Talk:Marvel Super Hero Squad

Cleaned Up References

I came here by chance researching the morning cartoon featuring the Super Hero Squad. My kids LOVE IT! Anyway, I noticed the references were a mess so I cleaned them up for you. I removed the bot message telling us to clean up the references too. I'm new to proper citations so please feel free to double check my work and perform additional cleanup if you wish. Oh, I sectioned this page up too so it makes a bit more sense to other folks visiting...and parses out the rather lengthy discussion below.LactoseIntolerant (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Images Please

This page needs images can someone add some> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.46.79 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Can we come up with some kind of peaceful resolution to this edit war? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt 98.235.186.116 but you just keep deleting this link. I've been a squaddie since before it was a word and the rumorbuster is the most complete Squad resource I've seen. It has pictures, checklists, news on like EVERYTHING about the line. And now you're just being disruptive to users like arachnad even though he made a good faith edit and pointed you to the site that explains why he was removing the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL Shsquad fan (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC) (Forgot to sign!)

More warring, still no talk.Tomson elite (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

--Funny that you would complain abt warring, yet you remove a link that's been here since practically the start. If you bothered to read the external link rules, it does not say you absolutely cannot have forum links. It suggests its a link to avoid, but so are "links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites", which would also cover Rumorbuster - which is a blog/fansite. I have not and will not remove Rumorbusters link because I feel it qualifies as a fair source, please do not remove Hasbro Heroes for the same reason. The7thCynic —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

We don't need either of the forums. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Need" is relative. Both can be useful - so leave them both. And removing the Marvelous News link shows how little you know about the line and the information sources The7thCynic

"Useful" isn't enough, they should be encyclopedic in nature. Dayewalker (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful in terms of information resource is enough. They fall under reliable sources. --The7thCynic (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

They do not fall under the category of reliable sources, especially the forum link. I agree with Cameron Scott above. Dayewalker (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Forums and blogs do not belong per WP:EL and certainly do not qualify as reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

--If the forum/blog sites info from other reliable sources, I would say it itself qualifies as a reliable source. In other words, not every new bit on info that is found on these sites is updated back at this wiki article. For example, the future releases that have ALSO been deleted from this article (ie Dr Dooms Castle) HAS been confirmed through various other sites that covered SDCC09. Yes, no direct source was listed here -it really never is- but the source could have been found at either of these sites - hence the links. --The7thCynic (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's something linked on those forums that qualifies as a reliable source, it can always be linked in the article. The forums themselves, however, are not wholly a reliable source and shouldn't be used as an external link. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"wholly a reliable source" = picking at straws. As stated, not every bit of info will be cited, or even updated, back on this article. That doesnt invalidate the usefulness of said links in regards to this article.

And the WP:EL only mentions blogs, personal web pages and fansites under "links normally to be avoided". The words 'normally' and 'avoided' leave room for exception for what they dub as and common sense ("Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule"). Also note the 'Restrictions on linking' section that outlines what is restricted from linking without exception - blogs and forums dont fall under this category. --The7thCynic (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, being involved with the site can cause loss of perspective. - MrOllie (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no COI when I am making general statements about ALL the links removed. I am not a part of this 'edit war', only maintaining what has already been established - Links added on 10/07 and 12/07 (article created on 8/07) to only NOW be removed by the supposedly unbiased, citing an imaginary hard and fast rule. --71.199.246.246 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

71.199.246.246 (talk) "I am not a part of this edit war"

From your site, a thread called Whoa Whoa Whoa: the7thcynic "Today at 7:55am" "Apparently not only do they keep removing it, but they musta complained to an admin who set up a bot to auto delete anyone trying to re-add it. I think thats ridiculous and undid the bots undo per instructions. Nothin abt this site breaks any wiki rules. As I said in the talks"

and from the same thread "Today at 2:12pm" "I just put the link back AGAIN - theyre trying to say that a forum link is against the rules."

the7thcynic only joined the conversation here a few hours ago, but your posts on your own forum show that your ip is making changes apparently the7thcynic is taking credit for on your own forum.Tomson elite (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, as even the quote says, nothing about that site/forum (or linking it) breaks any of the wiki rules. And as I said earlier, i am only maintaining what has already been established for years - which would be to re-add the links. Not only to Hasbro Heroes, but to Marvelous News and Rumorbuster.--71.199.246.246 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If something's not "wholly a reliable source," as admitted above, it doesn't belong on the article linked as a whole. Every forum on the internet has at least some tidbit of useful information on it, but there's no reason to quote the whole instead of the specific.

