User talk:Spidey104/2013 Archive

Dying Wish

Hi, Spidey. I'll do what I can to help, though probably not tonight. Though I think we both know The Amazing Spider-Man is coming back at some point -- strictly by definition, one can only be "superior" to something else ... and if that something else ain't around, "superior" will stop making sense pretty soon. Like the "dead" Captain America and the Human Torch recently, the Reed Richard in the 1990s, the dead Superman in the 2000s, etc. Peter Parker will be back. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree; I already have a betting pool going with friends on when Peter will return. However, that doesn't negate the notability of ending Amazing after so long; even if it restarts in April that will still be the longest gap of time between consecutive issues of Amazing since it was first published.

I wasn't expecting immediate help. I was recruiting a few good editors to give the help they can when they can. Any/all contributions will be appreciated. Spidey104 01:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

K, that's probably me done for now, hand is hurting. Left you some sources on the talk page that might be useful. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't particularly take over as my wrist has started to hurt so its hard to type, I won't be able to do a reception section for instance. But it's nice to hear a thank you on here, you're welcome. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Asgardian_appeal

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#BASC:_Asgardian_appeal. As you were involved in edit wars with Asgardian you may be interested in commenting. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Superior Spider-Man-related

Hi there. I was able to view the info of the first issue of The Superior Spider-Man (which featured Doctor Octopus in Spider-Man's body) and it was seen that the Superior Spider-Man fought a new incarnation of the Sinister Six consisting of Boomerang, Living Brain, Overdrive, Shocker, Speed Demon, and the female Beetle (whose first name was revealed to be Janice). A twist near the end is that Peter Parker's spirit has stopped the Superior Spider-Man from going too far and vows to find a way back. What do you think of the first issue so far? Rtkat3 (talk) 4:05, January 26 2013 (UTC)

I thought the first issue was good and the second issue better. I like that they have Peter Parker's spirit hanging around, but that makes me think they will be bringing him back shortly. Backtracking....before The Superior Spider-Man #1 was released my friends and I all agreed that Marvel would bring Parker back as Spider-Man eventually, but we all disagreed about how long that would take so we all made bets and predictions. The presence of Peter's spirit in the first two issues has made pretty much everyone shorter the length of their predictions. Spidey104 21:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of American Son (comics) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Son (comics) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Son (comics) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Non-free use of File:Scarlet Spider combined.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Scarlet Spider combined.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the image page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Database Notability

Hello Spidey104,

I am writing to ask if you, as a fan of comics and a contributor to the Comics portal on Wikipedia, would support the notability of the community project called the Marvel Comics Database. Several years ago, the site was deemed too new and not sufficiently notable to qualify for its own Wikipedia article. Since then, the site has passed the 100,000 article mark, after nearly 8 years of effort, and has been featured in the New York Times, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, the Toronto Star, among other mainstream press.

I am the founder of the site and will not create the article myself (to prevent infringing the self-promotion policy), but I ask that you objectively consider my suggestion that the site has become a valued resource and a notable part of the comic book culture, in the same way that Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia have done. If you agree that the Marvel Database is now justifiably notable in its own right, please consider creating an article for the site. Either way, I'd love to hear from you.

Thank you very much,

--Jamie (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Jamie, I have been to the Marvel Database, but only a handful of times. I don't know enough about the site to be able to accurately judge its notability or (more importantly) start a worthwhile article about it. I'm glad to see you're not infringing on the self-promotion policy, so I wish you luck on your quest to get the article started. Spidey104 15:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Take care!

--Jamie (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A+X

I appreciate your good efforts at A+X, however regarding your comment "following guidelines supersedes WP:BRD" is flatly incorrect. How the guideline is to be interpreted and applied is at the heart of the matter and reason why we need discussion in the first place.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The guideline clearly states ampersands should only replace "and" if there is a clear need for them to save space in a table. That is not the case here, so there is no need for interpretation. WP:BRD is only for something that needs discussion, so in this case it is superseded because discussion won't negate the guideline.

Why do you say Marvel Team-Up and Avenging Spider-Man are unrelated? The introductory paragraph clearly states it is a team-up series, and those are other team-up series. Spidey104 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it says they are permitted in tables, where space is limited. Space in tables is limited therefore the use of ampersands is permitted. Our difference of opinion is why discussion is needed and why we have WP:BRD.

