Talk:Dormammu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Animated series

Spider-man sucks him back to his dimension Okay, aside from some really funny visualizations there, has anybody seen this episode? Would you be able to offer an alternate wording that's not quite so.... suggestive? --El benito 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Dim Dimension

Just a quick note here: In Nextwave No. 7 Rorkannu is referred to as master of the "Dank Dimension," but in No. 8 he is repeatedly referred to as the master of the "Dim Dimension(s)" and once refers to himself as master of the "Dim and Disgusting Dimensions." I know he's a parody character, but I thought that was worth note. - 66.68.242.12 02:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dormmspider.png

Image:Dormmspider.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bring on the Bad Guys

In the "Publication History: 1970s" subsection, I just separated the mention of the trade paperback reprint collection Bring on the Bad Guys from the description of new in-continuity appearances as it is indeed a different animal. I was tempted to add something to the effect that his inclusion there said something about his status as a major Marvel villain. I put it to my fellow editors: Would that be outside Wiki regs? --Ted Watson (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And I just pulled it as it is just reprints and lacked the introduction on Dormammu (and others) that I thought it had (and could have used). It must be another volume. Unfortunately, to make the inference you suggest is original research and speculation without a source. Asgardian (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, point answered. I thought it might well qualify as OR, hence I asked instead of just doing it. Also covered my thought in one edit summary concerning reprint collections, too. Thanks. --Ted Watson (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

I agree totally with Dr.Bat, and add that the lack of "copy" is a plus. I meant to post my dissatisfaction with Asgardian's change when he did it, but got distracted. So here's my vote now, in case they keep warring about this. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We will go with a full body shot. I just need to find one. Asgardian (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Then leave it alone until you do. --DrBat (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian posted: We will go with a full body shot.... Why? And who appointed you dictator of infobox image decisions? --Ted Watson (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers this. Remember to be civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.185.218 (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dormammu is not the focus of the cover that Asgardian wants to use. He doesn't stand out. It's a poor image. --DrBat (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But I have no understanding of his belief that the one that was already here not being a "full body shot" is a problem, or why he feels he has the right to unilaterally decree such. And "Wikipedia prefers this" refers to what? That this person doesn't even know to sign his postings tells me I shouldn't believe he knows anything about what administration (the presumed meaning) prefers, because they certainly prefer that. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ted, cut 125.63.185.218 some slack. He forgot to sign his post, oh darn. It happens to a lot of people. His comment is what's important, not whether or not he signed his post. So please listen to 125.63.185.218, Ted, and BE CIVIL. It's not like this is anything important. Spidey104 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the Jackson Guice shot that Asgardian has found to the Frank Brunner one that we've had. It is full body, which both he and the IP here have strongly implied are recommended in the regs. Guice's features no other character, whereas Brunner's work includes heads of Howard the Duck, Man-Thing, Sub-Mariner, the Hulk, Clea and Dr. Strange. DrBat's objection ("What comic is it from?") is at best hypocrisy and appears to be completely spurious, as he is demanding information that is not in place for Brunner's work, either. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The other image's original source is from Comicartfans.com

The image Asgardian is using wasn't created by that website; it was taken from a comic book. I'd be ok with the image if someone found out what issue it's from. --DrBat (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The image I've picked works because it is a full body shot without any distracting background. While the other image is good, it falls down on these points. In addition to not getting a clear look at the whole of the character, a layman would ask: "Who are all the people in the background?" They would have no way of knowing this and it becomes confusing, as the focus here should be wholly and solely Doramammu. Now I remember that shot coming from the Dark Wars from the early 90's, and just need to find the comic. That said, the image still holds up nicely, and as many other SHB images just mention the character and the artist without a source, it should be fine for now. I hope that helps. Asgardian (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.

I think the Dark Wars storyline you're talking about was in Doctor Strange, Sorcerer Supreme #21-24, according to comics.org [1] --DrBat (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I also liked the old one much better. Dave (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The specific guidelines are here: WP:CMC/EG#Superhero box images and the current images satisfies this when the other didn't (as a commission and not an original piece of comic book art we should really be looking for an alternative - we have used one somewhere else but it was a special circumstance and there was no alternative image, which isn't the case here).

Some concerns though:

• We don't yet have the original source for this, which might cause problems for the licensing of this as fair use. There might be concerns that this was edited to that form for a use in other works like the OHTMU, which might rule it out. So getting this information is important.
• It also looks to be edited from another image and the original would probably be preferable.

Other than that I think it is an improvement and better fulfils the guidelines. (Emperor (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Emperor: It also looks to be edited from another image and the original would probably be preferable.

Actually, probably not (unless you mean in terms of fair use). If it was indeed "edited from another image" the purpose would almost certainly have been to highlight Dormammu, to separate him from other, distracting elements in the full image. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, even though I've become less of a fan of the "knock out" crops, the editing looks to have been done to pull focus on the character.

I'd prefer though that either the site where Asgardian found it (http://www.drstrange.nl/drstrange/sanctum/book/dormammu.htm) had provided an original sourcing or that he had tracked that down. I've got a nagging feeling I've seen this piece before and that ir was in a version of the OHOTMU.

- J Greb (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this one? Admittedly it does not show the entire body from the front, but Dormammu is the only displayed character, and the art quality looks much nicer (and far less goofy). Personally I think that I like this better though. It might require some minor editing to remove other characters, but othervise fulfills all the requirements. If that doesn't work there are plenty of alternatives available here. Just not the current image in particular. Dave (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The first one is a great character piece but not a full body shot. The second fails on the grounds of there being too many background distractions and he's not that clear. As for being "goofy", that's a matter of taste. There is comic art from talent from many decades ago on the site (a la Steve Ditko). Just because you think it is "goofy" by modern standards doesn't make it less historically relevant. Asgardian (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, the second piece is excellent is swiftly adjusted to remove background images. And "historical significance" is hardly of true significance in this case, as the point is to show the highest quality art piece which shows how the character is portrayed in recent time. Your selection makes him look as unimpressive as possible. Dave (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Marvel Super Hero Squad Show

Asgardian: Are you happy now? Besides, everything you said in your last edit summary was wrong.

We don't speculate and there is no third party source and we can't tag them all.

1. This was and is again a flat statement of fact, not speculation. However unsourced it might have been.
2. Cite request tags are standard operating procedure at Wikipedia; the option exists because it is supposed to be used, and the usage is→Give them time to work (that's why they are dated)! Given the FACT as mentioned in one of my edit summaries about this that the IMDb has a page for this series (and it corroborates the voice cast claims), it was reasonable to assume that a Wiki-acceptable source could be found given a little time (again, the purpose of a cite request tag)—and I have!
3. Even if it were true that "we can't tag them all"—and I don't think it is; we've tagged a helluva lot!— that is in no way, shape, or form a reason for not tagging the ones that we can. Not in the least!

Your handling of this edit has been indefensible and well out of line with regs. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the attempt to delete referenced and valid information?

[2] Why do people keep trying to erase David A's well referenced bits of information? In the infobox, under Team affiliations, the Mindless Ones are listed. They are clearly important. But the mention of them in the article, brief as it was and containing a link to the Wikipedia article about them, was removed. The last part that was erased, has plenty of valid information for this character's article, and is referenced to an official handbook. It seems a couple of people keep trying to erase it. Explain your actions on the talk page please, don't just edit war back and forth. Dream Focus 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of what David A is trying to add is based on use of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, which is an invalid source : [3]. He also uses terms such as vast which are inappropriate and subjective. We also don't do power match-ups as this is fictional matter and this is a subjective interpretation. See here:[4]. David A has been advised of this repeatedly. He has also been advised to be civil.

As to the Mindless Ones, they are mentioned in both the SHB and text. Some of his changes have been kept, but in order to keep the article at encyclopedia standard, there are some concessions.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a valid reference. You can't say the comic books Marvel publishes are valid, and not the official handbook they publish to help people keep track of the information in those comics. Use some common sense here. Dream Focus 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the information at the links, did you? This is a Wikipedia requirement, and by no means ridiculous. Read this, where another user (an administrator), advises David A of exactly the same thing: [5].

And again, study his additions. Many are subjective speculation and inappropriate. An example is this statement:

1) Dormammy (spelling) is not all-powerful, (opinion) as his power is known to be dwarfed by that of Eternity and the Living Tribunal, (opinion) and presumably (opinion) even that of the demon Zom. The character's intellect is listed (where? Opinion) as genius-level by human standards, but is insignificant compared to that of most known mystical or cosmic entities of a comparative scale. (opinion)

2) This is backed by the inappropriate and incorrect OHOTMU (which is also wrong on many levels. An example is strength: characters repeatedly lift objects that must weigh more than the allocated tonnage they are supposed to be able to lift), which we do not use.

3) Finally, note that David A has a history of such inclusions, which are not supported by others: [6] Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

4) I checked the regulatory page linked in by Asgardian to disallow the use of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, and apparently he hasn't read it. That is expressly about statistics only! The examples Asgardian gives above are of that very type. What is said there does not in any way, shape or form disallow it as a source for objective facts. Also, the linked-in discussion between David and Nightscream—who is the only other person in that discussion but is not identified on his profile page as an administrator despite the fact that Asgardian asserts that he is one—doesn't help him at all if one reads it, for the same reason: Nightscream asserts the reg to make the same blanket denial of OHMU as a source that Asgardian does which, as I've said, it simply does not do. Finally, understand that Asgardian's profile page, like Nightscream's, gives no indication whatsoever that he is an administrator, and therefore he cannot guarantee/threaten protected status for an article any more or less than I can. Is this really the same Asgardian that I dealt with here? --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

5) Study the situation. An editor is using the OHOTMU to justify power matchups, backed by frequent use of subjective and opinionated terms. This is not an encyclopedia standard effort. Yep, same Asgardian, who is capable of seeing what is in the best interests of the articles so they don't slip into fan efforts. Asgardian (talk) 03:2

None of which justifies falsely calling the other person in the discussion linked-in at your "[5]" an administrator or claiming in an edit summary that you yourself have the authority to place protected status on an article, thereby very, very strongly implying, also falsely, that you too are an admin. And as Dream Focus stated in this thread's opening post, you have cited your fallacious misrepresentation of this reg to delete other, objective material because it was sourced to the handbook. You didn't deny this, but made an attempt to justify it that was, at least to him and me, gibberish. I have already conceded that this reg does indeed ban the book as a source for statements such as those you give in this most recent post, but that is by no means the entire situation here. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

