User talk:Kontar

The Hulks strength

Just for clarity's sake, is "near limitless levels of superhuman strength" the phrase actually used in "The Incredible Hulk" vol.3 #109?

The reason I ask is that your edit summary cites, obliquely, the Marvel Handbook. One of the consensus guidelines has been not to take information on powers for the Marvel Handbook or DC's Who's Who. - J Greb 17:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War Hulk

Hi, Kontar. As I've also just asked ThuranX, would you mind going to World War Hulk? David A., who has gotten into fancruft edit wars at Hulk seems to be doing so again there. Having some additional voices besides he and I would be beneficial. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might not be a bad idea. We could model it after the "Reception" section of WikiProject Films. See X-Men: The Last Stand or The Bourne Ultimatum for a couple of examples I can name offhand. And thanks for keeping an eye out. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False warning

About the false warning you received signed under my name, I'm not sure what was going on with that. I have blocked that account. If you receive another false warning signed under my name or any other impersonation, please feel free to contact me about it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother, but...

Given your interest in the Powers and Abilities of the Hulk page, is there any chance you could help to permanently get rid of the relentless vandal User:Darrell37. He obviously wants attention, since his lies are so transparent regarding explicitly quoted matter-of-fact bits, but he's turning annoying. His only goal at Wikipedia seems to be to vandalise, and given his use of multiple Ip-numbers/sockpuppets to make the same edits over and over he is like the old multiple sockpuppet-user User:JJonz who has been a compulsive nuisance previously, and seems to have turned into a personal stalker for some reason. I don't know if I should be flattered or worried. Help would be very appreciated in any case.

Beyond this there is also some problems with User:Manssiere (and to a much lesser extent User:TheBalance) who keeps edit-warring at Power Cosmic, Galactus and Odin (Marvel Comics) without making a case, to either, respectively, push wild speculation, including very selective and extremely debatable/loose-grounded great hyperbole (while a horde of more reliable sources are ignored), alternately edit out explicit matter-of-fact references, and using an unbelievably snooty attitude rather than replying to the points I made at the Talk. I'm not sure what to do about him, as very taxing experience with extremely similar people here at Wikipedia has left my patience and civility at a low. I made a thorough efforts to outline major discrepancies at the Talk (which admittedly can tend to turn very dense when trying to openly discuss a horde of points at once), and initially hoped for a reasonable dialogue, but it has availed to nothing, and it seems utterly pointless to engage in a simultaneous edit-war shouting-match, which my interest/staying power for is very limited for. Big thanks for any help in the matter. Dave (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hulk powers

nice find on that Choi article, I put it in citation format. I really think the cancer part is worth noting, as Grest and Weinberg offer up both, and there's a difference between the near instant death by radiation poisoning, and cancer, which sometimes can be beaten. ThuranX (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-Thanks for the citation format. Good clean up.--Kontar (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interracial marriage

Is there a reason why you're changing names of racial groups? Agtax 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- yes, to make them more ethnically consistent. In fact, I'm not "changing" the names, I'm using the scientifically more accurate.

What about changing European American to Caucasian American? Agtax 18:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree in using Caucasian if this page was geared towards the US, but all ethnic groups are derived from a region which environmentally "creates" their ethnic differences. The Caucus mountains is not the only area which has produced people who would be considered to have their characteristics. In general, European peoples are similar in ethnic physical traits as well as cultural and regional association. Caucasian is simply not inclusive enough. Also, "Caucasian" is inconsistent with "Asian," "African," and "Native American." If you use "White people" you would have to use "Yellow people" to describe those of Asian descent to remain consistent, which is of course not physically accurate, regionally relevant, or even culturally descriptive. --Kontar (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the recorded statistics of interracial marriages as of 2008 or that were recorded last year? Agtax 04:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you keep changing "White American" to "European American"? Both term are applied to Caucasians. Whats the difference? Agtax 04:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all whites are Europeans. White Americans can be white Canadians, white Hispanic, Middle Eastern, an South African. Agtax 04:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Russian Americans as well, although Russia's in Asia. They're classified as white. Agtax 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it necessary. Agtax 05:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Such notes always carry with them the implicit qualifier "If you're able to". Hope everything works out for you on the finance front. :-) Nightscream (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]