It has nothing to do with A+X, there are lots of team-up comics (see Category:Team-up comics), why call out these two. We do not list every buddy cop film in Lethal Weapon.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You said "they are permitted in tables, where space is limited." That does not mean that all "Space in tables is limited", because then the guideline would be to use ampersands in all tables. That table has plenty of room, so it should be spelled out.

Okay, I see your point. Since that category is already on the article I will leave that alone. Spidey104 18:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion at this RfC and the various sections that followed it, the latest being "This discussion". Since there are four sections so far, very spread out, I am clarifying that the topics are whether we open with Publication history, and whether citation format should be consistent. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I was out of town when you requested my opinion and the discussion was already quite extensive by the time I got back. From a brief scan it looks like consensus is supporting you and you don't need my opinion, but if you still want me to give it a read and post my opinion I will. Let me know. Spidey104 23:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Age of Ultron discussion and more

Hi. I was wondering if you would like to join the discussion about tie-ins at this link since Friginator removed the tie-ins even though most of the past Marvel Comics storylines have them. By the way, thanks for siding with me in opposing the merge of Cardiac. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:59, April 8 2013 (UTC)

Opinion posted.

You're welcome. Thank you for actually starting a section for that discussion. Spidey104 23:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:59, April 8 2013 (UTC)

Ultimate Spider-Man-response

I have read your post. If you want to get caught up, you should find the episodes on Marvel.com, YouTube, or any other sites that would have the episodes so that you can get caught up before the next episode. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:30, April 10 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tel'aran'rhiod, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channeling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Free Comic Book Day

Please do not add unsourced material to articles, as you did with your edits here and here to Free Comic Book Day. As a veteran editor since 2009 who has accumulated over 17,000 edits, I'm surprised at your edits, but as you should know, Wikipedia requires citations of reliable sources accompany the material you add in the article text, and not in edit summaries.

Moreover, examiner.com is not considered a reliable source, as indicated by numerous conversations of the community at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (May 2009, June 2009, October 2009, July 2011, January 2013)

Lastly, you added no citation to support the statement about a "permanent" move of the holiday to the first Saturday in May after the third year, nor does the BoingBoing story already cited at the end of that passage make any mention of it. Nightscream (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

For the second edit I didn't add a source because I did not think it was necessary as that statement is supported by the official logo for the event. Also, I never claimed that the BoingBoing story supported that statement, because I kept that reference with the first part of the sentence. I have now added a source for the change.

There is a difference between knowing what is technically wrong and agreeing that it is actually wrong. The source for that first edit was something I tried to get whitelisted for a while. Other Examiner articles have been whitelisted and this one should have as well. I'm sorry I added it back in when I knew I shouldn't have, but I was frustrated. Don't worry; I won't add it back in. Spidey104 18:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The logo does not say anything about the "third year", and neither does the boingboing story, which is what is cited at the end of the sentence to which you added the claim about the holiday's third year. I have no idea what you mean by keeping a reference with a first sentence. What reference? What sentence? Despite this, you added that assertion yet again. Please stop. If you do not have a source for a claim, please do not add it. I found a source, and it says that the holiday has always been the first Saturday in May, since the very first FCBD. Nightscream (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

How can you say it has always been the first Saturday in May?!?!?!?! The third FCBD was clearly on July 3, 2004. Did you fail to notice the inconsistency you created within the article by stating it was always in May while the calendar of past events clearly showed one had fallen in July. (I have provided reliable references to support that.) However, your other changes to the article are greatly appreciated. Spidey104 01:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick Fury and Nick Fury, Jr.

Oh, sorry, I didn't know that. Do we know how many he has, and if so, have they been named? Because if so, then that would make them brothers of Nick Jr. which should be mentioned in the passage: He is a son of Nick Fury, and a brother (half-brother?) to WhatsHisName, or He is one of the sons of Nick Fury. He has a brother (half-brother), but his identity has not been specified. You should amend the passage to reflect this, since I'm ignorant of the specifics. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Number unknown and no characters named yet. Spidey104 10:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Raptor may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. Spidey104 02:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Spider-Man actors.jpg

You don't mind if I try to replace you're image with a less blurry version do you? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. From the history it looks like you uploaded the original image; I only flipped them because Garfield had been on the left instead of the right. I thought it better to have him on the right since he played the role second and since this is the English Wikipedia where people read left-to-right I thought that a better order. As long as you keep Maguire on the left and Garfield on the right I don't care what you do; I know you're a good editor so I'm not worried that you'll upload something stupid. I'm sorry if my edit degraded the quality of your original upload. Spidey104 02:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Amazing Spider-Man 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the third film getting the release date of June 10, 2016 and the fourth film on May 4, 2018.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-sets-release-dates-third-569963|title=Sony Sets

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. Spidey104 20:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in negotiations to play Peter's parents. Khan was originally reported as playing [[Green Goblin)#Nels Van Adder|Van Adder]] until the character's name was revealed to be Dr. Ratha.<ref name="Dr.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. Spidey104 17:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Phil Urich

What do you think of the inclusion of Phil Urich. I am not sure of him. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

...in the navbox that is. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fine to leave him, because it works with the other Hobgoblins listed.

