This is an archive of past discussions about Spider-Man. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Will MC2 merge with marvel giving Peter and Mary Jane hope about their daughter May?
Spidey's "most famous villains" are.......?
There seems to be a lot of back-and-forth editing taking place with respect to who gets mentioned on the short-list of "most famous" villains since the Spider-Man Enemies list was shortened to a "see also" link.
Obviously Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus and Venom (despite the nearly equal love/hate ratio for that last character) deserve this mention, but is that all? I've seen various names such as Carnage (unlikely), Mysterio (maybe), and the Lizard (guilty, I'm afraid) added to that entry, but it's always a temporary change. Doc Ock first appeared in 1963, Green Goblin in 1964, and Venom in 1988. Are there no other Spidey villains from all those intervening years that deserve to be added to the elite "most famous" list?
Hmm. The problem is that there are three very clearly well known villains who have a visibility beyond all others - look at the films and cartoons (especially the UK DVD releases) to see their selling power outside of comicdom. I don't think any of the other villains have anything like as much public recognition, though perhaps this may change in another film.
For a "five/seven best known villains" it gets a lot messier. The Hobgoblin, Vulture, Scorpion, Mysterio, Electro, Lizard - who's to say? The Kingpin would have a very strong claim for a top five, but is probably now thought of more as a Daredevil villain. And let's not even get started on Dr Doom. Timrollpickering22:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I actually totally lost what was going on here when they decidd that every bloody story would involve a cross-over!. I stopped buying them at about that time, which is a pity because they are fantastic comics. I recently purchased them all on CD (well, up till about2004, anyway) and was so frustrated by this again that I missed the entire clone wars. Is it possible to buy the Spectacular Spiderman, etc. on CD? - Ta bu shi da yu13:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Im new to wiki and while i was roaming discovered that some moron had deleted the whole Spider-man article. I went into the page history and copyed the pervious unvandalized code and pasted it to make the aricle work again. Hope i did it correctly thanks, Toxin11:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Apart from putting the new comment section at the top instead of bottom of the talk page, you did right, ta :) - SoM19:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
If Spidey's new costume affects all the canonical titles, should it replace the main shb image until the original one is restored? --DrBat22:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that red-blue Spider-Man should be the main image, but still, I feel like there should definitely be an Iron Spidey pic in the article, and there currently is not. --Rocketgoat20:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The wiki says that Moxy Fruvous has reworked the theme, and that they often been miscredited as They Might Be Giants.
However, They Might Be Giants have done a reworking of the Spider-man theme. The song, Particle Man, appears on their 1990 album, Flood.
Fictional Protestants???
Someone added the category Fictional Protestants. Since when has any religious affiliation for Peter Parker ever been established? On the assumption that someone got carried away, I'm removing it. If I'm wrong, please correct me and tell me when that was established because I'd like to know. I read the article about his probable religion. It did not rule out Catholicism. It did not establish that he's Christian. Wryspy00:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
External Links?
I just skimmed through " A detailed analysis of why J. Michael Straczynski's 'Sins Past' storyline does not fit into the established Spider-Man mythos"
Erm, is this really an important enough opinionated, self indulgent rant to warrent a link? i mean, blimey.Mister cope05:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Anti-hero?
Why is Spider-Man in the anti-hero category? Granted, he acts without police approval and has been known to let anger/obsession get in the way of what he does, but when I think "anti-hero", I think of Punisher or Wolverine.
Did the poster that put him in this category confuse Peter with the Ben Reilly version (which I am not familiar with) or are they basing his judgment from the Alien Costume saga or one of the "revenge" arcs?