And in relation to your other point, just because something has existed on Wikipedia for a while doesn't mean it's earned the right to stay, there's no squatters rights here. Dayewalker (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"wholly a reliable source" was never admitted, and in fact, questioned - as who is to say the links are not reliable? I would say that all 3 links are very reliable - and more informative than this article in general, due to the lack of power trips editors.

And Im not suggesting the links earned a right to stay, Im just pointing out that they have been here for a while for a reason. They didnt all of a sudden become any less valid - only the editors reasoning have. See 'common sense' under the wiki rules. --71.199.246.246 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD)...And now that consensus is established, we've reached the personal attacks portion of the discussion. I'll wrap it up here, consensus is overwhelming that the links do not add to the page, and should be removed. The page is now protected due to edit-warring, if it continues when the page is unprotected, admins will lock it again and probably start handing out blocks for anyone clinging to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Good luck, and happy editing to all involved.Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if it persists, I guess adding the links to the spam blacklist would be the next stop - they would then be automatically reverted if someone tried to add them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[[1]] Well, I guess it worked for a little bit but The7thCynic is tenacious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alowishous (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the links should stay. They are very helpful. --171.159.64.10 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted this on the COI page, but I believe it's better suited here. Some of the points have already been made.

Having read the WP:ELNO in detail, i do not believe the link is at all inappropriate. Firstly, I suggest that nothing on there is listed as a hard-fast rule. In fact, it uses the word 'normally', as to imply possibly exceptions. And although it is a link to a forum, considering it DOES "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" AND "contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" (listed under Sites to Include) it should fall under that exception. Also consider - as I mentioned before but got misconstrued as an attack - Wikis common sense:

"...Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter."

And under that, not only do I suggest the Hasbro Heroes link remain, but also the others that were removed as they are all VERY informative and offer much more up to date and detailed information that can be found here.

There was also an idea that a consensus was made - but I disagree. Those that added the various links back to the page throughout the months obviously considered them useful, even though they might never comment on the talk page. But if all it requires is a consensus to keep the link, I'm sure we can find more than enough people that believe the link(s) should stay.

I would ALSO like to add that it is apparent that the decision to remove the links was based off of a 'resolution' or 'compromise' to the above mentioned 'edit-war' rather than the enforcing of any rules. This 'resolution' was made here by Cameron Scott and conflicts with the rationalization given for the removal of the links.

On a side note, a while back the link was in question (and removed) because registration was required. Shortly afterwards, it was changed to NOT require registration and and the link was determined to be acceptable. Now, years later, after the so-called 'edit war' (which I was NOT a part of - as I only ever added links back, never removed any), apparently its not anymore.

Personally, it seems like a witchhunt OR power hungry editors whose answer to a resolution is the deletion of all.