6) An odd take. Nightscream does have administrator privileges and I can easily enough contact someone to protect the article if the constant introduction of flawed information continues. These are both facts. You would seem to be looking for a fight where there is none. Asgardian (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, Nightscream's profile page does not include any more acknowledgement of administrator status than yours, which I cannot believe would be absent in the event he was one, especially given the significant amount of information and various tags that are present. Nor does he suggest in the thread you linked-in that he is one, let alone actually acting in that capacity there. Therefore, not "An odd take" at all. Your being able to ask for protection for an article does not at all guarantee that it will happen. Some time back I asked for that for Doctor Who when it was being vandalized several times each day, and was denied. Here are your words in the aforementioned edit summary: Any more of this, page will be protected. You expressed no doubt whatsoever that it would happen at your discretion, which would lead—if not force—anyone who did not know better to assume that you are an admin; I checked your profile, because that's what that indicated yet your apparent inability to make proper internal Wikilinks between talk pages suggests otherwise. Finally, you still say nothing about the actual limit of the reg, your describing it in fallaciously broader terms and your consequential use of it against other edits to which it actually does not apply. I am not looking for a fight (although one certainly seems to exist here if I was) but, in the best interests of the encyclopedia, I am trying to do something about your shortage of ethics and abundance of arrogance, a combination that very definitely is detrimental to this project. (Note to admins: To borrow from Thomas Jefferson—It's true whether I say so or not, I might as well say so. Furthermore, in Jefferson's case and mine here, "might as well" is a gross understatement; the situation needs to be pointed out as part of doing something about it.) --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said, an odd take. There's a great deal of inference there. The original points still stand, and please remember to be civil. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeating "an odd take" doesn't change the fact that I proved it invalid, nor substantiate your claim of administrator status for Nightscream, nor defend yourself for falsely suggesting yourself to be an administrator; there's a lot of evidence there, and declining to deal with anything specific with the implication that you believe it will accomplish something in your favor just adds to the aforementioned arrogance. As for civility, I was and am about as civil as I could and can be and still deal with your behavior. MY points still stand. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're now done with the Holier than thou routine. You didn't grasp the original point, made inferences and failed to be civil. Moving on. Asgardian (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If one of us has copped a Holier than thou attitude, it is you, refusing to even acknowledge some of my points and repeating statements that have been proven wrong. As I said, when dealing with behavior such as yours, it's impossible to both be truly civil and accomplish anything substantial. Your repeated implication that making inferences is inherently unacceptable is nonsense. The above post has absolutely zero validity and still constitutes evasion of my points. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

0, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Just a note here, the spelling is an obvious minor glitch and doesn't warrant major vandalism in the slightest, and no those are exact word by word QUOTES from the linked handbooks, which in turn base those exact statements on the linked comics. YOU on the other hand insert personal bias twists such as "deemed worthy to challenge" rather than simply stating "reached a draw against, when outside of his seat of power and inside that of Odin" which would be the matter of fact version. And I probably have much more limited filters than yourself, so twisting things around in my head into something other than exactly what I read in the first place is less of an issue than for most.

2) No, it is the official tightly editorially controlled character to character _comparison engine_. The strength ratings are a symbolic system based on this, as stated several times before, and no this blatant aspect does not make a "on so many levels" valid.

3) "Others" meaning a bunch of rabid Galactus fanboy scientologist wannabees that you had personally assembled to enforce personal bias (Galactus is teh kewlest poster child for rationalised genocide evah!), and in direct contradiction to a multitude of explicit facts, but I don't have a particular problem with the current less misleading version.

4) And bear in mind that even that depends on the extent, especially given inclusions of stated contrasts between these and the comics themselves.

5) No said editor tries to find as many and varied sources as possible to give an accurate sum image, and you somehow manage to rationalise sweepingly delete any ones you disagree with on a personal level regardless if these statements were based on the handbook or not. If you had simply edited out specific parts that would at least given you some benefit of doubt that you are sincere, but given that I always see you edit out or twist the same type of information, including inaccurate story summaries, I literally and very sincerely perceive what you are aiming for as deliberate systematic widespread information-distortion, but I don't remotely have enough time and interest to deal with it all anymore. You've very much exhausted most of my energy and efforts for Wikipedia, and somehow always manage to talk yourself out of what you're doing never mind sockpuppets, multiple bans, or similar complaints of systematic vandalism to make a point from other editors.

6) User Nightscream does indeed have certain administrator privileges, and has made statements of noticing similar types of methodical deceit from you as I have. The "drive people mad with annoyance of what you actually do hundreds of times in a row and then use the "incivility" shield whenever they point it out" defence is one of your standard tactics against pretty much anyone. See it this way, Nightscream is usually extremely nice and level-headed and you even manage to make him annoyed no matter what rationalisations you use to try to sweep it under the rug, and I'm the sort who immediately forgave ThuranX or Cameron for consistently chewing my head off for limited reasons, because they were honourable and sincere, or for that matter even JJonz who used to stalk me or even send me death threats, but at least was honest about it. You on the other hand use any dirty trick that you can get away with, and apparently don't have any honour whatsoever. Dave (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, regarding Asgardian claiming to "know what's best for articles", others would apparently disagree. Dave (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those links labelled "others," "would" and "disagree," proving that we are by no means alone in recognizing Asgardian's behavior for what it really is. However, judging from what is on one of them, Nightscream seems to have been stripped of his administrator position. On the page that the last link leads to, Emperor says, "Nightscream's actions are...being dealt with [elsewhere]." What he linked to has apparently been archived, and I do not have the time to search through such with so little idea of what to look for. As I have stated previously, he has no This user is a Wikipedia administrator tag on his talk page, which I perceived as and still consider proof positive of a lack of such status, and therefore assume that what Emperor referred to resulted in the loss of his. This also means that his espousing the same position as Asgardian does the latter no service. Whether either, both or neither of you were aware of and willfully ignoring that I wouldn't know. I wouldn't put it past Asgardian, given the above, and you linked in the page that led me to the conclusion. Did you just miss the implications of Emperor's statement? --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I simply didn't have the energy to read through the first linked thread, and it's been a month since I read the two later ones from J Greb's talk. All I knew was that Nightscream had protected pages from edits earlier when Asgardian was having some of his edit-wars, or more specifically in this case, apparently overdoing the "spelling out the references on-page" style (in effect making them uninformative appearance lists) just to make a point. Anyway Nightscream does not like Asgardian's tactics at all, so it was odd for him to threaten with that particular backup. Dave (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw here is another example on the tactics Asgardian tends to use (with emphasis on "use" i.e. severely twist any situation). "Bait others". Oh yeah, that really sounds like me, and doesn't even rhyme with when he instead tried the tactic of calling me frothing-mouth labile to allied editors. Reacting to hundreds of these ongoing situations with Asgardian and telling the truth about it is more like it.

And let's not forget the old or newer ones, or that he even admitted deliberately using misleading editing summaries, and that other users have also noticed his systematic tendency for manipulation. It's what he does... and I suppose getting pissed off about that he gets away with it is what I do. Dave (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• More reverting it seems. I agree with David A, and think Asgardian's deletion of material totally inappropriate. Consensus seems to be to leave the information in, with apparently only one editor wishing to remove it. Dream Focus 10:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(1)Sorry, Dave, but on that page you linked-in claiming that Asgardian—of whom I am no fan whatsoever—admitted to making misleading edit summaries, there is no such admission. Instead, he admits to having previously added power match-ups to articles, but no longer. He does yet again make his patently false claim that Wikipedia regulations bar citing the OHOTMU as sources in toto there, which I'm getting tired of encountering. Also, concerning Nightscream, Asgardian and the linked-in thread with a post from Emperor (whom you did not mention) that led me to believe Nightscream had been stripped of his administrator position: "Anyway Nightscream does not like Asgardian's tactics at all, so it was odd for him to threaten with that particular backup." Again I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean here.

As for Dream Focus's post, consensus is sometimes irrelevant. The regs are absolutely crystal clear that power match-ups are non-encyclopedic and unacceptable, even from publications produced by the people who own and are responsible for those characters, with the Marvel Handbooks given as an example. It would take a consensus that that reg is wrong to change that prohibition, and here is not the place for that discussion. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It says [7] it should be discouraged, but only for the reason that this is fictional history we are covering, and the free Wikipedia would be competing against the sale of handbooks, taking away their money. I don't really see that is a problem, since if you want fast access to information, you'd probably buy the handbook, it surely having more information than just what is on the Wikipedia anyway. Dream Focus 15:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So it does, so it does. Asgardian's misrepresentation of that reg was far worse than I realized. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Try not to make provocative comments such as the above. Comment on the content, not the person.

The statement I don't really see that is a problem is an opinion, and not Wiki-fact. As has been stated before, the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe lists subjective material in an in-universe style, and is also flawed. Some of the information is incorrect (a la strength ratings, which on a regular basis get trumped by the comics), and the statistics are meaningless beyond the context of the Handbook. "Class 100" means nothing to a layman. "Power match-ups" are also discouraged as they mean very little, and even in an in-universe context mean little as it is speculation and opinion. Reread the paragraph I edited above. It is almost all opinion and POV.

In short, if we start including such nebulous material, it will weaken the articles considerably, since they should be based on solid fact, not inferences. By the by, 2-3 editors pushing for the inclusion of such material does not a case make if you miss the salient points. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - in thinking about it, someone should add a paragraph to Guidelines explaining why the OHOTMU is invalid. Asgardian (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(1)User: J Greb has like myself noticed Asgardian's systematic habit to insert edit summaries that have nothing to do with what he's actually doing: "I've grown very, very tired of edits like this where the editor does multiple things and then puts in a partially truthful edit summary." To which Asgardian responded: "As for J Greb's concern, I've made a request to be directed to the relevant rule on Wikipedia." I.e. Asgardian very characteristically responds that he's using any underhanded trick he can get away with/manipulating the rules for personal interest as usual, just like with the whole "accuse people for "incivility and use it as a weapon" whenever they have the audacity to tell the absolute truth about exactly what I'm doing" deal, again as extremely noticed by amongst other User: Nightscream and myself. Again it's what he always does to my few hundreds of experiences.

Also, where in the page does it say that extents of power displays through matching or overcoming another character that does have a more comprehensive amount of appearances/displays are discouraged or not allowed? I didn't find any.

Btw: Could someone(s) else start undoing his consensus-defying fact-distorting vandalisms? I'm tired of it. Dave (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, have a look at the areas I've highlighted from the Guidelines:

The use of in-universe statistics and chronology

Great care should be taken when presenting in-universe information. We should remember these are not facts of actuality, but rather plot points which are open to interpretation, rewriting, or even simply being disrgarded or contradicted within the text. This is especially true of comic book continuity, which, through the use of retcons, is more fluid than other serial fictions.

Statistics

Consensus at the WikiProject is that the use of statistics sourced from in universe material and reference works, such as the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Who's Who in the DC Universe or roleplaying game resources is discouraged. These statistics constitute fictional facts. Fictional facts are not facts per se (independently verifiable separate from the reporting source) but fiction, and rewriting or paraphrasing fiction is not transformative. As these handbooks are encyclopedic sources (albeit of fictional facts), we are a competing product (a free encyclopedia) and since we are in no way transforming this fictional material, using this material may constitute a breach of copyright. However, we should accurately record things in an encyclopedic manner; if The Guardian reports Spider-Man's strength as being such that he can lift ten tonnes, that can be discussed, and even contrasted with OHOTMU statistics within a section on Spider-Man's powers, bearing in mind the policy of neutral point of view and the undue weight section; if Spider-Man can be seen within publications lifting things greater than ten tonnes, then we should note that, and not present the statistic as anything other than it is; a meaningless statistic within both our universe and the fictional one in which Spider-Man's adventures are portrayed.

