Talk:Xemnu

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Xemnu redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Comics: Marvel

	Comics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
	This redirect is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Fictional characters

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

disambig

More likely to get confused with Xenu than a character from the Hulk (comics), thus that disambig should go first. This is not a "pov push", and the classification as such, especially in an edit summary, is inappropriate. Instead, simply say "see talk" in the edit summary, and explain reasoning of order of disambig succinctly on talk page. That would be more polite and Civil. Thank you. Smee 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In actual fact, there is little chance that someone looking for Xenu will try here first. In actual fact, sending people from this article to Xenu at all is, IMO, a POV-push. I can also see about getting that POV-push removed. We do not have to advertise criticism of Scientology where-ever and whenever we can. At least some of us don't. --Justanother 15:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please curb your usage of long and at times impolite edit summaries. Please keep longer comments to the talk page, and use the edit summary simply to state a very concise nature of the edit. Thank you. Smee 15:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Smee, that is a habit I picked up from other editors on the Scientology series pages where it is almost the norm to carry on discussions in edit summaries during a contentious edit cycle. While such may not meet the strictest definition of the use of an edit summary, it does compress the time frame during one of these "flare-ups". The edit summary discussions allow the mood of the involved editors to be gauged and forms the preamble to any talk page discussion. I also see this kind of edit summary exchange common in other articles too. I do take exception to your continually objecting to something that is actually the norm around here. Please spend less time complaining about my edit summaries and more time discussiong the content which is what we are "supposed" to be doing. --Justanother 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may observe it by some others, but it still appears to others to be uncivil. You would appear more polite to others if you ceased this action. Smee 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Smee, please speak for yourself and do not attempt to bolster your statement with unspecified and not present "others". That is a propaganda tactic and I know that you do not want me to accuse you of propagandizing so please do not give me grounds to do so. I will likely continue to be as wordy as I feel is appropriate in edit summaries but I will try to maintain a more polite demeanor while doing so. Thank you. --Justanother 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stating that you will try to maintain a more polite demeanor in the future in your edit summaries. This would be most appreciated. Some would say the use of edit summaries and other tactics is "propagandizing" as well. You were blocked in the past in part due to this type of accusations, so I would suggest and request that you lay off in this in the future as well. And that is not predicated on my actions or anyone else's actions, it is simply inappropriate. Thanks. Smee 15:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

And some (there it is again, "some") might say that you are propagandizing by making mention (again) that I was blocked because an admin bought into User:Orsini's line of bull about me. Actually, it is only "I" that says that but it sure looks better when you add the loaded generality of "some", don't it? "Others" (me again) might say that you kinda specialize in loaded terms, Smee. --Justanother 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not go nitpicking into my semantics, you are reading into too much. Suffice it to say, you could serve to be more polite in your edit summaries, and more civil in general, and you know this, and have stated that you will. Please work on this. Smee 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

<< Smee, I think another editor is talking to us elsewhere about the use of loaded terms; see Talk:The Profit#Third opinion. He says "What you are debating goes beyond mere semantics and affects a reader's interpretation (both conscious and subconscious) of an article's subject.". Now Smee, might this; "You were blocked in the past in part due to this type of accusations"; be your attempt at "[affecting] a reader's interpretation (both conscious and subconscious)" of me as an editor. Especially as this is about the 4th or 5th time that you have trotted that out recently? Pray tell, Smee. --Justanother 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not my intention, my intention was simply to have you realize that you would be more highly regarded by other editors if you work on civility. This conversation is going nowhere anymore so this thread is done. Again, please work on trying to have a more polite demanor, as you stated you would. Thanks. Smee 15:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, and for my part, two requests of you. 1) Speak for yourself and leave out the "some" and "others". Speak for yourself. And 2) STOP trotting out the block. It is inappropriate and the next time you do it I will take action. Wanna know what action? Trot it out and see; but only if you want to open a can of worms. Call me the "worm-wrangler". --Justanother 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with these threats, this is a matter you were called out for by an Admin, after much discussion, and then one you subsequently told me on your talk page that you would work on. Please work on it. Up until this point it seems that you have not been working on yourself and watching your own actions with regard to WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT and WP:NPA. But I continue to hope that this will change and that you will adjust your behaviour patterns to be more polite and civil in the future. Thanks. Smee 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Surely you jest. I am much "kinder and gentler". The trotting is personal; you are attacking me and offering an ad hominem slur at every opportunity. Call it a threat if you like, I am simply telling you that I will take action if you do it again and that, if you want to save you, me, and the community some trouble, that you should STOP trotting it out. The only place it might be (would be) appropriate for you to mention it in the future is during an action against me specifically, where I am the subject (repeat subject) of the action and not simply the object of a red herring with another being the true subject of the discussion. I hope that I have made myself clear here. --Justanother 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology?