So how do I go abt appealing this decision or is it just by 'consensus'? --The7thCynic (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You can check out the page on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I dont see anything on there that would work at this point short of mediation. And due to others beliefs that there's a COI, the conversation has apparently moved here. --The7thCynic (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure we don't get bogged down in bits of alphabet soup, as per the discussion above consensus is against adding this forum link because it doesn't fit as per WP:EL. There may also be a COI involved, but that's not the main complaint. This seems to be a longstanding case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, as one single editor appears to be bringing this up time and again. Cynic, if after all this time you still feel the link should stay, I'd suggest the above dispute resolution link, or take it to WP:ANI. Even if the COI notice doesn't result in any connection, the link still doesn't pass WP:EL. Dayewalker (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already addressed how it I believe it does pass WP:EL, if not solely via content and contribution, then with Common Sense and/or Ignore All Rules - but, as I've said, if all that's required to keep the various links is a consensus (specifiically on this discussion page), I'm sure that won't be a problem. So let us be clear, that after the consensus has shifted that there be no further talk of WP:EL and the removal of said links. --The7thCynic (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You've addressed it, but your arguments didn't sway anyone, so consensus is still against you. The policies you discuss do not apply, it's not common sense to insert a forum link that doesn't meet the external link rules. Likewise, ignore all rules shouldn't be used in a minor disagreement to revert against policy and overwhelming consensus. Consensus can change, true, but as of yet it hasn't. Dayewalker (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The policies I have suggested do apply if it's determined that it's common sense to include ALL possible informative resources that add to the article - on a subject with so little informational resources available - and thus the ignore all rules policy should be in place when making an exception to the less than concrete external link rule. And just to reiterate and make sure we're in agreement here - Consensus can change, and when it does, the links will be added back.--The7thCynic (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, Consensus can change isn't a rallying cry to have you ask your board members to flood the talk page with requests for reinstatement, which is what it sounds like you're threatening with.Alowishous (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that's not what was meant, but I feel like I should mention that if a bunch of IPs and brand new accounts show up to edit war again, it is more likely that the link would be blacklisted than kept in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Point takenMrOllie, and it's something to be looking for. Alowishous (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I would suggest to 7thCynic that he/she follow the normal path of dispute resolution as suggested above, and get the opinion of other wikipedia editors who are familiar with our policies. Dayewalker (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate MrOllie benefit of the doubt, but I am not suggesting any sort of new edit war. I also appreciate your suggestion, Alowishous, but the consensus route seems much easier as it is truly only a few of you who disagree on the usefulness of the links. And that is a fact. But really, what bearing does the newness of a given account have on consensus? Is there a heavy emphasis on senority or something? Is there another wiki rule I'm missing? If you sinply want voices to be heard, to say that all the sites deleted are valuable to the article, they will be.--The7thCynic (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The relevant policy is at WP:MEAT. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well I dont plan on 'recruiting new editors', but I can say that I have been asked by MANY why the links have been removed as they found them useful (contrary to the current consensus here). Would it then be wrong to tell them that its because their voices havent been heard and point them this way? Many are unaware of the Wiki process. As you can see, I myself am learning as I go.

Speaking of, I did learn something else from that last link you referred me to: "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion."

So it seems that we are in what is considered as a vote-like discussions. Now I cant speak for how new any given account may be to those that may voice that the links are useful (or to those that have already argued against it, as I havent bothered to check), so whether to consider their opinion will be another matter, wouldnt it? Who would take on that role then?

I would like to add that there is an apparent disconnect between those that edit Wiki on a normal basis and those that use this article for reference or that have a lot of knowledge on the subject of this article.--The7thCynic (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Would it then be wrong to tell them that its because their voices havent been heard and point them this way?" Would it be wrong to go out and find non-neutral users that have already apparently voiced their opinion? Yes. As already pointed out in the links you're carefully scouring for loopholes, recruiting editors just to sway consensus is a bad thing, neutral users are best, and "policy-related points made by editors" should guide resolution, not numbers. Alowishous (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Im not recruiting editors or scouring for loopholes. Keep the insults coming please.

But what is neutral when trying to decide if a link is valuable and adds to the article? You would think that those that use the links (since they are valuable) would have much knowledge on the article and would be more than qualified to chime in on whether or not they should stay, no?

And as for and "policy-related points made by editors" should guide resolution, not numbers" -it has already been established that this is a vote-based discussion (which is under the same rule youre quoting) as the numbers (consensus) has been the common issue. A bit late to change it now that you feel consensus may not end up the way you like.