Asgardian (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not just listing stats, but other information. And consensus is just whoever is around at the time to notice and argue until the other side gives up. It says "discouraged" instead of "not allowed at all". And you don't need facts to be independently verified when its something like this! I do agree that things do change, characters getting stronger or weaker, and histories changing. That doesn't mean everything in the handbook is not relevant. You can always change it if a comic book comes out which changes the information. Dream Focus 03:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The statistics aside, anything else required can be sourced directly from the comic books, thereby eliminating the need for the OHOTMU. You do, however, have a point about consensus...

Asgardian (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I previously posted: Asgardian's misrepresentation of that reg was far worse than I realized.

Asgardian replied: Comment on the content, not the person.

That comment was about the misrepresentation of the reg's content, and therefore was about content. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Is it not encyclopedia to show how the character was changed throughout various shows?

• I'm curious about the most recent edit: [8] Would it not be encyclopedic to list the details of how the character was portrayed differently in his different appearances? Dream Focus 03:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. That's more for the fan sites. These articles need to be out of universe and present an overview. If we go down that road, the whole standard will suffer very quickly. Game summaries, issue by issue narratives etc. Not a good look. Regards. Asgardian (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Asgardian, again

Every few weeks Asgardian tries to erase a chunk of the article, and then gets reverted by someone, only to try again later. Knock it off already. its disruptive. No one else agrees with you, so stop removing valid information. Form a consensus on the talk page, and if not a single person agrees with you, accept that, and stop trying to erase information. Dream Focus 11:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you're also getting tired of Asgardian, User:BOZ has started to build a very compelling case against his general behaviour. I gave him permission to use my list for some assistance. If you want to add some instances feel free, and if you know about other editors who have had similar experiences, please pass the message along. Dave (talk) 11:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are incorrect, for all the reasons mentioned above. This is fairly immutable, folks. The OHOTMU has been proven to be wrong. We also do not make subjective statements with subjective terms. We also do not use publication terms in the Biography. These are the reasons why it gets reverted, although if anyone cares to check they will see I've retained viable additions where possible. Please think it through.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not immutable. The handbook has been stated as acceptable if used in comparison with other references, which it is here when used, and is still the official line. But regardless, you are avoiding the real issue, which is that you are inserting completely unreferenced and unfounded personal opinions as somehow superior to exactly quoted information, and that said information is brought from a great variety of sources, ith handbooks used in conjunction with the sources the statements are based on, along with strict non-handbook issue refrences, and fact-corrections, which you uniformly destroy. You haven't retained any viable additions whatsoever. You simply revert to the same version over and over, including multiple inaccurate event descritions, that you also somehow feel obliged to restore over and over, and as seen in BOZ's "long list of Asgardian's ongoing offenses" page above you are regularly taken to task about this kind of blatantly misleading descriptions of events and edits. You have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you cannot be reasoned with, do not abide by consensus, are readily available to simultaneously use arguments such as "violating the spirit of the 3-revert rule and violating consensus" in one of your ongoing conflicts (Juggernaut Talk), while doing just that here, and there claiming that you have not ever engaged in an edit war while your ban list directly contradicts this, and do it all with a straight face. I.e that your word generally cannot be trusted in any way of form. Dave (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to the charge that there was a "complete rewrite", this is fine by Wikipedia standards if needed. Any editor can do this, and here the material was reworked to split the PH & B, and additional accurate material was added, including a 3rd party source. Again, study the changes. Asgardian (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will check if there was any "non-comma level" change from your standard revert, but so far you have not inserted any new 3rd party source, or other reference, you have on the other hand removed an awful lot of them on false premises. Dave (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

3rd Party? That's what this is [9]. Also, please stop making accusations such as "false premises". This is uncivil and unwarranted. Once again, the OHOTMU is invalid. Asgardian (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I just did check it, you have been warned by several editors, including administrators, in the past about using "civility" as a defense for simply stating what you are doing, and although you as usual do try to make it harder to follow your edits by inserting unlikely line breaks, you have in fact not added any 3rd party reference whatsoever, nor made any changes whatsoever between your two edits. No amounts of faux-polite language can hide the fact that you are telling untruths. I will add this to BOZ's list. Beyond this I will not allow you to provoke me further, although I will note that you still avoid the topic about why your personal opinions are considered as valid, why you by far overstate the strictness of that regulation, why you continue to state "no matchups" when there is no such rule, and you yourself regularly use this, and most importantly that the vast majority of references you delete have nothing to do with the handbook. Dave (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. This IS a 3rd party source [10]. That is a fact. As to civility, you obviously don't grasp the situation, but I am dealing with this at a formal level.

Once again, you also need to study what I have been trying to explain to you above re: not only the OHOTMU, but why we cannot use subjective terms and try use power match-ups. Asgardian (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that you've added no 3rd party source in your latest edits. You've simply removed lots of them, whether handbook-related or not, and that we kept the one you added previously, since there was no problem with it. Dave (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on this article is against your edits. Stop doing them. Simple is that. No one else here agrees with your reasoning. The handbook is a fine source for information. Dream Focus 01:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the " consensus" is a loose gaggle of editors who do not seem to grasp the meaning of the Guidelines. That said, it is being taken elsewhere for less involved editors to comment on. The OHOTMU aside, the subjective comments and speculating in Powers and Abilities is unacceptable. Asgardian (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no speculation, as you well know, only blatant quotes. None of what is said is my opinion, it is what I've found quotes of. Your own "deemed worthy to challenge" and "significant power" on the other hand are opinions. As for the guidelines, no you regularly overstate them at convenience, ignore them elsewhere, or simply invent them. As Tenebrae has pointed out, you use "Wiki-standard" as an inaccurately aimed weapon, since the term itself sounds impressive, regardless that it has little to do with what you do. Also, if the official editorial handbooks are discouraged (and that is all they are at worst, not forbidden), and in this case not even relied upon, simply used for backup along with other instances, plain unreferenced opinions like your own are regardless seen as far worse. Dave (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And what unsourced opinions would these be? Who says "far worse"? Reaching at straws here.Asgardian (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You structure the entire P&A column around no references at all, deleting any whatsoever that you don't like, spicing it with inaccurate personal views, and yes the basic foundation of Wikipedia is that no references at all/OR is always much lower than referenced information. Dave (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comics, no problem. Not, however, the OHOTMU as it is invalid. Trying to insert a qualifier into the P & A is a bit of a nonsense, as it has been created to try and justify the additions. It is, unfortunately all POV, jars with the listing abilities and is also invalid for one more reason - no other entry has such a colloquial paragraph of opinion. For a fan site, OK. Not, however, Wikipedia, which tries to be encyclopedia standard.

If there's a response, try to do it without emotive claims. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I said this when somebody protected this article before, but can't find it now, so I'll put it here, and in clearer terms: Protecting the page is pointless as both Dave and Asgardian are registered and established editors left unaffected by the protection. There is only one thing that will put an end to this edit war, and that is somebody with the authority to make it stick coming in and making a ruling as to just which one of them is correct. By "making it stick" I mean blocking the editor who gets ruled against if he continues to edit the article his way in defiance of the ruling. The next administrator who protects this article with a recommendation of talk page discussion—as can be seen here, there's been a ton of that already and one of those two editors refuses to acknowledge its results—will get that idiocy (which is exactly what it is, civil or not) pointed out to him or her on his or her own talk page. I mean it: do something that has a real chance of making a difference or stay out of it. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although the evidence - when presented to outside parties - will go against your viewpoint. Once again, the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe is invalid, for all the reasons previously listed. It opens the door on a host of subjective interpretations, and we have - and this is irrefutable - the first example here, with Dave inserting a bizarre disclaimer into the Powers and abilities section to justify his stance. As I've indicated before, NO other P & A section has such a strange rationale. This section is purely for stating what the character can do, nothing more. Nothing more.

Editors should not be adding subjective examples of how a character "matches up" with others, or be trying to establish some kind of power hierarchy. Such things are better suited to the many fan sites out there. With Wikipedia, however, we try for encyclopedia standard. The version that one editor (who by his own admission suffers from a medical condition which may colour his judgment) keeps insisting on is invalid for all these reasons.

Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Said "bizarre disclaimer" was what User:J_Greb, one of the administrators you contacted when consensus was against you, said would be appropriate, so I inserted it. The handbook is still not nearly as "forbidden" as you like to maintain. It is fine in comparison to independent references, which are in the vast majority here. You also in action make a case that your own opinions are superior to quoted official editorial information, which is far more "bizarre" than what you accuse me of, and finally I would at least have taken your claim as sincere if it weren't for the fact that the majority of the references you recurrently delete have nothing to do with the handbook.

I have been willing to compromise here. I have tried multiple versions to find one that you might find acceptable, and even did a major adjustment in the manner the general comics board talk that you yourself contacted said that I should, and I really cannot see how your own virtually reference-free and in some case directly misleading version ("considerable power", "deemed worthy to challenge", "merged his dimension with the Earth [only] of the Marvel Universe", and similar).

In any case it was nice of BOZ to protect the page as I requested (for the breather if nothing else). Dave (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request

{{Editprotected}}
Please add the following line to the infobox:
| imagesize = 210
The infobox caps the image height to 450. As this is a non-free image that would probably only ever be used in the infobox, there is no sense to have the image any taller.--Rockfang (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the 'box is already enforcing that width, which is in line with its coding. So I'm not sure that adding the parameter is needed. - J Greb (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I had a brain fart. You are right. Initially, I was going to shrink the image smaller, which would call for a image size parameter, but I changed my mind. I've "nulled" the editprotected template.--Rockfang (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Acceptable use of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe

Is it acceptable to use a reference work produced by a comic book company as a reference for information presented in Wikipedia articles on that company's characters, and if so, under what circumstances is it acceptable? BOZ (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Acceptable Its fine. There is no reason to discriminate against where the information came from, if there is no reason to doubt its accuracy. And what source could be more accurate than the official handbook? If information changes, characters dying off, getting new powers, loosing powers, loved ones brought back to life, etc. then it can be updated. People don't stop buying sports almanacs just because they can look up the information for free spread across news archives of the sports sections of newspapers, or elsewhere. The handbook will still sell, it offering more information than what the Wikipedia quotes, and the information there also found in the comics themselves. We aren't stealing sells. Just as plot summaries for fictional works don't keep people from buying the books, comic books, watching the movies, or the television episodes, etc. Dream Focus 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Unacceptable. A strong word, but the Guidelines clearly discourage the use of the publication as a reference tool [11]. I'll repaste this section for easy reading:

Consensus at the WikiProject is that the use of statistics sourced from in universe material and reference works, such as the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, Who's Who in the DC Universe or roleplaying game resources is discouraged. These statistics constitute fictional facts. Fictional facts are not facts per se (independently verifiable separate from the reporting source) but fiction, and rewriting or paraphrasing fiction is not transformative. As these handbooks are encyclopedic sources (albeit of fictional facts), we are a competing product (a free encyclopedia) and since we are in no way transforming this fictional material, using this material may constitute a breach of copyright. However, we should accurately record things in an encyclopedic manner; if The Guardian reports Spider-Man's strength as being such that he can lift ten tonnes, that can be discussed, and even contrasted with OHOTMU statistics within a section on Spider-Man's powers, bearing in mind the policy of neutral point of view and the undue weight section; if Spider-Man can be seen within publications lifting things greater than ten tonnes, then we should note that, and not present the statistic as anything other than it is; a meaningless statistic within both our universe and the fictional one in which Spider-Man's adventures are portrayed.