Why did you remove Boomerang? I think he should be on there.

I can understand removing the Beetle (comics) link, but maybe we should change Abner Jenkins to be [[Abner Jenkins|Beetle]]. I think he should be on there. Spidey104 00:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

My concern is there not enough proof that they are established Spidey villains. They seem to be villains in Marvel that happen to battle Spider-Man a few times. Boomerang more than anyone else while Beetle just as much as anyone else he battled. But I put them back anyways. Also about my concern on why I asked about Phil Urich. I just wish the characters like Phil Urich and Carlie Cooper wouldn't be so much plot dump. They look absolutely the opposite of what a Wikipedia article looks like. They aren't proving notability and they are probably too new of characters to have their own article...even the citation style is lazy. Also no media adaption or alternate universe version (at the same time) as we promised. I get it they can be major in a in-universe perspective but that doesn't mean they should appear on Wikipedia as a article on their own or maybe as a reason to be on the navbox. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

But that's nothing against you though. Also I have been thinking about Norman Osborn having his own article. Kind of how the Roderick Kingsly article. What do you think? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Between Abner Jenkins and Boomerang I would argue more for Abner/Beetle to be included than Boomerang. Boomerang has fought other villains more and Beetle is primarily a Spider-Man villain. I have contributed to both Phil and Carlie, but only to Phil in any real significant manner. I fully realize it doesn't have much real-world perspective, but articles like his are why I originally got involved in editing Wikipedia. Also, I know there is a full cite comic template because I have used it on articles where that is the primary means of citation, but I actually prefer the simple citation style on those two articles. Not because it is easier to write, but because it is easier to read/interpret when reading the citation.

Norman already has an article all his own like Roderick Kingsley. Maybe there should be a discussion to move Green Goblin (set index) to Green Goblin and then move "Green Goblin" to "Norman Osborn" or "Green Goblin (Norman Osborn)" so it is set up more similar to how Hobgoblin is separated from its individual articles. I don't like its current set-up, so I would support you if you start any sort of discussion. Spidey104 12:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)f

When it comes to Abner Jenkins if you say so. It doesn't seem like that when you read fictional character biography. I don't like the setup either. It says Green Goblin (set index) but it talks about all the other Goblins too. Also I do believe a Norman Osborn article should probably just say Norman Osborn since he has been more than the Green Goblin. He's been the Iron Patriot too. I will probably request a move. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right.

I started the move discussion, so please go there to comment on that part of our discussion. Spidey104 14:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I just feel like saying that the same reason you oppose Mister Negative is sort of why I don't really care about Phil Urich being on there. Has he established himself as a character that would be Hobgoblin in media appearances and alternate universes like the two before him? I don't think so. Flash Thompson has become Venom but I am pretty sure that will only stay in the comic books. That's why I just leave it to Eddie Brock even though Mac Gargan, Flash Thompson etc. have become Venom as well. In all honesty Phil Urich needs to be merged but I don't know where yet because he has been both the Green Goblin and the Hobgoblin. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're right about inclusion in the template.