I would also encourage other parties to chime in, regarless of 'side' as it seems apparent by Alowishous comments here and in the COI page that he, at this point, has a general negative opinion of me that is possibly getting in the way of furthering the conversation in any meaningful or constructive way. --The7thCynic (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. WP:AFD is a 'vote-like discussion'. This talk page is not. - MrOllie (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD) To clarify, consensus is not a vote. It's a discussion between all parties and a reasonable conclusion, based in wikipedia policies. Dayewalker (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

then let me go on record as having stated that yes, I, like every other individual here, disagrees with you. I'm sorry that as part of the consensus that your link does not belong, it is disrupting to your goal of getting the link put back in. And it is not too late to change anything, there has been no question that consensus is against the link. It is regrettable that, as you suggest, editors did not know to voice their opinions earlier, but pointing them this way, when you clearly know their opinion, is a base attempt to sway consensus, and one that would fail. It was never "established that this is a vote-based discussion" or that numbers have been the common issue.Alowishous (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

First let me thank MrOllie and Dayewalker for keeping the conversation civil.

I only mentioned votes as it was an observation I made here where it states "votes or vote-like discussions" - it didnt specify what it meant. My mistake. But having read the consensus page it doesnt quite define it, yet does suggest that it's the general majority opinion. Sounds kinda like semantics, but whatever. We can move on.

As for the links solely being discussion forums - have you even looked at the links? ALL three of the links removed work as visual databases that provide more information (not just visually) than this article could ever provide. How is that not a benefit to the user? And I would add that they are in no way unreliable simple because theyre forums. (Would a seperate wikia page be any different?)

And Im not sure I like the candy wrapper analogy for if thats a case, we live in a landfill. Id like to believe that rightful exceptions were made in each case rather than thinking that ALL those people who added those type of links have broken rules and ALL the editors havent noticed them yet.

Finally to address Alowishous false accusations AGAIN of an attempt to sway consensus, from that page: "It is normal to invite more people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments....Invitations must be phrased in a neutral way and addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people...."

Sooo it ok to invite people here to contribute to the discussion as long as I ask in a neutral way. Seems easy enuff. As I said, its a no-brainer that the links are very useful - those here are the definite minority.--The7thCynic (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS for the wikipedia rules on seeking outside help for your viewpoint, the links to dispute resolution and WP:ANI have already been thrown out above as good places to start seeking more opinions in a neutral manner. As for your last sentence, it is absolutely incorrect. Let's be honest here, as of right now, you are the only editor on the opposite side of the consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It seemed that a consensus was easier to aquire than escalating to mediation, especially with how much I believe the opinion here is the minority. But dont worry, i will continue to seek mediation if all else fails. This is a point that I do not plan on abandoning, solely on principle alone. As for my last sentence being incorrect, of course you would say that, you were included! But I assure you I am right. Remember, I wasnt only considering the editors that bother commenting here. And if you take a closer look, you'll see that there was probably more people to have added the links back through out the life of the article than editors commenting here. Something to think about. ;) --The7thCynic (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel my comments are accusations. This argument is getting heated as it appears the positions are well settled (for better or worse), but yes, I highly recommend the links Dayewalker points out including sections on stealth canvassing or votestacking. More editors have removed the article than have added it back in. I'm sure you think you're right and will rest happily once you've "proven" us wrong. Mediation isn't that difficult, and true consensus is more difficult than you think.Alowishous (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mediation shouldn't be needed. The7thCynic wants a rare exception to WP:ELNO, but his only argument for such an exception is that it's his own personal opinion that the sites are helpful. This is an opinion colored by a conflict of interest with at least one of the sites, which he is personally involved with outside of Wikipedia. There's really no basis I can see for trying to push this issue over and over, and at this point it's reaching the point of disruption. I do applaud The7thCynic for not unnecessarily escalating the issue (aside from some mild and widely targeted attacks), as often happens when a person finds himself alone against a consensus, but there's a point where you have to just move on. -- Atama頭 21:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points Atama. The issue really isn't as big as it seems to be... everything aside, it's really a matter of whether the forum link gets added or stays gone, but it's somehow managed to take up this much conversation.Alowishous (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, so now theres no point it continuing to persue it any further? Are you perhaps suggesting that consensus cannot change after all? We'll I disagree. And for the record, it really appears like bias Atama that you would bother to mention my 'mild and widely targeted attacks', but completely overlook the specific personal attacks towards me. At this point it might be apparent on who is the neutral editors are (more on that).