The term "meaningless" is very telling here. It applies to much of what the OHOTMU claims, and the comment by the editor above : "There is no reason to discriminate against where the information came from, if there is no reason to doubt its accuracy" is problematic as there are a number of reasons to doubt its' accuracy.

1.

The information on powers and abilities is often incorrect, with strength - the example mentioned above - being a classic example. Characters frequently perform feats that trump their apparent limits. Give this alone, it seems highly questionable to ignore this aspect of the publication and taken the remainder as gospel. It has to be all or nothing.

2.

It is also important to note that this is not an independent third party source. It is produced by the publishers of the comic books and as such does not represent an impartial and independent view of the Marvel Universe. Further to this, writers can - and frequently do - alter the information and even change continuity to suit current stories. Following the writing of Brian Michael Bendis and his retroactive changes to Avenger and the larger Marvel continuity is a very good example.

3.

An overall point that also needs to be reinforced is that it is all fiction, and that attempted "power match-ups" in articles is pointless as all parties mentioned are fictitious and as such it is speculation when trying to compare them. All that is required in a Powers and abilities section is a narrative about what said character can do, not how they match up to every other character in the Marvel universe, as this is contentious and pure opinion. It is fine to state what feat a character performed and cite the appropriate comic, as this offers a simple and unbiased recounting of an event.

Here's a good example of what editors need to avoid:

One editor recently posted the following entry at the Dormammu article, which highlights the weaknesses involved in attempting to cite the Handbook. The reference tags have been removed so as the sources are visible:

"Marvel's editorial department has produced various "Official Handbook" publications, wherein long, technobabble based explanation of the character's powers and equipment have been outlined. While this information was provided in an in-universe tone, it has not always been covered in-story, and is recurrently ignored or revised by writers as they feel the need. Within these, the character has been described as "one of the most powerful known mystical beings" in existence,(Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition #4 (1985))with "virtually unlimited" ability to manipulate the forces of magic,(Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Master Edition (1991)) and stated to possess "more raw power than even the most skilled sorcerer".(All-New Official Handbook Of The Marvel Universe A To Z #3 (March, 2006)

First and foremost, this is an out of universe commentary that does not belong in the "in-universe" statement about a character's powers.

The editor is also critical (whether intentional or not) of the Handbook, admitting that Marvel editoral use "long, technobabble based explanation(s)".

The editor then actually supports one of the above-mentioned claims made against the Handbook above, admitting: "it has not always been covered in-story, and is recurrently ignored or revised by writers as they feel the need."

The editor then, after giving the Handbook two strikes, attempts to cite the material with reference to the character's abilities. In addition to being illogical, it is again a subjective interpretation that goes back to the previous points about inaccurate power ratings and in-house point of view.

Finally, why was the above-mentioned posted at all? No other article features an attempted justification for a claim in the Powers and abilities section. All that is required is a statement of the facts, without odd rationales.

To conclude, the Handbook has to be all right or all wrong: we cannot as editors take and use what we feel - which is again an exercise in subjectivity - the portions "considered" to be accurate. The comics and reliable third-party sources are more than sufficient.

Asgardian (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• It does not have to be an independent third party source. The primary source for this sort of thing, they the ones to know more than anyone about their own works of fiction, is perfectly acceptable. And how can the comics and third party sources be sufficient and accurate, when any information they give can be made absolute when things change? Any third party source is ridiculous in a work of fiction, where the information itself can be gotten from an official handbook, and when anything changes, a newer version can be updated from information from the more recently published comic books. Since there is a Wikiproject for comics, perhaps this discussion should go on there. Get more people involved. Dream Focus 04:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll insert this here as scrolling up and down and trying reference who said what about which point becomes confusing. To clarify: comics are used as a means to illustrating what characters' can do in P & A sections in almost every single comic article. I will say that we should take it one step further and source all statements back to the comic books, which must still be written in a neutral, concise tone.

Also, to state "Any third party source is ridiculous in a work of fiction" is a ridiculous statement in itself considering that many articles now feature third party sources and are in fact the desired goal, because of the questionable nature of the material, which is subjective and can and does change, as both I and J Greb have pointed out. Asgardian (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Asgardian read what he pasted here. The guidelines discourage "the use of statistics sourced from in universe material and reference works," [their words, emphasis mine] not "the use of the publication [in its entirety] as a reference tool" [his words]. Despite the fact that he goes on and on about such statistics and match-ups on this talk page, that is not what he says in his edit summaries nor does he so limit himself in his edits, as David has repeatedly pointed out. I wish admins will realize that there has already been a huge amount of talk page discussion between them, more will accomplish nothing, and it will take a firm and enforced ruling from higher authorities to put an end to this war. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• This isn't an answer, and doesn't address any of the points raised by JGreb or myself. You've also made an assumption about my Edit Summaries and in doing so have gone off on a irrelevant tangent. Please, if you going to answer stay on topic. Asgardian (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Acceptable My thoughts exactly, and wishing to add focus on the section mentioning that other references can actually be "contrasted with OHOTMU statistics" as long as "the policy of neutral point of view and the undue weight section" is maintained, which it is (quotes definitely qualify as npov, whereas some of Asgardian's own wordings, mentioned in the section above, do not), and no "undue weight" is remotely put on the the handbook as an only all-determining source. It is one amongst many, contrasted with others, and not even using the statistics.

(Also, regarding the higher authority thing: User:BOZ actually created a Request for comments going on. It is possible that Asgardian will personally build a completely misrepresented one for me as well do divert attention. He's threatened with me "shooting myself in the foot" for chiming in, even though I don't think in that manipulative terms, and that he's put rebuffed complaints against both me, Tenebrae, and various other users in the past for far less reason. That said, although I'm sincere, and trying to be reasonable, meticulous, and matter-of-fact, I do have a serious problem with filtering myself, and have a bit of a mood disorder, so it's easy to quote me when I get in an annoyed mood, although it usually takes extreme amounts of provocation to get me there. That said, unless badly worded (so what I intend gets misunderstood), I genuinely mean what I say when I say it.) Dave (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this isn't an answer, and doesn't address any of the points raised by JGreb or myself. Once again, please refrain from personal attacks and stay on topic if responding. Asgardian (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thoughts' - This actually covers a few points:
  • Stats - Unacceptable as outlined in the guideline Asgardian linked to. I'm sorry, but "to use as a point of contrast" is a bad argument since, as characters in shared works of fiction, the exact extent of the powers is based on the whim of the particular writer of a story and the needs of that story. The OHOTMU is different only in 1) the whim was that of Marvel editorial and 2) it was used as an initial template for the RPG published by TSR. It held as much weight or standing as any of the stories published before it, or after.
  • Breadth - In lieu of a particular story, it could be a useful source in cataloging a characters full list of powers and skills. This is a bit of a tricky thing though since the OHOTMU is a static point - later powers or skills just won't be there. That makes a potential for both POV and "undue weight" issues. Using anything with "Official" and "Handbook" in the title adds weight or importance to that information. Using the OHOTMU to cover material up to 1986, it may imply anything else is "less important" or "less true, in-story".
  • Depth - A lot of the powers and equipment descriptions in the OHOTMU add a lot of technobabble depth to the description. Composition, tooling specs, components, power supplies, and so on. A lot of that is not needed in the article here. Using the OHOTMU to bring those into an article is unacceptable.
  • Sequencing - For the most part, the OHOTMU, and similar publications, put the posers and skills in a preferential order. The more I think about it, the more I believe that relying on the structures from those sources is thewrong way for these articles to handle the information. Presenting the powers as character development, noting what was added when in order of publication, helps to reinforce a real world context. In that vein, the OHOTMU can be mentioned as a point where Marvel attempted to codify the "to date" powers, abilities, skills, and equipment of a character.

- J Greb (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's a great answer. It touches on a lot of what I mentioned, and it would seem that for all those reasons mentioned much of the Handbook is invalid. A question: do you think it would be possible to use the Handbook as a source on some things and not others? The wording of the Guidelines would have to be very specific. Obviously, trying to include powers and abilities it far too problematic, as editors would (and already have) make subjective judgements based on their opinion and an impossible to clarify guaging of a character's potential and how they match up to others. What if the Handbook as allowed as a source for equipment only?
  As soon I wrote that, however, I realized that this too changes and editors an again insert their take (eg. the recent change to Mjolnir trumps the Handbook). Perhaps it is best just to disavow the Handbook as there are too many cans of worms?
  Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand J_Greb's comments correctly, the wording of using stats as a direct contrast is not intended to be interpreted this way (in which case a rewording may be in order), and should not be used? I'm not sure how the rest of what you said specifically relates to the text here? Could you make another attempt to explain it please?

The specific statistics are not used here (the symbolic "100 tonnes" range and so forth), so previously you told me to present the handbook quotes with an initial disclaimer (It is mostly identical to what you said, but I, and I think that 24... ip fellow, took minor liberties, such as tweaking it to "not always been covered in-story", as the handbooks are mostly based on and even referring to story occurrences, and followed by some writers and not by others), but could change it if you'd prefer?

Do you mean that we should restructure all of the references into a chronological order (which would be hard without standard examples from other articles), or would it be acceptable to just add dates/editorial acknowledgement of development context to the handbook sources (which could be done rather handily)?

Also, do you strictly refer to the technobabble descriptions of Iron Man's armour, "applied pleubotonium" and the like, or does it cover the cursory excerpts we used as well? (See below)

As a final question about the actual statistics/specific ratings rather than abilities descriptions: Is it allowed to simply use them vaguely to mention that one character has been stated as about as strong as another?

Regarding disallowing the handbook, I of course disagree with Asgardian, as I think it should be treated as no less and no more valid that any other source. It is the editorial department's official stance at the time after all, including Mark Gruenwald, who started it all, and fictional facts are also fictional/inconsistent facts within the stories themselves. Other entertainment section that I know of do allow using reference books released from the company or othervise. Am I correct in understanding the concern being that these should be taken as more absolute than what is within the comics due to the "official" title, rather than making them invalid in entirety?

Asgardian also frequently has claimed that it is entirely forbidden already, which it apparently isn't, and also recurrently uses this justification to make a case that virtually anything stated in the handbook is automatically wrong, or even that what Marvel editorial has decided is in continuity through the handbooks is invalid compared to his own opinion. He could easily turn this implication into a major problem anywhere he went.

Of course, the main problem is that he mostly removes any non-handbook references that he doesn't like, but mentions the handbook as justification, so there is that context of using it as an inappropriate weapon again.

