User talk:WookMuff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, WookMuff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 01:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oral sex humor

Glad you liked it! I enjoy being appreciated! Babajobu 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IPU

Unfortunately, to join the followers of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, you need to follow that damned Steve Eley, damnation be unto him (dbuh). Kyaa the Catlord 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic sex abuse cases

Thank you for your help in resolving the issue with Roman Catholic article title. --WikiCats 12:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social anxiety

No worries, WookMuff. :) -- Macropode 08:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Narooma pics

No. The images at Narooma, New South Wales were added by User:AYArktos. The only thing I've had to do with those images is categorise them. I agree, they are nice pics. I've never been to Narooma :) -- Longhair 15:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A Y Arktos has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! Thank you for the positive feedback about the pictures - it cheered me up. I always enjoy visiting Narooma - it is not at all dificult to make the town look nice - it is a nice town! --A Y Arktos\^talk 21:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Random disambig

…about no piping on disambiguation pages (re: random (comics))…

No big deal, I’m just rather pedantic sometimes, and I’m still learning myself. (And I overlooked the piping myself when I edited the page before.) :-) — TowerDragon 21:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidate review: Buffy article

You maybe interested to know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination, would be wonderful. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —The preceding comment is by 84.234.110.198 (talk • contribs) 06:17, October 30, 2006: Please sign your posts!

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. I leave this because of your recent comments on User talk:ThuranX. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivy as foil.

No, sorry. You're still wrong. First off, you admit lacking familiarity with the issue at hand. second, she's not a foil. A foil's the guy batman catches in the opening of a story arc, to remind viewers that he's the greatest detective and so on. Instead, IVy is the main villian of the story arc. in a list of main characters for such a story, She'd likely be listed third or fourth, after batman, gordon, and either robin or alfred. she's the villian of a story, it doesn't 'happen' without her. her henchmen are secondary. Bruce Wayne's current passing fling is a secondary character. The snitch who batman goes to twice is a foil. Ivy's a main character. By you standard, all villians in the DC Universe are thus nothing but 'foils', easily beaten opponents who puff up the main character. Do not reinsert that information, you're categorically wrong. ThuranX 20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, you show you don't get it. Even the link you provide backs me up. Regretably, you won't ever understand why you're wrong. It's not my job to educate you. Do not reinsert incorrect information. ThuranX 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderdude

Uploading: Image size should be kept to about 300px total. Click the "upload file" link on the left side of the page. Follow the rules from there. Use a descriptive filename. select the comics panels licensing template from the drop-down menu. Add relevent information about image: what is happening in the panel, artist, title, issue, publishers, etc. Any more questions, ask. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Changes

In all honesty, I'm trying my best to avoid changing english words to american. I'm sorry if I've done it, I don't mean to. There are certain words that I'm still learning when it comes to the english spelling (using s instead of z, the addition of u, etc) and if I've changed previous ones incorrectly, I'm sorry. It's not a geocentric egotistical thing, honest.

[edit] Peter's vision

This is a bit of a spoiler, but I caught part of Access Hollywood saying that Nathan being the only one approaching Peter is somehow significant. I'm not sure if it's symbolic or not, though. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They might be from the kid, but it seems as if his dreams are more a product of his own powers rather than the kid's. I would think the kid would have a limited range, anyway. Having the abilitiy to telepathically reach anyone on the planet would certainly be a stretch. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stop your VANDALISM immediately

I am dead serious. If you so much as TOUCH my edits to Magneto again, I WILL get an administrator involved. this is your last warning. Your reverts are obviously malicious, misinforming and vandalistic in nature and intent, and break several policies. I will not allow you to impose your POV on this article, and I certainly do not want a revert war on my hands. Cease and desist immediately. -Sage Connerson 23:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am an Administrator. Sage Connerson, please see WP:VAND#What vandalism is not, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, and moderate your tone. "will not allow" "if you so much as TOUCH" and "cease and desist" are at odds with Wikipedia's methodology, as the note on every single edit page will tell you:

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Please let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chenogne massacre dispute