I was curious as to why this article falls under the aegis of the Scientology project. I don't see the connection.Konczewski 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection; it is just more Scientology critic silliness to spread their POV-pushing as far and wide as possible. --Justanother 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an out and out false POV interpretation. The article is interesting and relevant, and the Scientology WikiProject could work on finding more secondary reputable citations that discuss the relations between the two. Smee 06:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Not to fan the fire, but being knowledgeable in both subjects i have never thought of a connection betwen the two. For one thing Xemnu was created in 1960, seven years before Hubbard wrote OT III. So unless one wants to establish that Hubbard while residing in England in 1960 was reading cheap American comics and used it as an inspiration for Xenu, I doubt this is relevant. Plus the insistence of those who have only a passing knowledge of Scientology on blowing out of proportion this minor element never fails to perplex me. --86.74.136.162 11:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenu

Since JIM 62 predates OT III by seven years, there is no reason to make a link between both. --Leocomix 22:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

prototype my ass!

Say what you want about Xemnu not being the inspiration for OTT3,but how the hell is he a hulk prototype besides the name?,I know that he is Marvel's first continuing character called the Hulk,but it was really just a two-part "monster of the month" story,it probably just had a sequel because of fan-mail or Stan just being lazy(READ those old monster stories,they're great when the writers were willing,but 89% of the time they just re-used the plots over and over,just see the web-site monster-blog,which unfortunately is now defunct,but where the material can still be seen.)or drunk,one of the three. but there really is no concrete connection besides the fact that Xemnu and the Hulk later had it out,in fact;There was this monster that Xemnu used a duplicate of called Diablo,it was just a huge puff of smoke in humanoid form,the storie's un-named hero was later revealed to have been Ullysees Bloodstone;so since they are both big hulking monsters that were later used in Earth 616 stories,should Diablo also be called a Hulk prototype?;methinks not. True,I did see an issue of the overstreet price guide where it listed JIM#62 as a hulk-prototype,but it was from,like 1972!,the modern price guides list it as Xemnu's debut,so get with the times people. and if names make a prototype,then see JIM#79,about a mad-scientist who turns himself into a monster so he can get revenge on his ex-girlfriend,he looks JUST like the gray-Hulk only bald and a bit craggy,and in fact the issue pre-dates HULK#1 by a month!,the scientist used a potion to transform,but who cares?,the issue pre-dates HULK#1 by a month so it could have beeen a test-run by Kirby to draw a big,hulking monster,it could even be a prototype for Ultimate Hulk,since getting rejected by his girlfriend was why Ultimate Banner became the hulk in Ultimate continuity,but is it?,NO!,so don't call Xemnu a Hulk prototype when he is ClEARLY a seperate character,even to the point of fighting the Hulk,Wikipedia shouldn't be influenced by word-of-mouth or decades out-of-date price guides,and if you cite that you need sources,consult the ctual price guide that is up-to-date,it's a lot more reliable than somenthing out-of-date.remove it or Hulk smash computer!,because Hulk no relation to furry-metal white thing,Garrrgh!,hulk hate stupid Admins.-Yours truly-Hulk.

You're right. The mistake comes from collectors and Overstreet who misuse the word "prototype" so much that new generations pick it up and perpetuate the mistake. Next thing you know someone will add a new definition to prototype in Webster's and the use will become standard. Aaargh! --Leocomix 18:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First MU Appearance

The footnote for Marvel Premiere # 3 should actually be Marvel Feature # 3. Citation: http://marvel.wikia.com/Marvel_Feature_Vol_1_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.51.142 (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Xemnu/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*Article could use citations, expansion. Smee 15:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 15:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Xemnu. 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:

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) 19:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]