Does anyone else think the Spider-Man#People_who_know_Peter_Parker_is_Spider-Man section would better serve as a list? It's getting rather long and such extensive knowledge isn't really relevent to the general page. Really, who cares if Carrion or Scorpion know he's Peter Parker? A sentence or two summarizing the important people who know who he is should suffice, yes? --Rocketgoat23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the masked Spider-Man's concealed identitiy is on the focus throughout the whole series makes it clear to have a list or section of some sort. I think every reader worries for Spidey whenever he's caught up. Lajbi15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Another question of mine is that :
Shouldn't we indicate on the same list the serial number and name of the issue where he/she first discovers Spider-Man's face? It would serve as reference to what is stated. Until then everyone can state names without letting us know where the information comes from. Lajbi15:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Entry about the Invincible
I removed this new name from the list of people who knows Spider-Man's identity, because - as I intiated - the uploader marked the number of issue when the act of revealing happened as being the one published in Marvel Team-up vol. 14. I've just read it and it's about Narmor, the Sub-Mariner and a new villain called Fish-Man... Lajbi23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a different Marvel Team-Up #14. The issues with Invincible is from the CURRENT Marvel Team-Up volume, volume 3. And yes, Invincible DID learn his identity in said issue. --Venomaru02:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh, while it wasn't my entry to begin with, it was a mistake anyone could have made, so no problem. --Venomaru15:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Spider-signal
The article states that the little light in his belt buckle displays an image of his mask, but isn't it actually an image of the circular red spider from the back of his costume? In the animated series it was, at least.
(btw isn't it odd how he has web-shooters and a utility belt under his costume, yet being a full-body skintight suit you'd think you'd be able to see them?)
No, it's a circle based on his mask, with the white eyes on a red with black-webbing background. - SoM00:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Cosmic Power from Captain Universe
Removed the "too brief to mention" question... added a brief note about it in the costumes section, before I did.
Spider-Man 3
I'd like to remove the argument about whether or not Spidey will be wearing a black costume or not in the new movie. Here's what the official movie site has to say, "You may think you’re looking at a black and white photo. Look closely, Spider-Man wears a black suit in Spider-Man 3. Tobey Maguire returns as Peter Parker / Spider-Man in Spider-Man 3. In Theaters 5/4/07." Anyone object? -Digresser05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Spidey has both black and red in Spidey 3. Photos exist. June 9 06.
Spider Stingers
Spider-Man has stingers, in addition to Spider-Man 2099. Removed post about him from April to clean up the discussion. June 9 2006
It has been made explicit that the new costume is temporary, and Ultimate Spider-Man still uses the "classic" suit
Spider-Man, like Superman, is a pop-culture icon and has, with a few brief exceptions, had the same costume since his creation - and all bar Spider-Man Unlimited of the spin-offs use it
Mechandising has, will, and shall continue to use only the "classic" suit (other than the 1001 costumes of the Spider-Man toys, but I digress).
The only reason I haven't simply reverted is that I don't like the JSC image and have always thought it a poor image for the box - his arm covers his chest for crying out loud! - SoM00:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, I don't think Ultimate Spiderman should be mentioned on the basis that he's another character in another universe and a separate article. Still, if's temporary, our hands are almost tied.
Actually the comment about the suit being temporary is not accurate. Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada has stated the suit will stay in play until the writer who created the story, J. Michael Strazenski, wishes to change it back. Dstorres
How about we keep it for the time being and when it changes back to normal, we'll revert it? Just because people associate Spidey with the red and blues doesn't necessarily mean its the most accurate.--CyberGhostface20:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently not, because T-1000 keeps on reverting it.
The old costume should be used because readers unfamiliar with comics doesn't care about stroyline. The blue and red costume is a cultral icon, this new one is not. T-100017:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay look, as of now the costume has been appearing in all or most of the titles. Not in Ultimate Spider-Man, but USM has his own article. If it was a brief costume he was going to wear in one miniseries (Like DD's new one in DD:Father) then you'd have a point. But FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE THIS IS GOING TO BE HIS DEFINITIVE COSTUME. Just because the classic look still appears on Spider-Man jammies and Spider-Man lunchboxes isn't going to change that.--CyberGhostface02:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmph. Heh. It's always erily funny to see a non-GIPU vandal (of sorts). Perhaps something should be...done if he persists without even so much as an edit summary? Goodness knows he doesn't seem to be the most talkitive, bright or reasonable of fellows. - Ace Class Shadow04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
He speaks! Holy crap! It's a miracle! ::Angels sing::
You really shouldn't assume, though, dude. I'm referring to the "Readers don't care" thing. Just think about this for a moment. A person could be outside, playing a game, watching TV, Et Cetera, BUT they choose to read about ol' spidey on Wikipedia and you think they "Don't care". Riight. I must be stupid or something because that just don't add up to me, Missah T.