Markus Becker02, WookMuff: There seems to be an edit war brewing over the phrasing of the introduction to the Chenogne massacre article, as you are discussing on Markus Becker02's talk page. I'd like to ask that you both stop making and reverting edits, and instead discuss and reach a consensus. I've started a section in the Talk:Chenogne massacre page for that discussion. --Jdlh | Talk 08:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

If I see you troll or making personal attacks again, I will block you. You've been warned already, now knock it off.--Doc^g 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, you can sit the next 24 hours out. I have blocked you. Don't bother asking my 'why?' You know why. Baiting and trolling other users is unacceptable. Feel free to come back tomorrow and try to do focus on the encyclopedia.--Doc^g 00:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't see my warning. However, you shouldn't need a warning for that. Now, I will lift the block. Go back to editing, but do not attempt to provoke other users, and stay off Ace Class Shadow‎'s talk page, unless you have some legitimate content issue to discuss. Any more nonsense, the block is back.--Doc^g 01:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Infoboxes and succession boxes. Birth/Death, Family, those are not (and I quote from the MOS) "essential to understanding the entity's context in the overall fiction" Bignole 05:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we try a little closer to home, and something of better status..like say Jabba the Hutt. Also note at the bottom of the MOS, where you found your "example" it says "Keep in mind that the content in these articles may have changed since the time of their original listing here.". Also, they are listing articles that follow the MOS for fiction as a whole, not for individual sections or infoboxes. Secondly, he's a comic book character, and what's "essential" for him might not be the same for a film character. Bignole 05:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The same place you got "Captain Marvel" also lists both Jabba the Hutt and Padme Amidala (both of which are the only film fictional characters to be of FA status). Now, should we be using Captain Marvel as our reference, or two characters that are from the same medium? Bignole 05:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it also says them, I said that! As for your excuse, no. They are not film characters, they are used in the context of Star Wars characters. Their articles INCLUDE comics, games, novels, and possibly collectible card game stats for all I know. WookMuff 05:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They are film characters, where do you think they originated from? That is what an article about a fictional character should be like. Please read the entire MOS for writing about fiction and you'll see why Jabba and Padme are written the way that they are. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, and fictional character articles should not be written as if they are biographies of actual people..because they are not actual people. Bignole 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From the very first section:

"Articles on fiction can approach their subject from two angles. In one method, articles can describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world. This may include:"

the author or creator;
the design;
the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative;
real-world factors that have influenced the work;
for fictional characters in dramatic productions, the actor who portrayed the role and his or her approach to *playing that character;
its popularity among the general public;
its sales figures (for commercial offerings);
its reception by critics;
a critical analysis of the subject;
the influence of the work on later creators and their projects; and
a summary of the plot or elements of character and exposition, treated briefly, and clearly defined as fictional.

The other method says "The second approach treats the fiction as if it were real, and describes it from the perspective of the people and characters of the fictional universe. Topics covered may include:"

the birth and death dates of fictional characters;
a plot synopsis framed as biography;
performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices;
an exposition framed as the history of fictional locations or organizations; and
fictional background information on alien creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology.

This is followed by "This is often referred to as an in-universe perspective. Many non-Wikimedia wikis and independent fan-maintained websites take this approach, but it is not considered encyclopedic. Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an out-of-universe perspective."

