covered. If not, then include a source to that effect, or just leave the word "sole" out of it in order to sidestep the conflict over this point altogether. If it's not explicitly stated one way another in the source, then why is it necessary in the article?

• "Cameo vs. significant appearance Whether an appearance is "significant" is POV. Describing what happens in that appearance will go further in letting a reader determine its importance than to have an article opine that it is significant. At the same time, Balance, I'd suggest dropping "cameo" too, as a gesture of compromise, since the passage can still mean the same thing without it.

• Eternity as Galactus' father Is it true that Eternity is Galactus' father? If so, and it's not mentioned elsewhere in the article, then it's not a bad idea to mention this, since it would be significant. If you don't like the wording Balance, you can reword it, perhaps dropping the parenthetical.

• "Incubation" vs. "Union" Balance is correct here. While it is not technically incorrect to say that one is the product of an incubation, it's not generally how we speak of one's origins or parentage. People are generally spoken of as the "union" or "product" or "child" of a parent or parents, not their gestation/incubation/pregnancy, etc.

• "He has been called /the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos', and its 'most awesome living entity'. This reads more well as one sentence. Not only do I not see a reason to break into to too, but Balance, you start off the second with "As such..." I've observed "as such" to be used in the same way that "therefore" is--in other words, that the latter is the result of the former. Since these are two discreet descriptions, and not one that is causally linked to another, David's wording is better, IMO.

• Teleportion If Galactus can truly teleport "entire planets and galaxies", then I would suggest wording it as that. Mentioning only planets isn't sufficient if he can also teleport galaxies, and at the same time, the lay reader doesn't know what the "Golden Galaxy" is, so it isn't necessary to specify a specific galaxy.

• Ominscience vs Cosmic Awareness Cosmic awareness is more of a fictional superpower more esoteric to comics than "omniscience". While omniscience is not a bad synonym for it, if there are two articles to choose from to which one can link it, I'd go with the comic book superpower article, and not omniscience, which is more generally related to religion and mythology than comic book fiction.

• Creating sentient life The section on his powers seems to begin with his physical abilities, then go into other aspects of his nature, like his intelligence. It doesn't seem like good organization to then start mentioning his abilities again, so it makes more sense to mention his ability to create sentient life earlier in the section, which is what Balance appears to be favor. At the same time, however, Balance, I'd trim the passage about his ability to reconstitute other people, by simply saying "other people" or "mortals", rather than listing all the people he's done this with, since a general description is better, IMO, than listing the examples, even if it's a short list.

I would ask that you all let me know what you think about my points. I'm also going to invite others to chime in.Nightscream (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream, I agree with nearly all of your points.

Regarding Eternity being Galactus' "father", he is Galactus' "father" in the same sense that Galactus is Death's "husband and father, brother and son"; they refer to each other as kin in the figurative or metaphysical sense. I deleted the parenthetical because it seemed clumsily inserted, not because of the content.

I also have no problem with removing "sole" from the P&A intro. TheBalance (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Dave has returned, so I am going to address the points you brought forward. TheBalance (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This article (and the discussion) seems to have acquired some of the attributes of Galactus, namely it is extremely large and absorbs others into it. Your points are good points and I concur, but remember that not everyone is an expert. --Auric (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the ideas mentioned by Nightscream on the 17th; I only have the following additions. Many comic book concepts can easily be retconned and are subject to an individual's point of view. A new writer could add a new concept that completely eliminates an idea, so descriptions relating to the actions of characters are preferable to terms such as "sole" and "most powerful". It can be debated whether a character appearance is major or just a cameo, so I would just note the fact the character appeared. Citations are always helpful to prove the validity of a statement. Finally, the use of words in edit summaries such as "tripe" and "blatant inaccuracies" is only asking for trouble.Merotoker1 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Merotoker is right. Comic incs. like DC & Marvel always screw the fans with retconning characters like in that god awful One More Day. Damn you QUESADA!!!!!! But some are great like Superboy and Bart Allen returning thanks to Geoff Johns. JoeLoeb (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, at this point, I don't care what the content dispute is. The article's top three contributors have essentially hijacked this article with this incessant edit warring for what seems like forever; I'm not blaming any one in particular, as in this case it takes three to tango. Hard to say when it actually began, because it looks like edit warring has been rampant for a few years with other participants as well, but these three have been doing the same routine for long enough. I support indefinite full protection until they are willing to either drop it totally, or go through the mediation process. BOZ (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How about voluntary article bans? Quick and simple and allows us to draw a line in the sand. We can step it up if need be (especially sock puppetry looms or it spreads to other articles). (Emperor (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

That would be fine, too, if they are unwilling or unable to work out their differences and work together on this article - and the other articles to which the dispute has spread. BOZ (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

From the comments above Dave for one would like to walk away but he keeps getting dragged back because he disagrees with Balance's edits and it goes round and round stopping the article from moving forward and causing bad feeling which, as you said, has spread (got a list of those as I'd not want this circus to up sticks and move to another article - I suspect they will mostly be Marvel cosmic articles). If they can both agree to voluntarily leave the article alone then neither can tempt the other back. I'd like that to be the carrot but it is worth noting this is seriously out of hand and, if they can't then we either have to leave this article on lock down forever (not really an option as far as I'm concerned) or we take this to proper mediation (which might work but this has gone round and round and I can't really see that it will go anywhere) or we can look at blocks (although temporary blocks are unlikely to be effective as long as you are both disagreeing about content).