"Marvel's editorial department has produced various "Official Handbook" publications, wherein long, technobabble based explanation of the character's powers and equipment have been outlined. While this information was provided in an in-universe tone, it has not always been covered in-story, and is recurrently ignored or revised by writers as they feel the need. Within these, the character has been described as "one of the most powerful known mystical beings" in existence,^[1] with "virtually unlimited" ability to manipulate the forces of magic,^[2]and stated to possess "more raw power than even the most skilled sorcerer".^[3]"

1. ^ Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition #4 (1985)
2. ^ Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Master Edition (1991)
3. ^ All-New Official Handbook Of The Marvel Universe A To Z #3 (March, 2006)

Dave (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

At a very basic level Dave it does mean "Don't quote numbers from the OHOTMU" which includes weights, distances, pressures, speeds, frequencies, and so on. It also means not quoting "rankings" or similar quantifying material from the Handbook.

At best, and this is to answer Asgardian in part, the powers and skills section of a Handbook entry is a good initial source for a basic list of a characters powers, abilities, and skills. It covers cases where the OHOTMU confirms a list or description such as "Fire manipulation, flight, super strength, telepathy, knowledge of spell casting, skilled painter." where the aspects were presented over multiple stories and the editor doesn't know when/where a particular one first appeared. The OHOTMU entry can also serve a similar function for a character's origin.

Something that has to be kept front and center in this is remembering that we are dealing with an element from a work of fiction.

• "Rankings", such as they are, are at the whim of what is needed for a particular point in a story. When covering a character, or a piece of equipment, in an article here the rankings are not important.
• Composition of a piece of equipment, unless it is something that has been a key element, isn't really relevant. Marvel has some material/object combinations that can be used as a benchmark - Thor's hammer, Cap's shield, and Wolverines skeleton are examples of this. But beyond that, it really isn't important for articles here what metals, alloys, and compounds make up things like Iron Man's armor.
• "But other's..." isn't a good argument. It is hard to say that the OHOTMU is on par with an "Official" guide to a TV show or film. There is a question of scope, internal consistency, and when the material was published compared to when the character stopped being used.
• All or nothing... To be honest, the flat "No" interpretation exists to avoid weaseling or wheedling to get close to pinpointing a character's abilities based on the OHOTMU.

- J Greb (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm still not quite sure how to interpret how this relates to this case in specific, and as not all the points were addressed, but that may be due to miscommunication on my part. Is the manner we used the handbook quoted above acceptable, and if not, why would the editorial view be considered less acceptable than the comics themselves? I perfectly understand the "not taken as an absolute, and no greater than any other source" argument, but "less so" I don't really get the internal logical validity of, as everything is fluid. Is the at a certain point decided "what's in continuity" more or less valid at least? It seems very strange if Asgardian could discount such things because the handbook supports it. Dave (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, that paragraph I used as an example and you reprinted is still invalid for all the reasons I listed above. There's really no getting around those issues. These also relate to your continuity question. The best we can do is to state events based on the comics, and not offer any real interpretation from an in-house, constantly changing and inaccurate source.

The more we discuss this, the more it comes back to the fact that there seems to be no way to justify the use of the Handbook based its' inherent weaknesses. I agree with [[User:|J Greb|J Greb]]: the only to avoid "weaseling or wheedling" is to adopt the "all or nothing" approach.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• So, two people are far using it, two are against it. How many people have participated in a discussion about this very issue in the past? My flu infection keeps me from looking right now, I logging off again and laying down, but usually its just a small number of people that end up adding things. We need to find more input to form proper consensus. Dream Focus 04:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately no one for the use of the Handbook has been able to refute the evidence presented, so we aren't in deadlock. Asgardian (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is rather arrogant. You haven't convinced me yet. I don't see your arguments as making any sense at all really. If you can quote something from a comic book, then you can quote it from a handbook, or the official Marvel website Wiki [12] even. Whether something in particular is worth noting or not, no matter where the information came from, is not relevant to the discussion of allowing information to be referenced from the handbook. Dream Focus 10:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, what's the issue here is just that J_Greb clarifies in a way I can clearly understand how the regulations correlate to this case and the various questions I raised, including the given unclear regulations wording, the "all fictional sources are fluid so why treat one of them as less valid" issue, and especially the editorially mandated continuity part, as I see this as a very useful clarifier regarding Marvel the company's stance about contradictory references, and to use it as an automatic anti-weapon literally in the manner of "my opinions are automatically superior to this" seems like a very dangerous path, since it opens up inserting any misleading information that anyone feels like as long as it contradicts the handbook.

In any case regarding Dream_Focus' concern: J_Greb is trustworthy (whereas Asgardian definitely isn't) and is well-versed in these things. He was the one who told me to construct that paragraph in this manner. If he says it goes away, it goes away, but I have very good reasons to not trust Asgardian's interpretations in any way or form. Dave (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just two main things at the moment:

• Dave, the way BOZ phrased the RFC was general terms, not specifically for this article. And that's how I'm looking at it - the general use of the OHOTMU and by extension DC's Who's Who. As for your concerns about the P&A for this specific article, I'll take a run at what I consider important below.
• Dream Focus, you may want to de-link arguing for using the OHOTMU and the wiki on Marvel's web site. The wiki is, currently, fine as an external link, but since it is an open wiki, it is definitely not considered a reliable reference source. The OHOTMU does have a place, it's just as a general reference. For powers that would be "This source, in general, supports the information presented here. It should be replaced with specific refs for when the powers were displayed in story."

- J Greb (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

http://marvel.com/universe/Help:Posting It says that they don't let new people post without approval. Only those with a long history of accuracy are allowed to post without anyone's approval, and are even allowed to approve newer members. So there is some oversight. Dream Focus 18:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be something to take up as a separate RfC issue, or at least questioned at RS. - "Does that caveat justify that site as an exception to the general practices of 'wikis are unreliable sources'?" - J Greb (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dream, you need to have another look at the points raised. No one has actually refuted these yet and they are all justifiable. Dave, once again, please desist from making emotive comments such as "J_Greb is trustworthy (whereas Asgardian definitely isn't)" as you undermine your credibility. No one insulted you. Thanks. Asgardian (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't about insult, or "credibility". It's about that you've repetedly proven to me that what you say generally cannot be trusted, whereas it's much easier to take what J_Greb says at face value.

Take your misrepresenteation of the quote mentioned above by Tbrittreid.

The statement that "out of universe" is unacceptable even though Wikipedia as a whole encourages it, and ignoring that the column has little to do with my opinion and was simply something J_Greb defined as acceptable, in contrast with that you yourself actually do insert personal opinions into your version as detailed in the previous section.

That just because everything is fluid and may change later on the handbooks describing the events are somehow less valid than anything else in pinning down what goes either for the moment or in a past tense.

That the regulation is an absolute ban, rather than pinning down what it actually means, simply because of an inaccurate symbolic strength scale (the alternative for them would be to use "1 gogolplex tonnes" or similar silliness... or simply do what we do here and strictly describe some examples).

Or that Marvel's official stance is somehow irrelevant compared to a no less partial and likely less informed observer writing another handbook publication, which per definition of license issues would always have to go through Marvel approval anyway.

Or that "power match-ups" which you yourself use elsewhere and in your version of the article, are any less valid than similarly relative other power displays, and sometimes these are the best of what's available.

In context with previous experiences I don't get a sense of sincerity, only to use anything that's convenient at the time, regardless if it is severely contradictive, and ignoring any alternate input, which makes honest back-and-forth very difficult. Dave (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Jan 16, 2010 run at the P&A section

Current state

"Doctor Strange has referred to Dormammu as his 'most terrible foe',^[1] and a threat to 'the life of the universe itself', that 'at full power no one could stand against'.^[2] The character is composed of pure magic energy, and is capable of feats including energy projection; matter transmutation; size shifting; teleportation; body possession,^[3] resurrection of the dead,^[4] and bestowment of sufficient power to dwarf that of a Sorcerer Supreme.^[5] Dormammu is also apparently stronger in the Dark Dimension, being empowered by the worship of his followers,^[6] and can draw upon its power.^[3]

"Among other examples, the character has engaged, and in one case defeated, avatars of Eternity;^[7] created a demonic entity at the scale of Satannish as an extension of his own power;^[8] imprisoned or transformed the elder goddess Gaea against her will;^[9] bested a host to the Phoenix Force;^[10] reached a draw against the Norse god king Odin in an abstract chess match that controlled the universal balance of chaos and order, hosted in the realm of Asgard;^[11] and through aid from the 'Evil Eye' merged the 'Dark Dimension' with 'every planet' of the mainstream Marvel Universe, and forced Thor to change into his mortal Donald Blake persona against Odin's enchantment.^[12]

"However, the character is frequently undone by his own impatience and arrogance, with the villain usually only defeated via trickery.^[13][14] The character apparently has one significant weakness, being vulnerable in environments that cannot fuel his mystical 'Faltine flames'.^[8]

"Marvel's editorial department has produced various 'Official Handbook' publications, wherein long, technobabble based explanation of the character's powers and equipment have been outlined. While this information was provided in an in-universe tone, it has not always been covered in-story, and is recurrently ignored or revised by writers as they feel the need. Within these, the character has been described as 'one of the most powerful known mystical beings' in existence,^[15] with 'virtually unlimited' ability to manipulate the forces of magic,^[16] and stated to possess 'more raw power than even the most skilled sorcerer'.^[17]"

1. ^ Amazing Spider-Man #498 (Oct. 2003)
2. ^ Amazing Spider-Man #499 (Nov. 2003)
3. ^ a b New Avengers #46 (2008)
4. ^ Punisher vol.7, #2-7
5. ^ Strange Tales #132 (May 1966)
6. ^ Strange Tales #126 - 127 (Nov. - Dec. 1964)
7. ^ Strange Tales #131 - 146(Apr. - 1965 - July 1966); Defenders vol. 3, #3
8. ^ Hellcat #1 - 3 (Sep. - Nov. 2000)
9. ^ Doctor Strange vol. 2, #6 - 7 (Feb. & Apr. 1975); Doctor Strange vol.3, #2
10. ^ Guardians of the Galaxy #34 - 36 (Mar. - May 1993)
11. ^ Thor Annual #9 (1981)
12. ^ "Avengers/Defender War" Avengers #115 - 118 (Sep. - Dec. 1973) & Defenders #8 - 11 (Sep. - Dec. 1973)
13. ^ Amazing Spider-Man #500 (Dec. 2003)
14. ^ Doctor Voodoo #1 (2009)
15. ^ Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition #4 (1985)
16. ^ Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Master Edition (1991)
17. ^ All-New Official Handbook Of The Marvel Universe A To Z #3 (March, 2006)

Rough suggested rework

When introduced, Dormammu was portrayed using powers normally associated sorcerers and demonic entities in fiction. These included: imbuing others with mystic power;^[1] projecting bolts of mystic energy; matter transmutation; size shifting; teleportation; body possession;^[2] and resurrection of the dead.^[3] The earliest stories established that the power he can wield is fueled by the worship of his followers and is stronger in the Dark Dimension where they are located.^[4] Later stories also established that he can draw on the fundamental power of the Dark Dimension, while in his there, to extend his personal power.^[2]

Later stories revealed that Dormammu's body is composed of an eldritch flame, sometimes referred to as "Faltine flames".^[5] While this is shown to reduce the the limitation imposed by a corporeal form, he is vulnerable to environments that cannot support, or situations that would extinguish, these flames.^[6][7]

1. ^ Strange Tales #132 (May 1966)
2. ^ New Avengers #46 (2008) - Note: A cite to the earliest story presenting the power would be better.
3. ^ Punisher vol.7, #2-7 - Note: Specific issue?
4. ^ Strange Tales #126 - 127 (Nov. - Dec. 1964) - Note, Specific issue?
5. ^ Hellcat #1 - 3 (Sep. - Nov. 2000) - Note, Specific issue? Also, is there an earlier ref?
6. ^ Hellcat #1 - 3 (Sep. - Nov. 2000) - Note, Specific issue? If this and 5 really are the same cite, they can be combined.
7. ^ The information presented in this section is generally consistent with the character profile Marvel published in:
   • Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition #4 (1985);
   • Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Master Edition (1991); and
   • All-New Official Handbook Of The Marvel Universe A To Z #3 (March, 2006)

Much improved, and I'm glad that the erroneous rationale was pulled. Some repetition (eg. "Later stories") and a few more abilities can be added, but that's a good first pass. Asgardian (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As it says, this is "rough". And I also noted in #Reasonings that there are a few holes. What I'd really like at this point is someone who either has access to the comics, a good working knowledge of them, or a detailed reference tool to go through and pin down when, and in what order, the powers are revealed. Most of the references we have are from within the past decade, and that cannot be right.