If you actually read the Padme and Jabba articles, you'll see that it covers a vast range of things about the characters, not just their film appearances. Also, "in-universe" information could be kept to a minimum, or as the page says "Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, if the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article." As for the infobox, I point to the initial link that I provided. It discusses what should be in there, what shouldn't be in there, and what type of fictional characters create what type of exceptions to the rule. What you won't find in there are "family" and "enemies", because neither add anything. Freddy isn't part of "warring factions", he doesn't have an "allegiance". As it says "the same way, infoboxes about fictional entities should avoid delving into minutiae, such as information only mentioned in supplementary backstory"Bignole 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I say those things because if you had read everything you would have noticed them. Secondly, being "uncivil" wouldn't cause me to be "banned". I may be warned, or blocked for 24 hours (the latter of which I highly doubt), but not banned. Regardless, I said what I said because you were using examples and descriptions to support your argument that appeared to be out of place. Sending me a picture of Padme on a comic book cover does not mean that she is a "comic book character". Or origins started in film, the literature part is for context about the character. The same goes for Jabba. Articles about fictional characters are not "biographies". It's about what went into creating these characters, what have these characters done for society, or cinema as the case is for this one. It's about everything but what they did on screen (minus if they did something that was extremely notable, like something that is recognized in an award ceremony or something). What they do on screen, in their universe, is merely supposed to be minor detail to help non-fanboys/girls understand the context of the "out of universe" information. On the Freddy page, his "Character history" takes up almost more than half the page. The page is severly limited to what the character did on screen. There are a couple interviews and out-of-universe information at the bottom, but it pales in comparison to the "biography" above it. Bignole 06:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just it, it isn't about his "backstory". It's supposed to be about the character in the real world, and what went into creating him. Talking about him as if he's real isn't encyclopedic. If you get a chance, go back and read through the whole history, it's rather detailed. It could be worse, but it could be far better. Wiki isn't a substitution for watching a film, and the same goes for the characters in those films. Bignole 07:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empathy - Peter Petrelli/Phoebe Halliwell

Well, the powers are essentially the same. Empathy, to connect with somebody else and through that channel their power. I only thought it was worth adding to the article as WP:WAF dictates that character articles should try and keep an out-of-universe perspective. Oh, and you wouldn't have seen the power, then, if you only watched a bit after Prue died. She developed it at the beginning of season six and lost it half way through season seven, never to be used again. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling...?

Good evening. Unless you have a legitimate argument concerning the subject matter at hand, please refrain from simply trolling to begin arguments. You have done nothing either way to relay as to why you believe the article should be removed, and if you do feel that way, perhaps you should make it a candidate for speedy deletion so that it can be voted on and settled? In any case, pointing me to the Verification link was really cute, but I do not take well to your dry humor, which I could consider to be on the verge of a personal attack. I would be more than glad to talk about this in a civilized manor if you would be willing. Otherwise, please stop wasting my time and yours. Thank you. ~kmwatcha

[edit] Heroes

Hi there WookMuff. The reason I call it OR is because I can't see that the icon arrangement on the screen looks like the symbol. They were scattered about the screen (not in straight rows/columns) but I think whoever posted it was seeing things that weren't there. -- Chuq 11:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR on Rorschach (comics)

Yes, it's the right thing to do to resist original research in Wikipedia articles. That said, it's better not to simply remove information unless you've made your best effort to (1) request reliable sources from those who added the info and (2) if it seems like useful and/or important information, to try to verify the info yourself. Ultimately, it's the burden of the people adding information to provide sources for it, though. Mango juice^talk 14:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:LSWSjr

Due to the nature of the userbox, especially since it incorporates homosexuality of that user, it is best that you respect Wikipedia:user page and allow that user to add it himself. If you wish to demostrate userboxes you may do so on your own userpage or in a Wikipedia:sandbox. Mkdw ^talk 07:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an essoteric term and I think you can appreciate how it could easily be confused. I revert vandalism on Wikipedia. I see more personal attacks done in a single day than you can imagine. Please just go with the policy, it would just make life easier for us trying to keep wikipedia clean. Mkdw ^talk 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Tru Calling Pics

I did not know about fair use at the time, and I had not reduced size for many and did not put in rationale, and I'd been putting it off.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 06:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel like adding the rationale and reducing the size.. If you want to, you can upload some screenshots yourself.. :)Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:WB

Yeh, I decided to leave because of personal reasons, but I'm kind of over it, so I decided to return. Thank you for your interest though :) .. Have a nice day!Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even Stevens

Don't undo a users valid edit. I removed your link that points to a redirect page. That isn't something you should undo. If you do it again it could be considered vandalism. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem just letting you know :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Angel Edit

I wasn't 100% sure on the fact of it being photoshopped, but it does look it. Either way it added nothing to the article, looked like perverse humor, and simply needed to go. RichMac (Talk) 10:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/o/User_talk%7EWookMuff_b008.html"