User talk:Duggy 1138/Archive 2

Best songs dispute

Thank you for your most recent input. Though I still disagree with you, your position is eminently reasonable. Thank you for all of your great contributions to wikipedia! Mister Nice Guy 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My usertalk

Actually, the source you included as a basis for restoring your comments on my user talk page referred to article talk pages. The relevant discussion regarding user talk pages can be found at [1]. Specifically, this explains that some users "delete comments [added to their user talk pages] after they have responded to them" and makes clear that this is a perfectly acceptable practice. I did notice, however, that I had not responded to your last comment and, as "[a]ctively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile", I have gone ahead and responded above. Hopefully you will pick up on the friendly tone of this response -- collegiality and civility are my guiding values here on wikipedia. Having cleared up the confusion regarding wikipedia policy, I ask that you refrain from reverting my future deletions of content from my usertalk. Thanks. Mister Nice Guy 16:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiverse

(1) Go to the Multiverse and click the link numbered 1. See where it takes you. It does not go to an external link. It goes to the same Wikipedia article you already linked. (2) "Hinted at" is not news. (3) As a matter of fact, the DC item you originally linked did not hint that those world would become official. They were cited as things that might be vaguely familiar, so that could indicate rather strongly that it's definitely not those worlds, just something similar to them. (4) The question mark in the hint makes it not even a hint. It's a question, a maybe, something they might or might not use. (5) "Tales of the Multiverse" can mean pre-Crisis Multiverse. Until they say what it means, no inference can be made. Doczilla 05:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"based on" is better, but that's still not what the article said. Unless they cite the exact source, we cannot make inferences. For all we know, the "vampire Batman" thing is based on the story Gene Colan once drew in which Batman and Robin were on the verge of becoming vampires. We cannot insert assumptions. Doczilla 05:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can be that stupid. They can leave themselves an out to say, "We never said it's part of the 52." That's not the point. We can't make assumptions about what it means. Doczilla 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't pay attention to what you're reverting. You undid a wikify tag I'd added to one article. Also, your section headings aren't capitalized according to Wikipedia style. Most of all, stop pushing your opinion. They simply didn't say those worlds are going to be part of the 52. There is worthwhile information, but you have to let the facts speak for themselves. If you want to cite it at all, you have to show how vaguely their "hint" was worded. Doczilla 05:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better wording. I'm still concerned about that question mark. That leaves room for the vampire Batman to be just a Batman that the people of Gotham mistake for a vampire. Doczilla 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring item 5 in my first paragraph, above. Doczilla 06:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Revert wars are ridiculous. Some reverting is necessary, but people need to try to explain themselves and try to find middle ground whenever possible. Most of the revert wars I've ever seen could have ended quickly if people had just tried to cooperate.Doczilla 06:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even "which may suggest a link" is itself subjective. Thinking that something might be suggested is still a matter of interpretation. I think merely stating the title speaks for itself. Of course, that's my opinion. Even so, "which may suggest a link" is one of those phrases that an awful lot of editors will delete as subjective once they see it. Let the facts (in this case, the title) speak for themselves. We not supposed to suggest how they might be interpreted. Doczilla 06:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best English Songs: Strawberry Fields Forever

Thanks for correcting it. My apologies; I should've looked closer.Ulmanor 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:FinalCrisis_sm.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FinalCrisis_sm.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown edits

Perhaps I should assume more good faith here, but it seems like you added cite tags to all the characters mentioned in the second teaser image to make some sort of point. I was curious as to what that was (even though I think I know what it was). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen carefully: we cannot add the speculation that the cyborg Superman is the one pictures, or that the Kingson Come-looking one is from Kingdom Come, or that the Sinestro Corps uniform is yet another Superman - not until (and please, click on the wikilinks I am providing to know what policies govern this) you have a reliable, noteworthy, verifiable. Fan forums are not a source of anything citable. You need to quote someone like Dan Didio or someone else within DC, identifying the Supermen by name. Nothing else will do. I am not enforcing my will here - this is Wikipedia policy. Please find a solid source, i have your back when you enter it. Not until then. I hope I am being clear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I am trying to help you here. Please read WP:RS. Fan forum results cannot be included. Ever. They aren't reliable. They aren't noteworthy. They frequently aren't even verifiable, as the posters can remove their posts from the forum. Fan speculation is just that - speculation, and it cannot be included. Yes, Didio is also unreliable, but he is noteworthy, and that means he can be cited.