As for the "Laters"... It would be nice to be able to not by story title when those aspects were added - "Later stories also established that..." becoming "'Story' established that..." with the full cite as a ref. - J Greb (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reasonings

And here is the thought process behind the changes:

• The "referred to as" may have a purpose within a character bio since it presents how other characters in the shared universe react to and treat Dormammu. But it is not relevant in a section laying out the characters basic powers.
• "sufficient power to dwarf that of a Sorcerer Supreme" amounts to hype and an attempt to pin down power levels.
• The entire second paragraph was removed as it is really more in line with a character bio - "Dormammu tried these schemes/plans".
• The hubris bit could be applied to many, many characters. It was removed since it is a personality trait nor a power, ability, skill, or unique vulnerability or limitation.
• The lat paragraph was compressed to the salient point - Marvel has produced profile pages for the character that generally support the information here. Doing that does not need the embellishment of "...one of the most...", "...virtually unlimited...", "...more raw power...", or the like.
• Structurally, when possible publication order should be maintained. The character was developed over time with aspects being added later that Lee and Ditko didn't have in mind when they first created the character. In fact, based on the article, Lee had nil for the characters powers when he first named it. To this end it would be better to use cites of the earliest example of the character using a power or a vulnerability being sated/exploited.
• In that vein, the entire "he's made of flames" thing needs a bit of expansion. When was this stated in story? When were the type of flames named? How was the "crown of flame" that denoted the DD's ruler (IIRC) related to it?
• Also, are there other spell-like powers that he has used that aren't listed? Scrying? Clairvoyance? Astral communication?

- J Greb (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

To explain the "dwarf a sorcerer supreme" bit this was a phrasing quoted from the handbook, but which referred to a specific story within which this happened, so the wording was kept and the handbook reference replaced with the story in question. (I think he empowered Baron Mordo, but then again Mordo is plenty powerful in his own right, so it may be better to skip it)

I like the suggested structuring into context and chronological order, but am not sure about the exact issues it was revealed that he merged himself with the flames. It is referred in the 1985 handbook if that is acceptable?

I do have a major concern however:

The entire point of Dormammu as Doctor Strange's ongoing nemesis is the character's well-established sheer extent of power, and terrifying completely malevolent intentions of using it. That this is one of very few villains in the Marvel Universe who can actually take on high cosmic entities without external power sources and win all by his own abilities. This context should be made clear in some fashion to not make the powers description severely misleading in pattern with most other wikipedia power sections, such as Galactus, wherein Asgardian has long maintained exactly the type of power extent and "described as" references that we use here. Doctor Strange referring to Dormammu as perfectly capable of slaughtering or enslaving every sentient being in the Universe all by his lonesome, restructuring the Universe, or defeating Eternity and the Phoenix Force properly highlights this, especially in combination with the Marvel editorial's embracement of this through just statements of being more powerful than any existing sorcerer, having virtually unlimited power, or being one of the most powerful mystical entities in existence. Anything less and the character is emancipated, pushed away from the entire point, and turned into a raving goofy joke with his head set on fire. It took time to find all of those references to avoid this.

Do you have a suggested structure as to how the threat and very well established(/long time multi-source referenced) power could be highlighted in the preferred chronological context?

I counted 10 sources from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s (sometimes in combination with 00s), so that's pretty good, but more would be appreciated, with accompanying more diverse examples of different power sets.

Also, just to not have Asgardian misquote the handbook regulation as absolute in the future, or myself to likevise misunderstand, you have said that: "The OHOTMU does have a place, it's just as a general reference." Does this in context with "The information presented in this section is generally consistent with the character profile Marvel published in: Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition #4 (1985); Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Master Edition (1991); and All-New Official Handbook Of The Marvel Universe A To Z #3 (March, 2006)" mean that the way I especially find it valuable to be used: As an rough official embracement/continuity validity, or othervise context verifier, such as stating that established events, natures, and powers have been referred to within it, in combination with specific issue examples is acceptable? Or if BOZ was the one who wrote up the handbook regulations (which I was previously unaware of) should we ask him for further specific clarifications? Dave (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OHOTMU as a source/ref first... As I was trying to point out above, using it as a transitory ref for the basic powers shouldn't be a problem. Basic means just that - basic, no quantification, no adjectives. And transitory means that it should be replaced with a ref to a story where possible. So ref 7 in the rough change is there for two reason - 1) as a secondary or confirmation source and 2) a catch all for powers that wind up listed but without a good primary source.

As for ordering of the powers, yes, it would be better to list them in the order they were developed or revealed. With a character like this though there is a potential for hiccups - the "spell like" abilities (magic bolts, possession, transformation) may be interspersed with other abilities. So one category gets covered before moving on.

And last, the relationship with Strange. Actually that's fodder for the publication history and character bio. Marvel inserted the character as a major, recurring threat for Strange (PH), and Strange has specifically described the character as such in story. That and the in story interaction of the character and Strange, other heroes, and other villains should be covered in the bio.

- J Greb (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Strange referring to Dormammu as "his most terrible foe" and "a threat to the universe that at full power no one could stand against" could just as easily be listed at the start of the page. The statement about Dormammu usually being bested through his arrogance was maintained along with other limitations to not make the powers profile unbalanced, but I suppose that it could go, since, as you say, that is a commonplace weakness for a villain.

I already replaced all handbook references referring to specific issues after your previous request. The ones remaining however, with the exception of "more raw power than even the most skilled sorcerer", which he has shown by being considerably stronger than any sorcerer supreme, they are more in the vein of acknowledgements of the character's recurrent power displays, or the scale and breadth of the power sets if you prefer, i.e. "one of the most powerful known mystical beings in existence", and "virtually unlimited ability to manipulate the forces of magic".

I also need a clearer answer regarding the handbook as a valid verifier of waht's in continuity and generally accepted. For tangible examples Asgardian states that "All Access" is not in continuity, whereas the handbook states that it, and Marvel vs. DC, both are; The handbook also states that Galactus is strictly a physical entity fulfilling a function of balance, and does not "encapsule a universe" or "embody an third of everything in existence", nor remotely "equal Eternity in scale and power" (as Asgardian and other major fans of the character maintain), which verifies the stories I've read that also state this, in contradiction to diffuse statements elsewhere. I.e. sorting out what's what regarding Marvel the company's official stance of which is correct.

Regarding the power scale context of the various listed stories: So are these acceptable as long as presented chronologically? I still think that it would unbalance the page without them, in context with almost every other character profile out there, and given that it is very useful for readers to have it easily referrable at the related section,rather than have to sift through the text for potential nuggets. In most cases the available visible power extent displays of characters are mostly "match-ups" as Asgardian labels them (despite using them himself whenever convenient), and this certainly includes Dormammu. Without the cases in which the character overcame various cosmic or mystical entities (which relates to the "one of the most powerful known mystical entities in existence" and "virtually unlimited mystical power" handbook acknowledgements) there would be mostly nothing left to go on. Doctor Strange has to rescue some entity from Dormammu, or save the Universe before Dormammu destroys or takes it over is usually the manner the character is used, i.e. as a looming doomsday threat, but Strange usually stops him in some manner before this happens. (Well, technically in Spider-Man 499 their battle might actually have temporarily destroyed the Marvel Universe. It was left a bit unclear, but in this case the reset button was pushed through going back in time.) Dave (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave you may want to review my comment about rankings. "Match ups" are little more than trying to support a ranking statements. Worse they 1) tend to be based on a reader's interpretation of the source material, which is OR, and 2) can be miss leading since they aren't consistent. A little bit of clarity on the second aspect. "Match ups" between the same two characters don't always end with the same result, so picking only those that support a particular statements becomes an exercise in pushing a POV. Also, "mach up chains" may be contradictory - Character A pummels Character B into submission in X, and Character B pummels Character C into submission in Y. So, Character A is "mightier" than character C, except that C pummeled A into submission in Y. The bottom line is that the "match ups", while "fun" on fan forums, have no valid place in an article here.

As for statements like "one of the most powerful known mystical entities in existence" and "virtually unlimited mystical power"... the standard for a Wikipedia articles is that such statements must include a verifiable, reliable source where they came from. The OHOTMU doesn't qualify. Neither does in story information from the comics. Fan forum threads are not considered reliable, nor is marketing material. At best, such statements could come from statements from the creators or writers or 3rd party, scholarly works. - J Greb (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, then we'll just have to skip the handbook quotes then. However, regarding the listed examples of foes he has triumphed against, Dormammu has only fought Eternity twice, and both are mentioned in the text, although I suppose that it should be changed to "challenged and been defeated, or in one case overcome the cosmic entity Eternity" or somesuch. Similarly he has only fought Gaea, or the Phoenix once, so no inconsistency is present. In any case I do need your help with suggestions of how the context of the very well-established virtually unlimited scale of power can be maintained. It is mentioned in every handbook publication, Dormammu is regularly used as an absolute Doomsday threat, he defeats high-order cosmic entities, and so on. How can the character be accurately portrayed if all the best available sources are automatically censored, no matter how diverse? I suppose that Marvel has released a couple of books about the characters other than the handbook, but beyond that, why would any independent scholar want to write (likely illegally) unlicensed handbooks about these characters? It doesn't make any rational sense to me. Dave (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If abilities are presented in a chronological fashion and then sourced that's fine. I think the only real way the Handbook can be of any use is just as a reference on simple abilities, with no attempts at power match-ups or subjective interpretations. So long as Dave understands that, it should be OK. Further to this, the P & A should avoid comments about the character that can taken as POV. Yes, let's leave it to the main body of text. Asgardian (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not see J_Greb specifically refer to "power match-ups" as forbidden.