As for "More editors have removed the article than have added it back in" - that is not true by a longshot. Feel free to go and check (I just did). More often than not it was either a Bot or the same few editors removing the link (coincidentally the same few editors commenting on here). And thats also considering that - as I mentioned earlier - one of the links was removed due to registration being required at the time, and NOT solely for being a forum. But its a shame you DIDNT look it up before you commented as it may have prevented me from seeing this....

Ironically, on 14:27, 14 September 2009 Alowishous added ALL the links back HIMSELF after a Bot auto removed it. And his quote when he readded was "Undid revision 313756209 by XLinkBot (talk) This looks like an unintentional auto revert because one of the links is a forum." [[2]].

And that wasnt the only time as he also added back 1 of the specific sites in what could have been part of the original 'edit war'. [[3]].

Hmmm...unintentional, huh? So what does that say about this supposedly hard rule that cant be broken or bent despite the various policies that wiki has available for making exceptions? Or more importantly, what does it say abt some of the the editors contributing here? Perhaps some are not as neutral as they appear, and rather, have an agenda.

Oh and no one answered me when I asked is a Wikia related page on the article qualifies as a link any more than a message board that functions as a database.--The7thCynic (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A wikia page would be no different, as wikis should not be linked per WP:ELNO point 12. And in wikipedia terms, yes, the site is not reliable simply because it is a forum. This is because Wikipedia uses the term reliable in a jargonized way. Forums, blogs, personal websites, vanity press books and other self published sources are not considered reliable as Wikipedia defines it and generally are not to be linked, this is the reason for the wording of WP:ELNO points 10, 11, and 12 as well as the section on self published material in WP:RS. This is not a value judgment of your site, this is just the practice that has been established on Wikipedia as a matter of wiki-wide consensus. - MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again MrOllie. You seem the most level headed on here. What you say is interesting and informative. The idea is that a forum is automatically unreliable simply because its considered self-published material is silly, but understood. Especially when the site, whether its a forum, blog or fansite, functions as a information outlet, no different than the Wiki itself.

But then i guess my question to you is, what if you have a situation where resources for the subject of the article are limited, and something that falls under points 10, 11, or 12 in the WP:ELNO can be seen as useful to the article? When would an exception be made to include it via common sense or ignore all rules or any other policy that wiki provides to make such exceptions? Would it just come down to consensus within this discussion then? Because I cant imagine that given so many opportunities for flexing of the rules, that this rule could never bend.--The7thCynic (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That might be an interesting hypothetical to explore in some other context, but since this article already has six external links (which is a lot for a well maintained article) I don't think it applies to this situation. - MrOllie (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And out of the 6 external links, 5 dont apply directly to the toyline. Instead we have links to the Video game, the Show (both of which have their own pages), the Comic, the Comic Strip and then finally Concept Art for the Show. And then the only link that actually applies, al beit official, has very limited info and possibly not even 1/10th of what any of the removed links provides. So if you could you humor me please?--The7thCynic (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, although the forum itself isn't suitable as an external link, if posts on the forum link to information about the subject, those links might be usable. Dayewalker (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Im sure those links would probably work better as sources, but I cant commit to adding the information to this wiki page everytime something appears 9which is often). And especially not with how volitile it seems to be amongst the editors. I am a fan the toyline and found the forum through this wiki. It was VERY useful, and really more informative than the article itself as it has more details and generally more information. not that the article is useless, but it just only scratches the surface. Eventually, because of my passion for the line, i became a moderator there. Consider me an 'editor', just as I am here. And unfortunately I dont have time to edit both full time. There is definitely no COI tho. We are an information source for the subject, just like the article is. that is all. Only there we dont get so bogged down in rules. Rules that prevent information. All of those site provide LOTS of great information. And as a fan, I want them to stay.--The7thCynic (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply The7thCynic. Well, I am sure, but let's go over this without your intonation. [[4]] asdf_now corrects redirected URL and adds some official sites that still stand. Xlinkbot reverted the edit and specifically cited YOUR FORUM as the reason for reverting the links even though asdf_now did NOT remove your forum. It was the mere existence of your forum in the list of external links that caused Xlinkbot to revert an otherwise helpful edit from occurring, one that put in several official sources for information. So I undid Xlinkbot's reversion, thus allowing the new, and valid, links to come back. And yes, you correctly point to my undoing 98.235.186.116's removal of one of the links and saying that I was going to ask for more opinions on the subject. So yes, I did undo an auto-revert so that some helpful links could remain (and, I might add, are mainly the ones that have survived the purge), and yes, I did undo a change by the IP address that did nothing but remove this one link. That IP then proceeded to undo my undo of his removal, despite the fact that I asked for advice on the subject. Rather than continuing to fight this determined individual, I left it up to the remaining editors to look at. Again, you present an interesting and incorrect view of the situation. Thank you for highlighting the fact that I did not remove your link, and that when I found 98.235.186.116's vandalism, I asked if anyone other than that IP could weigh in on the situation. It's unfathomable how that can make me unbiased, and apparently to you call into question everyone's bias, and yet you still maintain "There is definitely no COI tho"