Now, if you had said, "It might be confusing" or something to that effect, you'd have a decent argument, but taking the time to find this article should be proof enough that the reader cares.
As far as I'm concerned, this is no different than any other comics article and the rules are the same. You use an image that depicts the comics character in their most recent form and outfit. Look at Dick Grayson for example. Now, going by your logic, no one cares about his new outfit. To most people, Dick Grayson is Robin, right? The boy wonder wearing Red and Green. How dare they use the Nightwing image! Blue and Black?! No one will recognize him! The humanity! The humanity! Ace Class Shadow18:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha. Ha...No. Funny thing about that. There was a similar suggestion in the Kon-El article. They didn't like the current image and wanted to use the one with Raven and the other superboys. Thing is, whatever disagreements they had with the current image, they couldn't use the superboys one (although it was the main image when i first started editting there) because it didn't show enough of Conner's physical details (new hairstyle for one) and cunfusingly featured various other characters. That image——which led me to believe spidey might change back in a CW (Not the craptastic new network)——while seemingly good, would be even worse overall. You can't see most/any details beyond his split face and shows far to many other characters. (Looks more like a new Secret Wars team image, really.)
The simple fact is that the new suit, as far as we objectively know, is just another costume change. It happens. Unless he changes back, we shouldn't either. Ace Class Shadow19:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Please, the reason I didn't answer back sooner is because you guys were debating with SoM, not with me. The new outfit is unfamiliar to anyone who doesn't not actively read comics. And a lot of people are interested in him as a comic book character, not a storyline where he receives a custom change. T-100019:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, Cy. You fold easier than a laptop. No. He's not right. The storyline is in the main continuity and his current suit's being feature in all new releases. This isn't like...say...when Spidey was changing his suit for specific tasks. Everything's changed. His powers, his appearance (out of costume, that is), his mindset, his whole way of life for crying outloud! In fact, thinking about it more, maybe we should even consider added his old suit to the "Costumes" page. >.>
But however we feel about the suit, it's his main, if not only uniform as far as we know. Honestly, looking at how big the article is, we'd actually be doing a disservice not displaying it in his box. I, personally, didn't recognize the S-man when i first saw the Civil War promo art. Having to look through the article to find his current uniform listed like it's just another variant is bad idea. Besides, if push comes to shove, we will have to add it sooner or later. Why delay the inevitable? Ace Class Shadow20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Erm...no. Go check out the history. That "I guess you're right" was in response to your point. He unwittingly(?) pasted his rebuttal in between those to give the impression I was agreeing with him, as you can see here[1]. Also note that his post had a later time stamp than mine.
To T-1000:if people aren't interested in his new costume that doesn't change the fact that its the one that he is using in all of the core titles. The point of wikipedia is to educate and inform people of the up-to-date status of the characters. They're not familar with the iron costume? All the more reason to show it.--CyberGhostface20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
To use the new custom would be to say that the current Spider-Man is more important than Spidey's history and status of an cultral icon, which violates NPOV. T-100020:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
"Current Spider-man"? Hibba-Jibba wha? They're the same guy. >.>
No one is violating "NPOV" (I thought that was a term/acronym, not the policy's name). I'm all for some nod to Spidey's old suit and fully acknowledge the history you keep going on about, but he's still changed his suit. Since i've already brought up Dick, let me try to give you a better example of our sitation. Look at the Doc Ock Article. NO BOWL CUT! That's the kinda situation we have here. Now, most/all remember a slightly overweight guy with a bowl cut. However, the current image displays his most recent look, not his most popular or well known. Ask me why. Ace Class Shadow20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha. Well, it's because superheroboxes, like many other kinds of boxes on Wikipedia, need to display the most accurate and up to date information, images, what have you. Sure, if we didn't have a picture of Spidey's crimson and gold suit, there wouldn't even be a debate, but we do! Thus, I feel it's just common sense to use it. Just like it's common sense that the Doc Ock article use the image it does. Now, the Blue Devil article, for example, uses a fairly old image. The Bart Allen article uses an image of bart in his oldd and new/current suits. What it really comes down to is using the most appropriate image in the SHB at the time. At this time, Iron-Spider is it!