However, I don't think Phil should be merged. You can't merge him to the Hobgoblin article because that would lose the Green Goblin information, and you can't merge him to the Green Goblin set index article because that would lose the Hobgoblin information. I just need to go find some outside references that show his notability. Spidey104 15:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I do believe he was the star hero in a few comic books I do believe there might be a chance. Why he became a villain is beyond me. I am glad you understand me but if you disagree with me that is fine too. You don't have to give in to my opinion if you don't agree. Others can disagree with me. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I only give in when someone is persuasive. Fail to persuade me and I'll fight you to the end. ;) You pointing out Mac Gargan and Flash Thompson not being included with Venom is why I realized Phil didn't belong. Him being a hero and the star of his own (albeit short-lived) series is why I figure there might be outside sources I can find to establish his notability. As far as his changing to a villain: different writer = different idea. I actually like what they have done with him and think he's become an interesting character, but my opinion doesn't help establish notability. :-) Spidey104 17:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok I got you. What made you changed you're mind about Beetle and Boomerang? I was almost going to go "Oh they are fine" for a few reasons? One:Boomerang appeared in Sinister Twelve with every character a established Spider-Man villain. Two:Beetle was the leader of the Sinister Syndicate. What do you think. Maybe I was a little harsh on them being Spidey centered villains?Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at their articles changed my mind, but that could have been a mistake. I always thought of them as Spider-Man-centric villains, but I fully realize my knowledge of the Marvel Universe (especially pre-1990s) is limited. Their articles make it look like they have fought other heroes a lot, but that could also come from unbalanced writing. There are plenty of articles that over-emphasize a minor point and gloss over a major point. I would like to see them back on the template if you're fine with their inclusion. Spidey104 00:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's up to you, man. Also in the navbox I got a whole list of other media appearances villains. I also question that Rocket Racer may be too minor for the navbox. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say I don't think Doppelganger qualifies. We do need to keep in mind that that Venom/Spider-Man: Separation Anxiety had all of the Life Foundation Symbiotes. So Scream being in that is not suprising.(even the more minor ones) But she did appear in the ride so she could be ok. Although (I really don't know) she could have maybe appeared in more Venom titles the Spider-Man titles. Also it's sequel Spider-Man and Venom: Maximum Carnage is the same way. It introduces all of the Carnage family. I am not sure of a lot of them. Are they a big deal outside of the issue. Demogoblin I could be ok with since he appears in Ultimate Marvel. Carrion I am not sure of. He does appear in a book. But Doppelganger I don't think so. Shriek she appears in more than one video game...but I do believe she would only be considered a big deal because she is Carnage's girlfriend. (Same thing with Calypso). Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The way you mentioned them without explicitly stating if you supported their inclusion or not I thought was a sign of support, but it was my mistake to assume that and I jumped the gun by adding them right away. Spidey104 00:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Digifan23's mistake

Hello, I'm Digifan23. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Digifan23 (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Jhenderson777, thank you for pointing out Digifan23's clueless mistake. An editor before me placed an incorrect link to Spider-Man and I fixed it. If that link should not have been included that was their fault. Not mine. Be more careful in the future. Spidey104 15:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Re:Three items

I plan on making Goblin (Marvel Comics) and it will be about every Goblin themed character in the Marvel universe. Yes noting these characters in a sentence is fine on another Goblin section on the article but a section about them is not necessary. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, here is the sandbox. You can help by adding a summarized sentence on the Green Goblin and maybe make it cited a little better. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Evans

Are you kidding me dude? Evans has a deal with Marvel to be apart of four films; Avengers 2 is his last film! So he is confirmed. TreCoolGuy (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Until there is a verified source confirming he will be in The Avengers: Age of Ultron it is an assumption that he will be in the film, because, as TriiipleThreat said, he does not have to be in the film. We can wait until there is confirmation of his involvement in the film. Spidey104 18:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

New message...

Hello, Spidey104. You have new messages at Favre1fan93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Spider-Man in film

Hmm Rhino and Electro havent been confirmed for Amazing Spider-Man 2? Well even though Marvel, Sony, Marc Webb and other reliable sources stated that they are the main villains in the movie. It even has Electro in the cover of a comic con magazine and trailer. Oh yeah they havent been confirmed yet. Dont get rid of my edit on Spider-Man in film unless you have a real reason to do so. - User:TreCoolGuy

You should read my edit summary again, because I did not say they weren't confirmed for the film. I said they are potentially in the UNRELEASED film. Mary Jane was already removed from the film, so there is no reason to think they might not remove other characters.

I had two "real reason[s] to do so" on removing your edit: we should wait to add expected future events to articles, especially when writing about them in the past tense. When you make positive contributions to articles I do not remove it. I only remove your edits if they are inappropriate. Spidey104 17:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at the F-Zero GX article

This had me laughing so hard, and I'm still giggling as I type this. I and others have been aggravated by that editor more than once; see his currently long talk page. Thanks for the laugh. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not had the displeasure of interacting with Jarble before, but the ridiculousness of the situation was too much for me to not comment on. I'm glad you got a laugh out of it; you're welcome.