Also you state plenty of POV in your version, and also use "power match-ups" but twist them with your personal views, i.e. "deemed worthy to challenge", "significant physical and mystical power", and inaccuracies such as "merged his dimension with the Earth" rather than every planet in the Marvel Universe, or "challenged the cosmic entity Eternity" rather than state that he has in fact bested Eternity once. I use quotes, or matter-of-fact statements that have been very explicitly stated within a story. Quotes are most definitely not POV, i.e. a subjective interpretation, and matter-of-fact descriptions of exactly what happened are as close as possible. Once more your statement does not make any sense in context with what you visibly do. Also, and a serious answer rather than an evasion please, why exactly have you not attempted to strip the Galactus P&A, that you are frequently embroiled in, of virtually all references in the same manner as here if you are sincere and do not have an agenda, or follow me around for harrassment? Dave (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Dave, where you fall down is that you overanalyze and make subjective interpretations about statements. There's a limit to how far we can read into what fictional characters state/do. As for statements, they are fine if not made in conjunction with others and attempt to establish some kind of tier system. I also agree with JGreb that such things are best left to the main body of text.

Galactus? If you take a look you'll see I've tidied up some language, not that this is the issue here. Also, please refrain from (once again) making derogatory comments about others (eg. "follow me around for harrassment?").

Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Skip the continuous "regards" endings, and "incivility defense" for simply stating what you are doing all the time repeats. You know full well that I and most others find them annoying in context of what you do and intend.

Anyway, no I need clear rather than diffuse clarifications of exactly what something means, and you're not one to talk as you do plenty of very personal and very misleading interpretations, used or contradicted at convenience.

Not to mention that regarding the Galactus P&A section (which is almost completely uncorrected from over a year ago btw) you ignore policies that you enforce and propagate elsewhere. Such as allowing narrator comments about the entity, even though you argue in the Doctor Strange talk that such are unacceptable, and censoring "who said what" clarifications of statements, i.e. "Galactus has been described as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" rather than "the Human Torch has called Galactus "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" "; or for that matter very much does hierarchy insertions such as stating that Eternity and Galactus are "fellows"/equals in Eternity's page, or "As a living force of nature set between the conceptual entities Eternity and Death" in the Galactus one.

Or allowing factual errors and msileading statements to remain, such as "Galactus deemed the race corrupt" when nothing of the sort was said, or "Annihilus binds Galactus, intent on using the entity's energies to destroy the universe. " even though what was shown and said is that Annihilus used Galactus to destroy and sample the energies of worlds without being allowed access to it himself, and to then use him as just a bomb to annihilate all life, or stating that Hunger was "defeated" by Galactus when it stated outright that Galactus was "less than nothing" in comaprison, and Galactus himself said "Yes, I sense that this is true".

You and TheBalance even go so far in your tag-team blind reverts that you enforce "a starving, weakened Galactus" twice after another, instead of allowing the language-correction "When in this emancipated state." That's at the level of reverting just for the sake of being annoying. So practice what you preach if you want anyone to take what you say at face value.

In any case. Returning to the topic at hand. I was talking to J_Greb, who I actually respect, for precise clarifications. Stop interrupting and allow him the chance to explain please. Dave (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a public forum. Please also do not attempt to speak for others. Since you have also mentioned TheBalance, I will contact him and allow him a right of reply. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Speaking for others", rather than allow clear-cut explanations is the sense I have received from you here. 12:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with what has been discussed (attacks aside), I have reworked the P & A minus the feat statements. The OHOTMU can be used, however, to source abilities. Asgardian (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Further to this, I've tried to introduce a streamlined version with no statements that can appear to be POV. Purely factual information. Regards Asgardian (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

All "match-ups" in my current version are gone. Your own version states "significant power" which is extremely misleading POV per definition, as it states a small village-level scale for a character that has demonstrated a universal scale of power on various occasions, while censoring all such references, which is both very deliberately misleading. The handbook is only referenced to state what abilities the character has, in this case it explicitly lists that he has a "virtually unlimited" set of powers, not "various effects" which once again is a very insincere misleading POV per definition. This is just more of your usual ongoing tactics. Dave (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dave, you've once again made a blind revert, and completely ignored the fact that you have wiped legitimate references. Is it not important to have accurate dates? Please look at what you are editing before reverting. Also, a term such as "various effects" is less subjective than "virtually unlimited". I would also ask you to stop making emotive comments. Asgardian (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You know full well that I only ever wipe out dates through accident, due to not noticing it when I check through the editing differences. Little details can be easy to not notice if the edits don't stack up exactly next to each other. In this case the one for the Punisher book and nothing more that I could find, but I restored it, and as usual ery much welcome you fixing any other dates. Twisting the entry into your unreliable version on the other hand, even though I've already gone to extremes in modifying it to a compromise solution, compared to how it looked originally, on the other hand, not so much. "Virtually unlimited" is actually what was said. Dormammu has virtually any magic power he wants to use, not limited to "various". Dave (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Small things...

I've taken a swing at the PA and have a few of notes:

1. I don't know how to stress this strongly enough... IF in the course of writing or adding to a P&A section you find yourself using the term "virtually unlimited" or anything vaguely like it, PLEASE stop, remove the term, and rethink what you are trying yo put in. "Virtually unlimited mystic powers" (from the infobox) and "virtually unlimited number of effects" read as "Can do anything the writer wants except ultimately win." This is a useless statement within the context of a Wikipedia article. "for various effect" is still vague, but it is less of a POV push - we aren't buffing, hyping, or over selling the character at that point.
2. Repeating citations within lines, or words, of each other doesn't look good. It looks worse when it is to beat home the idea that the character is gawd awesome powerful.
3. I've added a catch-all template for the OHOTMU refs - all they should be there for is to say "We covered, in general terms, what Marvel has put into these Handbooks."

There is still some tweaking that can be done... - J Greb (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've made a few tweaks to J Greb's otherwise excellent summary. Just kept in the present tense and more out of universe without a small amount of repetition, and moved the "universal influence" comment up the lead sentence where we outline the character's place in the MU. Many thanks for the assist. Asgardian (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I also mostly liked it, but removed "various", and "significant", as these in the rreader's eyes signify a specified much lower scale, and reinserted some references. Is there any chance that you could do a similar run-through of the Galactus article? Dave (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A few things within the P&A:

• The "laundry list" was removed because it is a repeat of the material in the FCB section. The sentiment that Dormammu is used as a global/universal/comic threat is pretty well spelled out there. Hitting it again in the P&A doesn't do much.
• Dropping "various" and melding the 2nd P&A paragraph into one long, awkward sentence isn't a plus. Keeping it as two sentences is a bit easier to read, but "various" needs to be there since we are not, cannot, and should not be providing an exhaustive, all-inclusive list of the spell-like thing the character has done.
• And "bestowment of power" is, at best, awkward or archaic grammar. At worst it's bad word choice. One of the powers shown is that Dormammu can bestow power on another, so the effect is "bestowing power" on another. Simple.

And what is a hot button issue for me... the infobox image.

1. It's a backslide as far as the Project level guidelines.
2. IIRC, when that image was originally suggested, it was reject by consensus as being the option least fitting the guidelines.
3. Overloading the image that was in place is the wrong way to change the image. Especially when you do it with an image that consensus said no to. And FWIW, IIRC the Ditko-esk image was overloaded because clear sourcing for the original publication could not be found. Now, yes there was a previous image there (I've checked), but it was deleted as unlicensed long before Asgardian dropped his in.

- J Greb (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the column down again, and reverted to "bestowing power". I didn't know that consensus said no to that image. I simply saw one I thought looked more impressive at this page: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DimensionLord (Speaking of which. Should we change the "warlord" classification to "dimension lord"? Or is that not a sufficiently recognised term?) I changed to "achieve effects including" so there is no actual significance high or low put to it. Dave (talk) 10:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a problem with the citation for the sentence "The character is an interdimensional entity composed of mystical energy that can be used to achieve effects including: energy projection; matter transmutation; size shifting and teleportation; body possession; resurrection of the dead; bestowing of power; and creating demon lords". You can't determine powers a character demonstrates by singling out issues where various incidents occur and then making sweeping statements based on them. That's synthesis of sources and original research. Stick to out-of-universe sources that describe the character's powers in an overarchign fashion. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The only out-of-universe sources available are the various handbooks Marvel has published, and there are restrictions to those, so in virtually all character profiles out there we have to stick with assembling examples from different stories. They are created by original research per definition beyond creator citations. I don't really see why this should be singled out in that regard. I also think that J_Greb did a quite nice job with the formatting, but if it is really necessary I could always switch back to the previous format of using a separate reference for each mention. Dave (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A lack of sources is no excuse to engage in original research. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the point is that in all seriousness, look around at every profile page in existence. They all use direct 1st degree references to the comics themselves, because othervise it would be impossible to write these things without copy-pasting the handbooks and go into copyright violation territory. So the most important issue tends to be truthful and as matter-of-fact as possible. Dave (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Using primary sources isn't the problem (although they should be used sparingly, especially if they are fictional). The problem is drawing conclusions from the issues by synthesizing reference material. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand. If a character is directly shown doing something in a book, how is this different from the history-recaps? Dave (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

While I can understand the desire to upgrade the article, there are some issues with this set of edits. Not the least of which is the almost total lack of edit summaries.

• Caption: While "warlord" may not be the best word choice, how was the character referenced in the issue the image was taken from? If it was "warlord", then that word should be used. In any event, the term "dimension lord" sounds a lot like jargon to be avoided. And to be honest, a descriptor does not need to be there at all.
• Publication history:
  • "the ¨god-tyrant¨ of" is also a jargon term, and "a warlord from" isn't much better. "the ruler of" is likely the best fit.
  • "a parallel universe" and "an alternate dimension" are two distinct things. The first implies we are dealing with another "Earth", which is not the case here. The later isn't much better. "another dimension" seems a better fit.
• 1970s
  • "Strange's Universe" and "Earth". Neither is a good choice here. Though "Earth's" with an implied "dimension" works with the rest of the paragraph.
  • "Dormammu easily defeats both Loki and the assembled heroes, but is stopped when he is absorbed into the Eye due to a hex cast by the Avenger Scarlet Witch." compared with "Despite this, both villains are defeated, with Dormammu being absorbed into Eye courtesy of a hex cast by Avenger the Scarlet Witch."
    • "Dormammu easily defeats" is hype and reader interpretation. Full stop. The phrase "Despite this," beginning that sentence works, though it implies something not included in the section.
    • "both Loki and the assembled heroes, but is stopped when he is" is expanding on the reader interpretation. "both villains are defeated, with Dormammu being" is appropriate - it clearly points out what happened without going overboard with detail. And "Both" would be a good place to start the sentence
    • "the Eye due to" looks like a good change. It fixes grammar and uses a succinct term.
    • Moving the last "the" is also a good grammar fix. Though I'd be tempted to lose "Avenger" as an unneeded descriptor.
• 1980s
  • "playing against the" is unneeded. Stating that one plays another in a game of chess implicitly states the two are opponents.
• 1990s
  • "defeats the Phoenix and" seems an unneeded plot point here.
  • "aged"/"weakened" is a bit of a toss up. "aged" may be a better fit, but what is stated in the comic? Can Dormamu kill him because he is old or that he has weakened with age?
  • "finally" is a bit of editorializing that isn't needed.
  • "the Guardians" If Krugarr didn't defeat Dormamu single handedly, don't imply it.
• 2000s
  • "(revealed as created by Dormammu during the early stages of hell)"/"(apparently a creation of Dormammu)" - For the changed text, where is the reference that the character Satannish had been created by Dormamu? For the original... "apparently" is weaseling and makes the parenthetical useless.
  • "gradually"/"eventually" Neither is really needed there. Both imply that there are other goals not listed. If the only goal is to "conquer all life and afterlife", then that is all that needs to be said.
  • ", and turn both into an eternal torture camp" Based on what? That reads as an assumption or reader's interpretation.