You are still not getting it. The main picture needs to represent ALL of the Spider-Man character. The new pic doesn't do that, as it doesn't represent his history, which violates NPOV. T-100023:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Temporary
JMS: However, in the weeks since that poll, which was based on the preliminary art, a number of folks who said they initially didn't like it have changed their minds about it, especially once the [Bryan] Hitch cover came out. If it were to be a permanent change, that would be one thing, but again this is only a temporary thing, and most people seem to be warming up to it.[2]
Sorry Dstorres, you're not often right, and you're wrong again (I know this kills my chances of ever being an admin, but WTH, my last RFA suggested it was never going to happen anyway and I needed to say it, it being true from my experiences with him :))
And, as for SHB costumes elsewhere, I see Spider-Man and Superman as special cases (Batman and perhaps Wonder Woman are almost in the same boat, but they've had bigger variations). 'Sides, it's explicitly temporary (expect it to disappear about halfway through Civil War, when Spidey switches from Iron Man's side to Cap's side), and we have to consider merchandise, movies, etc, Marvel Adventures, Ultimate, etc too - SoM22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
or just read: NRAMA: Oh brother… Focus, Joe, focus…
Can you give us some insight as to how long this costume will be part of the Spider-Man mythos. Some fans and retailers have astutely pointed out that with a movie coming out in mid-2007, it’s more than likely Peter will be back in familiar duds by then? Thoughts?
JQ: Now that the Spider movies at are #3 it’s less and less important and there are plenty of trades with the blue and red. That said. JMS has a definitive plan as to when the costume appears and leaves. It’s his decision.
As I said, its till JMS is done with the story. Which he apparently is planning to be done around 2007. Not as temporary as some would like it but thats still over a year away (since they didn't say Jan 1st of 2007). Isn't that the arguement you used with me on Wolverine SOM??? Dstorres
He didn't say the "classic" costume wouldn't be back in the comics when the movie was released, he simply said that it was "less and less important" that they matched up, and that there was a "definitive plan" as to when it went - it's an answer designed to lead you to think that the "Iron Spidey" costume would still be around for the movie, but HE DIDN'T SAY THAT. He deliberately avoided saying that. And read JMS' "note" immediately below...