As for your question about adding a link to a wikia page, a user named Splashdown94, and member of that wiki, already attempted to add the wiki your forum maintains back in October. [[5]] Although I suppose you will suggest that, despite the front page of the wikia wiki pointing to your forum, and despite you being an admin at the wikia wiki, you don't have a COI there either.Alowishous (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And since I forgot to sign in before posting my first comment, my IP address is now out and so before The7thCynic tries to make an issue of it, as I'm sure he will, yes, I do know (in the IRL sense) the owner of the other website (therumorbuster.com) at issue here. It is one of the reasons I asked for additional help in resolving the link deletion issue, and why I have tried to stay away from removing links, until after consensus was established that both sites were inappropriate.Alowishous (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer a question that The7thCynic proposed (or what I inferred from the question), regarding a hypothetical situation where there are a lack of sources for a subject. If you want to include material that simply has no available reliable source, and the information is in any way controversial or opposed, that information should not be in the article. If the article subject itself does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to write a properly verified article, then the article isn't notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. We can't lower our standards for sources in order to allow information to be included, doing so lowers the reliability of our articles and hurts Wikipedia's credibility (a couple of issues that are already problems for the project even with the standards we have now).

By the way, as to the accusations of bias, I'm a pretty big comic book fan and I think that the Marvel Super Hero Squad toys are exceptionally cool. I don't own any of them, though I've almost picked up the Captain America/Red Skull pack for my desk at work (Cap is my all-time favorite superhero). I don't have anything personal against the toys, or the forums themselves. I just think that using them in a Wikipedia article as proposed is inappropriate. -- Atama頭 02:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also understand that by outing the rumorbuster site owner and his connection to this IP, I've possibly "outed him" and violated Wikipedia's rules against revealing real life identities, but I take full responsibility for outing him. His exposure is accidental and not intended to harass or humiliate him but now it should be obvious why my contributions to this page, prior to this recent discussion on the edit war, has been limited to preserving status quo, and removing the www.superrobotmayhem.com spam.