Looking at his talk page it seems your problem with him overlinking everything seems like my problem with Lg16spears adding poorly formatted references. Good luck with getting him to fix his behavior! Spidey104 23:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:Flyer22: I hope my recent edits haven't been aggravating to anyone (although I'm aware that User:Spidey104 described one of my edits as "lazy", since I suggested an improvement to an article instead of making this improvement myself). Are any of my recent edits considered unconstructive, and is there anything problematic about my recent edits that I should be aware of? Jarble (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Jarble, I've already stated that you make decisions that common sense should tell you not to make. As for any recent edits of yours that have been problematic: One example is I fixed the Stimulation matter, for example, here and here (I'm sure you've seen that by now). I'm not going to come to you about every problem I have with your editing because, as you know, I'm tired of speaking with you about my or others' problems with your edits. Not to mention, sometimes you will just ignore a statement I make on your talk page. Sometimes I am just going to revert you and move on. And replying to me on someone else's talk page about the same matters does not help. In all honesty, I wish that you would try to stay clear of me. I try to stay clear of you, except for when you, in a problematic way, edit an article that I watch or have stumbled across. Flyer22 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and, if it's not clear to you already, it makes absolutely no sense to tag an article as needing bare URL cleanup solely because it has one bare URL. Even if it had two, three, or four, tagging an article for bare URL cleanup based on that seems to me to be an extreme route to go...unless the article has a few references altogether. Flyer22 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for posting that to my talk page, because you were correct to assume I wouldn't have gone back to your talk page and had the pleasure of seeing this. His obliviousness was humorous. Just like you did before, I am still chuckling as I write this. Good luck with that one, he's going to be a difficult one to fix. Spidey104 16:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's no discussion at my talk page about it anyway, so yours was the go-to. *Smiles* Also, it was nice meeting you. I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Godzilla (2014 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Rant Edwards expressed an interest in making a sequel that is inspired byDestroy All Monsters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://screenrant.com/new-godzilla-movie-2014-monster-design-gareth-edwards|title=‘

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. Spidey104 02:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Comics Prison deletion discussion

I am inviting you to take part in a deletion discussion revolving around some of the Marvel Comics prisons taking place here, here, and here so that you can list your say in this. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:41, October 24 2013 (UTC)

Grand leader

Would you mind checking his edits on Template:Spider-Man. It wouldn't seem right for me to be reverting him all the time. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your reversions of his edits. Sorry I haven't been around for a while to help. I won't be around as frequently as I used to be, but I will be around every so often and I will help where I can. Spidey104 21:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral request for comments at Talk:Ms. Marvel#Requested move 2. All participants in the first request are receiving the same notification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Stormlight Archive

Lets talk about this. We both think we know better, it seems. The old intro description that I removed included too much talk about The Wheel of Time. That's my reason to change it in the first place; it looks better now. Your edit, however, doesn't even include the title of the second book and only changes a few words; the text stays the same. Mine includes the title and reduces the Wheel of Time part. I hope my English doesn't disturb you. Greetings, --J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that the title of Words of Radiance was missing. That is my mistake; I was looking for the title of the final Wheel of Time book and that wasn't missing.

I understand your concern about including too much about another series in this article, but I disagree that it is too much information. It's not very long. I also think that your edit drastically changes the information that is presented. In my version it states that Sanderson originally anticipated a short delay because of WoT but it actually caused a large delay. In your version it only states that WoT caused a large delay. I think the difference is important enough to clearly state, but I think my recent edit is a good balance to both of our concerns since it removes that extended information from the lead. Spidey104 03:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the changed information and don't want to waste more energy to this, as your are so determined. I tought it looked a lot better in my version (I always like seperate info in seperate paragraphs). However, I changed the second sentence back to my version and hope you can keep it that way. It doesn't remove any data, but just formulates it better. As we are both fans of Sanderson (I asume your are), we both want his articles to be as perfect as possible. I also saw you are a member of the Fantasy Task Force here on Wikipedia, so I am glad for your contributions to the articles. J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who is wasting energy by unnecessarily reverting edits. You are the one who said "Stop undoing this" when I didn't actually undo anything. Having them as separate paragraphs would violate the rules of proper English paragraph structure (because they continue the same idea), so leave them together. I am fine with your most recent reversion because you reverted the part I was testing, but left the important change in.

I agree that as Sanderson fans we both have the same goal to make his articles as good as possible, so we shouldn't be fighting. I think we both just need to take a deep breath, look at the other as an ally instead of an enemy, and move forward. I think we're in agreement that the current version of The Stormlight Archive article is fine. When future edits happen we both need to remember to not just revert the edit, but have a discussion. Spidey104 19:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)