Lastly, you have now reverted the edits three times, putting you in danger of violating the 3RR rule. Revert one more time within a 24 hour period, and you can be blocked. I know you are new at this, but you need to understand the rules of the group if you want to interact here. If you have questions, please ask. If you don't ask and don't follow the rules, you are going to encounter some rather unpleasant consequences. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned about the 3RR. I am reporting you for edit-warring. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if I think the Superman looks like Spongebob Squarepants - MY opinion is neither citable nor notable. Neither is yours. Wikipedia works on having citations - secondary sources for EVERYTHING in the article. If it isn't cited, it cannot be included. Not my rule, Duggy. If you want to change the rules, go to Village Pump. Your edits, while slightly different, attempt to accomplish the same edit - an edit which is not allowable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3RR complaint is filed here - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like your opinion on a subject

Heya Duggy,

As you and Beardo are the most active contributors to the Conan the Barbarian Talk Page, I would like to solicit your opinion on the subject of cutting or revamping the "In popular culture" section of the article.

Regards,

Flask —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock

Sorry, yourself Duggy. Hancock's Half Hour (and Hancock) ran on TV for 5 years. It did start as a radio-com but then so did many other classic TV sitcoms. The TV series continued and extended the radio series rather than just being a remake like HGTTG.

I thought the main objection to inclusion here would be a lack of proper continuity between the series and the film. However, unlike almost all other sitcoms, the biographical details of the character - his work, his hobbies, his basic situation - seemed to change on a weekly basis. One week he was unemployed the next a radio actor. There is no doubt the Hancock in The Rebel is the same character as created by Galton, Simpson and Tony himself in both the radio and TV series

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_based_on_British_sitcoms"

Anyway, thanks for your interest.Daisyabigael 15:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard #194

I notice you reverted my edits to Countdown: Arena and intimated that the Wizard image was a "what-if" scenario. Where does it say this, at all? The article led me to believe they were showing a preview.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 11:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blindess? Sorry.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy's comments

Sorry. No intention to be abusive. I just thought you were throwing your weight around a bit.

I really think we are not going to agree here so it is pretty pointless to keep reverting each others edits ad nauseum.

But no reason for bad feeling.

What do you think of my idea of using footnotes to clarify and compromise on difficult issues like the Hancock thing?

In any case - have a nice day.Daisyabigael 12:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You really must have your way mustn't you. I'm afraid you do so by being a bully. I really do not see why you couldn't accept a compromise here. Check out the The Rebel page on wiki. It states that the film has similarities to one of the radio episodes - it also states that the film was an extension of the TV persona of the Hancock character. Whay can't it be both?

I think most people would accept that HHH was a great TV sitcom - and that The Rebel is a film with a direct link to it. This frankly obsessive insistance on the "radio-only" origin is apparantly typical of your other frequent edit wars and battles on thses pages.

I wish you luck.Daisyabigael 23:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it: I happily admitted on the talk pages that I didn't know how to reference the note I'd made - there was no need for a smart comment in your edit! You complained about me being borderline abusive.

At least my contribution was in the spirit of compromise - and not entirely negative as yours al;ways seem to be.Daisyabigael 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont you dare remove other peoples talk comments

If you take exception to something, then talk to an admin. Until then, keep your fingers off what I write as it is not for you to remove. Now run along. Timeshift (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See me care. Timeshift (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also remind you of WP:3RR as you decided to revert, so the fourth revert would be undertaken by you. Do not revert others' discussion. Timeshift (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]