Agreeing to a voluntary article ban doesn't mean you can't still contribute but you'd have to add your suggestions here and another editor will look them over and see what they think (as with Nightscreams compromise solution above). (Emperor (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

When I have some free time, maybe 20 or so hours from now, I can cross-reference the three contribs list and see what I can see. BOZ (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, well, sooner or later.  :) BOZ (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In quick response to the suggestions brought up by Nightscream regarding this suggestion, and about my feeling on the situation in general:

"At the same time, however, Balance, I'd trim the passage about his ability to reconstitute other people, by simply saying "other people" or "mortals", rather than listing all the people he's done this with, since a general description is better, IMO, than listing the examples, even if it's a short list."

That is actually my edit. I admit the intentions behind that edit were not so much as to add to the article as to show what David A's itemizing of capabilities by quantity (the previous "millenniums" edit) or exact circumstance can lead the article to be cluttered and difficult to read. He responded by deleting my edit in its entirety citing that he never recalled such an instant, despite my having provided a citation directly after the edit. In my absence I've subsequently noticed a lot of attempts by David A to further specify this feat/aspect of Galactus' power in terms of the exact circumstance; i.e. it was merely "physical dispersion" and not death, thereby the use of the word "resurrect" as I had originally used, was removed. Further edits, looking back at the edit history, include a now much more in-universe "astral wave disruption" edit that specifies what Galactus resurrected himself and others from. And yes, the key word is resurrected. As I said on my talk page in the note I left Nightscream, I come armed with evidence. I left the citation for Infinity War #4 believing it would be sufficient. I didn't anticipate David A first outright dismissing the edit as more of "[my] Galactus-Inflating", nor his subsequent retooling of the wording to illustrate how Galactus reassembled himself from physical dispersion caused by an astral disruption wave. Well, I now see I should have added two citations, the original Infinity War #4 and Dr. Strange #45, which explicitly depicts Dr. Strange, Galactus, and the other heroes in the realm of Mistress Death which obviously means, they died. The issue concludes with Galactus using his powers and his own will to exist in extricating himself and the heroes from the realm of Mistress Death (where they were illustrated literally as piles of goo) and their reconstitution in the physical plane. Thus my original edit was correct, having been consolidated into the single word "resurrect," but was initially removed without any explanation, effectively dismissing the proof of citation I supplied.

Now I realize that the discussion has moved beyond the causes of the disagreements to what the actual disagreements are, but seeing that David A has accused me of sock puppetry and even threatened to get me banned, when I have been absent from Wikipedia for several weeks and indeed had no idea what the term "sock puppet" means, I feel the need to get my opinion in this topic, considering that I have made many edits to the article in the past several years. The above example isn't explained to cite a specific disagreement, it's that his edit style is such that edits he simply disagrees with are either reverted or altered relentlessly in order to match his own interpretation, while still confining itself to the original subject (for example, my "Galactus resurrected himself..." edit vs. his "Galactus reconstituted himself from physical dispersion caused by an astral disruption wave" edit.)

I cannot stress how disagreeable I find this practice of his. A true editor would look up the citation provided by the edit in question before reverting the edit and dismissing it as a "bias" edit. I called David A out on this and told him that because he and I disagree, that warrants even more care and diligence in regards to reviewing each other's edits. Instead, mine was erased, along with the accompanying proof, and I was accused of using multiple sock puppets to revert his edits on other articles. In any event, this disgusted me and is partially what drove me to be absent from Wikipedia for over a month, to be honest.Mobb One (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding P&A section. I've stated before and I'll state again...creating a laundry list of specific circumstances is unfavorable, IMO. Galactus has size-alteration abilities...the citation uses Rom 27 but he's used the ability multiple times since then...is it not enough to say that Galactus has size alteration abilities but instead it must be "Galactus can grow to x and y size given z sustenance?" Going by this logic, then for every P&A citation of power we would need to say how he exhibits telepathy by nearly killing Thanos on the astral plane, as well as another incident where he expelled xavier from the astral plane for interfering in his affairs. Or that he transmuted Terrax into a worm, sent the sphinx into a perpetual time loop, etc.

Does this not make sense to fellow editors?Mobb One (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does. Dave would appear to be obsessed with the Marvel Cosmics and hellbent on using OHOTMU information - which is invalid on Wikipedia. His Edit Summaries are also far from civil. Asgardian (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense to me, the overall pattern of P&A listing should be clear to everyone. Notice DavidA is attempting to imply through his most recent edits that the destruction of multiple solar systems is the limit of Galactus' power. He doesn't state it outright, but that is his implication here and an example of yet another agenda driven edit from DavidA. It was peaceful during his absence, notice as soon as he shows back up the revert wars immediately resume. The disruptive element should be easily identified by the mediators. TheBalance (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)