You obviously didnt' look at today's Wolverine: Origins then did you? The one with the nice Turner cover in his brown suit. Dstorres
I said, and made a point to italicise it to say as such, the Wolverine title that Ramos is about to start drawing. Your reading comprehension needs some serious work - SoM21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What you said here was "And I'm not seeing Wolverine in his brown costume in Wolverine any time soon :)" If you are referring the the previous articles (where you failed to notice a few key words) I showed you that the EIC has stated that Logan will be in the Tan suit in both solo titles so I'll have to take his word over yours. You know, since he's the big boss and all. Since Ramos' story ties directly into Civil War of course it is going to be the yellow & blue one. As the writer has stated it's Logan's POV of the events that are occuring so to use a different costume for the same events would be stupid and confusing. After the story is done, should he stay in the yellow for more than a few issues I will post the "you were right, I was wrong" on your & the wolverine discussion page for all to see. Dstorres
Whereas you mistook a typo for solid fact, admit it :). "So, with respect to the current ongoing Wolverine title, this is the book in which you’ll see Logan get involved in things like X-business or even Civil War. There will be a very clear line as to what kinds of stories each title will be telling. Also, if you’re a fan of the brown and tan costume as I am, then that’s what you’ll be getting in Origin [sic]" [3]. " Wolverine: Origins will see Logan don his brown costume and..." [4]. I await your "SoM was right, Dstorres was wrong" with baited breath :-p - SoM13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Look, even if it is temporary its still remaining on all the titles for the forseeable future. I don't see why you can't let it stand for that amount of time.--CyberGhostface22:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Because it does not represent ALL of the character, which violates NPOV. Just like you don't use a pic of a powerless magneto just because he got depowered. T-100000:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh give me a break. The Goblin has a new costume, and Doc Ock has a new costume, and Wikipedia has accomodated both those changes. Are those NPOV violations too? And Som, you're the one to add the new pic for Doc Ock...and I'm pretty sure he's not going to wear that matrix costume forever, either.--CyberGhostface12:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Look at the Jimmy Carter article. The main picture is Carter while he was president. If we replace that with a current picture of him, that would be to imply that his current life is more important than his time as president, which is a biased opinion and violates NPOV. Same rule applies to Spidey. T-100020:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
No, he's not (NO costume is "forever", after all - and, indeed, my favourite Doc Ock look is him in the white suit). The difference is that Ock, as a villain, is an occasional character and every time he's turned up since the new look debuted over the course of the past few years, he's had the trench and suckered-tentacles (even the set-in-the-past Negative Exposure mini). Whereas Spider-Man is all over the place on everything from skateboards to underwear in his classic costume in addition to his comic appearances, and there are still at least two ongoing titles where he's in the classic suit. I would have made the same argument if Superman was going electric right now, but if a minor character changes their costume, I'll update the SHB myself. - SoM13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say why they can't but I'll restrain myself. Dstorres
I'd have to agree with T-1000 on this. When people think of Spider-Man they think of the red and blue costume. The fact that the Iron Spidey costume is temporary only strengthens the fact that the pic for this article should reflect what he's looked like for over 40 years and will continue to look like (after this whole Civil War business) for years to come. There does need to be a better, clearer pic for the Iron Spidey costume by the way... I can barely see it in the one that's there now. But yeah... red and blue all the way. 'Nuff said. --Brand Eks01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If this article is meant to be solely about the comic book character, specifically the Earth-616 one, then Iron Spidey should be the picture, as it is the most current picture of that Spider-Man. If I'm not mistaken, it's how he appears in all the 616 titles (including New Avengers). If the article is meant to cover all facets of the character from comics, to TV, to film, to toys, then the red and blue costume is the most recognizable and most associated with Spider-Man, and so should be kept as the main pic. In the latter case I think Iron Spidey costume should be highly visible on the article, as it is the most current picture of the character in his ongoing history. If nothing else, this costume discussion kinda points out how the article could be pared down and focused. Psyphics19:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Vote
Why don't we just put it to a vote to see which image stays for now? Dstorres
m:Polls are evil :p. I don't say I agree with it, but it IS heavily referenced and verging on policy...
And I draw your attention to the fact that the SM50 image is the original, and hence YOU'RE changing without consensus.... - SoM13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
But I am willing to stand by the outcome. Are you? Dstorres
New costume for me, and someone said that they could get confused seeing the red and gold costume, the same can be said for red and blue: it could confuse comic-book readers and think they missed a comic or something of him going back, it's a lose-lose situation(unless there is a picture that fully displays BOTH) so i go with the one with less loss(to me), new costume.
Sentence in the end of the Wikipedia entry
Hello,
There is a weird sentence all at the end of the wikipedia entry. I cannot delete it. What is it please?