Atama頭 beat me with an intermediate edit, but yes, I agree, the toys are pretty cool.Alowishous (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"I'm not sure what you're trying to imply The7thCynic. Well, I am sure..." Of course you know, you just admitted it! HA! Real clever. ;) --The7thCynic (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For the editors paying attention to this drama, clevernamehere is the username of the rumorbuster.com's owner. My piece has been said above, "so before The7thCynic tries to make an issue of it, as I'm sure he will..." But yes The7thCynic The7thCynic, draw what inferences you will. I have already confessed that it was the potential for a conflict of interest that kept me from removing your links and for seeking assistance in undoing obvious vandalism to the article, and then in resolving the conflict. I stayed away from edits that I thought I might have a COI with. By your above arguments, there was not even a COI for me to be concerned with, and I cannot be held responsible for another individual. But you're right, none of the editors are neutral. You're being attacked on all fronts. You have not done any attacks, or accusations but defended yourself against an unjust system. Happy holidays if you celebrate.Alowishous (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"But you're right, none of the editors are neutral. You're being attacked on all fronts. You have not done any attacks, or accusations but defended yourself against an unjust system." Thankfully someone admits it. I wouldnt say everyone is attacking me though. Some have been quite civil. But YOUR string of attacks are now easily explained. And hopefully the others can see what I have, without having to get into it. --The7thCynic (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of The7thCynic feeling like he's had a fair shake, I will step away from this topic and return to typo watching and removing the unquestionable blogspam. It's not going to change anything, but with luck, it'll change the character of this discussion so that it goes back on topic. So far I've seen attacks and criticism of Atama頭 who was biased in only pointing out his attacks but not those against him, Dayewalker (talk) for refusing to acknowledge that The7thCynic's in the majority, Cameron Scott (talk) for the lame compromise, everyone for being the power hungry (and before that power mad) editors that produced the first resolution and now I'm being accused of an entire string of attacks too... with MrOllie thankfully [to stay civil]. Hopefully now that we have all been exposed, everyone can back to discussing whether or not the 3 forums/sites belong. My remaining on this topic is just going to be used as a distraction from the real issue, but if anyone has anything they'd like to say to me, they can use my talk page and I hope to see you in different articles, under more pleasant circumstances!Alowishous (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny how you start off wanting me to feel I had a fair shake, yet exit with a few stabs at me. Predictable I suppose, but like I said, hopefuly everyone can see this as it really is - or has been. (And for the record, he will respond again.)

As for my supposed attacks, yes I made a comment abt 'power hungry editors', but that wasnt a blanket statement. It was more of an impression I was afraid I was getting, primarily from that lame compromise. So consider my criticism of Cameron Scott real. Dayewalker, on the other hand has been pretty neutral abt the whole thing and has answered quite a few questions. The minority issue youre suggesting was only a differentiation between those that use the page vs those that posted on this discussion page, and I think he understood what I meant. Your suggestion abt my take on MrOllies stance is yet another unwarranted attack. And with Atama, I was just letting him know that his statment was appearing bias. Perhaps I was wrong and he wasnt. And if so, I apologize. But I hope he understands that considering the circumstances with 'Alowishous', which I suspected early on, why I would be on the defensive abt non-neutral parties. But you, old friend, your string of attacks are real and transparent. And the fact that you are who you are, explains alot.

Now that Im done defending myself AGAIN, (drama drama drama) let me ask Atama a follow-up question: Considering you think using forum/blog/fansite links on a Wiki article as I propose is inappropriate (because it possibly lowers the standards), what does that mean for the weight of consensus? Because the impression everyone is giving me is that consensus is the primary reason they are remaining off the article. --The7thCynic (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response (Christmas and all that). We have guidelines and policies on Wikipedia that aren't strict rules, as you yourself have pointed out, but are the result of a project-wide consensus. In other words, a large number of Wikipedia's editors have agreed that these rules are a good idea, and that people should try to stand by them. Those rules are malleable, and change from time to time after discussion (where consensus again determines that the changes are a good thing). At individual articles, consensus determines how policies and guidelines should be used to improve the article. Basically, if there was a local consensus at this talk page that we should allow links to sites that we normally avoid, then those links would be included, although it would be likely that those links would later be removed by a different group of editors citing the guideline that suggests avoiding them. I hope that helps explain how consensus is cited in disputes such as this. -- Atama頭 20:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. thank you very much for your time Atama. I really appreciate it. --The7thCynic (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvel Super Hero Squad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216214341/http://www.hasbro.com/marvel/superherosquad/ to http://www.hasbro.com/marvel/superherosquad/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://marvel.com/comic_strips/Marvel_Super_Hero_Squad

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marvel Super Hero Squad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703050437/http://marvelshsgame.marvel.com/ to http://marvelshsgame.marvel.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)