"i am in love with spiderman he is awesome i LOVE him i KNOW HE IS REAL he loves me ok im not crazy he LOVES me ok i love him were getting married and you cant stop us ok"? Yeah. I removed that before you commented. Vandalism. I hope (s)he seeks help if they were serious. You probably tried to edit it out right after I finished. The Anti-Gnome19:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Stingers
It's not original research; it specifically states in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man that they activate against magical opponents. Thanos608:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I figured, which is why I didn't delete, it sounded like canon. Can we get an issue number? Newt12:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
IT REALLY DOESN'T SAY THAT. FIND THE EXACT QUOTE AND PUT IT ON HERE OR I'M TAKING IT DOWN. Sorry about the caps, just wanted this to stand out. The fact the stingers popped out of his wrists were to do with Spidey being told he was about to be unmasked! He clearly puts it down to panic later on. Any mentions of magic are between the villain of the piece, Spidey and Iron Man representing "for magic", "against" and "maybe" as to where spidey's powers come from. There is certainly no definitive answer and all that's sure is that the stingers DO NOT POP IN THE FACE OF MAGIC. HE SIMPLY cannot control them at the moment. ChocolateRoses00:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
LISTEN YOU'RE IGNORING ME NOW. DO NOT CHANGE IT BACK TO BEING MAGICAL. I JUST READ THE BLOODY ISSUE. YOU'RE BEING A NUISANCE. MY CORRECTION IS MORE THAN SUITABLE. THERE IS JUST NO RELEVANCE IN THE SUPERNATURAL BEING PRESENT WHEN HE USES HIS STINGERS. IN NUMBER 7 OF "FREINDLY NEIGHBOURHOOD.." HE USED THEM AS A LAST RESORT, THATS ALL. MAGIC HAS NO PART IN THAT. JEEEEEEEEZ, SOMEONE BACK ME UP HERE. ChocolateRoses00:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll definitely back Chris up. Please don't type in all caps, it comes across as shouting. Throwing tantrums on Wikipedia will get you nowhere. I appreciate we have a factual dispute here, but there are constructive ways to resolve this - that is, to check references and attempt to come to a reasonable consensus. In the meantime, please calm down and show some respect to your fellow editors. Thanks. — Estarrioltalk07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I clearly wasn't throwing a tantrum, its simply annoying. He's simply wrong. So you're buying the supernatural thing then to clarify? I'll remove the majority of the caps and just leave the jist!sorry... I especially dont like the swearing. Ur the dick who said "it specifically states in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man that they activate against magical opponents" which was actually just a bare-faced lie. THATS why i had a go in caps, i dont like liars. It just seemed like you wanted to add something, whether it was right or not! To quote that very marvel comic book, which (for now, lets say) is canon... "El muerto's strength and... were almost enough to unmask Spider-Man,... a poisonous stinger reflexively sprung". Im afraid that's all we got. ChocolateRoses16:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Calm down, dude. You didn't have to go in caps. You chose to. You also choose to continue an aggressive method of discussing this, one that is preventing others from understanding your argument, cogent as you may believe it to be. I, for one, have little idea what your argument is, other than that you are angry. Someone said the wrist spike things only react to magical threats? Change it to say that so far they have only reacted to magical threats. There. It's done. We can all drink punch and eat hot dogs and potato salad. On flimsy paper plates poised in our laps. On the steps. Alright? --Chris Griswold16:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Urgh, your pretentious. U changed it back when i put a good point forward as to why it should change and u originally didnt give a reason. THEN U called me a dick, and i responded. It's done. It's over. fine. nice chattin with you
I think ChocolateRoses is being unnecessarily hostile, and should seriously consider whether he or she is ready to be editing Wikipedia. Please maintain a respectful attitude to your fellow editors. Being hostile and aggressive in the way you have been regarding this issue is in no way constructive. Wikipedia is not a schoolyard. Please take a deep breath, calm down, and play nice. — Estarrioltalk12:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and please don't edit a talk page to remove some of your comments, it gives a false impression of the history of the discussion. If you wish to take back some comments, please surround them with <s> and </s> to strike through them. I have restored your original comments for the record. — Estarrioltalk12:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It really wasn't meant as anything personal, it was just taken that way and i apologise. it's all distracted from the issue at hand. i'll take the strikethrough thing away though. thankyou.ChocolateRoses20:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9397/spideywiki1ds.jpg){kind=link}