- J Greb (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Caption: I don't know about the introduction story, but elsewhere Dormammu has not been referred to just as a warlord, but as the absolute ruler of his universe, and worshipped as the god there (and allegedly in plenty of others as well), most recently under Claremont's pen, during Strange's visit with Xavier and Magneto on Genosha, so ¨god-tyrant¨ is correct, whereas ¨warlord¨ sounds like he's some petty tribe leader among many. I didn't come up with the ¨dimension lord¨ title, I saw Dormammu being referred to as such over at TV tropes, as the original example of the ultimate type of supervillain threat. "Ruler of" can also work, but he is both absolute ruler, the general monotheistic deity there, and ridiculously evil and tyrannical, so I don't really see the problem.

1970s: The point being that the previous wording was misleading. Dormammu merged the entire universes, not just one planet. This story I did actually skim through a few months back, and the way I remember it Dormammu did effortlessly defeat first Loki and then all the forces assembled against him, until only the Witch remained, whereas the previous wording was also very misleading in sounding like he was overpowered, but I'm open for memory corrections.

1980s: Ok. Although I think that it was good to point out what the match was about.

1990s: "Defeats" was simply tossed in because it was a impressive that he beat up a(nother) cosmic entity, and since it states that he was defeated by Krugarr, per extension stating that Dormammu defeated an important character should work as well. That said, this is another story that it's been a long time since I read, but I don't remember anything being stated about Strange being weak, just shown as old, so I thought it was better to use this wording, and I also remember it as the new Sorcerer Supreme Krugarr defeating him after the others, including Strange and the Galactic Guardians had helped, with the original Guardians of the Galaxy themselves having much less firepower and effect.

2000s: "Apparently" was Asgardian inserting his own opinion that it shouldn't have been this way. What was stated and shown in the Hellcat mini is flat out that Dormammu created Satannish as a spy in the "earliest days of the pits" or something to that effect. I felt that it was either the somewhat awkward long wording or throwing in some guesswork "billions of years ago", but there was no actual given timeframe. The torture camp bit is from a memory of Dormammu's intention in the series of wanting all sentient beings to be tortured both when they are alive and dead, but yeah, it's been awhile, and I do tend to go by memory. He did turn the universe into a dystopian Nazi tyranny when he recreated it in the Giffen Defenders mini though. Dave (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Two immediate thing pop out here...

1. The article isn't here to "impress" readers. If you are adding a word or phrase to do that, you need to rethink adding it.
2. If you are going to re-work a section based only on "memory", hold off until you can dig the issue out an check yourself as you are editing. We aren't on a deadline so you have the time. And it's better to get it right the first time.

- J Greb (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's more that it felt like the article was unbalanced before, such as the ¨Dormammu was easily defeated during the Avengers-Defenders war¨ wording... No he wasn't, they were completely overmatched and got rid of him through last resort dumb luck/smart strategy mixture. Or Dormammu was smoothly beaten by the weakest super-team ever, the original Guardians of the Galaxy... No he wasn't. The combined powers of one cosmic entity, two sorcerer supremes (and the much more powerful Galactic Guardians) did that, and shouldn't the circumstances be mentioned to balance it further than simply wording everything like a string of defeats, especially compared to the Galactus article that edits out any events and circumstances that made G look bad, and inserts a failsafe that ¨any¨ time he's beaten he was probably malnourished, crippled, blinded and tied up? Or that's my impression in any case. It would have been very different if the article had gone too far in the other direction

Anyway, you're right in that I should probably find and reread the stories, so I'll wait with the changes until I get the opportunity. However, regardless there should definitely be another wording than ¨some token warlord¨ and ¨apparently¨. Dave (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Marvel Vs Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds

Shouldn't there be a mention of this? I'm mean he appears at the end of the Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WZdQD2kEk4 That fact should be mentioned.

Off the top? YouTube isn't really a reliable source. Beyond that, it really can wait for the game to actually materialize. - J Greb (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source.The Phantomnaut (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.capcom-unity.com/jgonzo/blog/2010/06/15/e3_2010:_marvel_vs_capcom_3

And a self published blog isn't much better. - J Greb (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd revert, but I understand why the article's protected. It might be a good time to start issuing warnings and blocks to editors who should know better. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Some guidelines here:

• If all you can say for sure is "Dormammu appeared in a trailer for the game", you are adding trivia. Period.
• If you are adding "It is rumored..." "It can be assumed..." "It is hinted..." ot the like, you are engaging in [[WP:OR|original research.
• Sourcing to a blog, YouTube, and the like is not reliable.
• Since Wikipedia is not a rumor site nor a news site, we can wait for the game to be released for information about the game content to be added to articles.

Continuing to add this type of material is going to wind up with the article fully protected until after the game's release.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a similar section at Deadpool; don't know whether that one is more legit, though. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The Deadpool one is fine, though, because we've seen screens and video of Deadpool fighting, not to mention citing information from publications like Game Informer to help legitimize it. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Bluntly regarding the two sources used to add the game info here:

• Material within the comment thread is suspect. Period.
• Interpreting the trailers to craft a statement in the article is original research.

That leaves the "article" portion of the referenced pieces. And frankly the second one, the one that actually mentions the character, is the reviewer guessing at game content.

We don't have a deadline. We are not a rumor or news site. We can very well wait for the game to actually be release and a full review/guide to show up before adding the info here.

- J Greb (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

-If you aren't sure about this, then why is it mentioned on Marvel vs Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds and Marvel vs. Capcom (series)? Someone must have been sure about it.-71.70.140.119 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

-Never mind, it has been confirmed--71.70.140.119 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What changes need to be made to the page, or should it stay mostly the way it is?

Here is an official thread to discuss this topic.

Personally I'm naturally mostly satisfied with the way it is, but what do all the uninvolved people think would be a good solution? Dave (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to state exactly what you are talking about. Show some differences. Dream Focus 17:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All right. Here is Asgardian's most recent version:

"Dormammu is an interdimensional energy being with significant physical and mystical power that can be used to achieve various effects including energy projection; matter transmutation; size shifting; teleportation and body possession. The character is deemed worthy to challenge the King of the Norse gods, Odin, by cosmic entity Lord Chaos; merged his dimension with the Earth of the Earth-616 universe and challenged the cosmic entity Eternity. Dormammu is also apparently stronger in the Dark Dimension, being empowered by the worship of his followers, and can draw upon its power. The character apparently has one significant weakness, being vulnerable in environments that cannot fuel his mystical Falteen flames.

Doctor Strange has referred to Dormammu as his "most terrible foe", and a threat to "the life of the universe itself", with the hero often triumphing only by means of trickery."

He removes most references (used to remove all of them), and inserts misleading opinions such as "significant physical and mystical power" whereas the sources I have found state the character to be a universal threat with exactly that scale of mystical power. Dormammu does not however possess significant physical power, as Doctor Strange has been able to engage him in hand-to-hand combat. At least not unless he consciously enhances it. Then he has been able to knock over the Hulk without any apparent effort. (Maybe I should reinsert that reference?) "Deemed worthy to challenge" also stinks of inaccurate bias, as the confrontation ended in a draw, outside of Dormammu's (stated as strengthening) home realm, and within Odin's seat of power Asgard. "Challenged the cosmic entity Eternity" also ignores that he has in fact beaten one of Eternity's avatars, with assistance from his considerably less powerful sibling Umar.

Here is my current version:

"Doctor Strange has referred to Dormammu as his "most terrible foe", and a threat to "the life of the universe itself", that "at full power no one could stand against". The character is composed of pure magic energy, and is capable of feats including energy projection; matter transmutation; size shifting; teleportation; body possession, resurrection of the dead, and bestowment of sufficient power to dwarf that of a Sorcerer Supreme. Dormammu is also apparently stronger in the Dark Dimension, being empowered by the worship of his followers, and can draw upon its power.

Among other examples, the character has engaged, and in one case defeated, avatars of Eternity; created a demonic entity at the scale of Satannish as an extension of his own power; imprisoned or transformed the elder goddess Gaea against her will; bested a host to the Phoenix Force; reached a draw against the Norse god king Odin in an abstract chess match that controlled the universal balance of chaos and order, hosted in the realm of Asgard; and through aid from the "Evil Eye" merged the "Dark Dimension" with "every planet" of the mainstream Marvel Universe, and forced Thor to change into his mortal Donald Blake persona against Odin's enchantment.

However, the character is frequently undone by his own impatience and arrogance, with the villain usually only defeated via trickery. The character apparently has one significant weakness, being vulnerable in environments that cannot fuel his mystical "Faltine flames".

Marvel's editorial department has produced various "Official Handbook" publications, wherein long, technobabble based explanation of the character's powers and equipment have been outlined. While this information was provided in an in-universe tone, it has not always been covered in-story, and is recurrently ignored or revised by writers as they feel the need. Within these, the character has been described as "one of the most powerful known mystical beings" in existence, with "virtually unlimited" ability to manipulate the forces of magic, and stated to possess "more raw power than even the most skilled sorcerer"."

Asgardian has recurrently used "No OHOTMU" as a justification to remove almost every explicit source, regardless that there are only 3 handbook quotes, and 14 separate references (referring to 16 different stories, and two of them used twice) that are not connected to it beyond some of the occasions being mentioned within them. He also previously contacted the general comics board for input when the consensus here was against him, and I already considerably deleted, reworded, and restructured parts of the column according to what was said in response. For example, the initial disclaimer before the 3 handbook references was inserted according to instruction from the Wikipedia Comics Project administrator User:J_Greb. Asgardian nonetheless ignored the inpu and changes and went along deleting all over again to revert to the same version as usual, but gradually inserted small parts of the references as seen above, just as I have incorporated any rewording changes of his that do not delete any reference.

That's about it. Dave (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Eternity's battle with Dormammu: I just thought it was worth noting, unless this event was retconned, in Dormammu's battle with Eternity, both entities were apparently destroyed, although it was later revealed that Dormammus attack and the resultant explosion simply incapacitated Eternity and transported Dormammu to another dimension. Currently, it is stated that Dormammu was defeated and banished, which is not accurate.

Perhaps this was written as such because Dormammu has since been represented as a weaker character, and omitting this information would lead to less confusion about the depth of his power, or maybe someone wrote that portion who had not read the actual comic, but either way, if it hasn't been retconned, that statement about him being defeated is incorrect. To omit such a detail of the result of his attack on Eternity is, in my opinion, to omit Dormammu's greatest feat and also omit the ending of one of Marvel's most interesting story arcs.

-RZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.169.134 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 2 May 2012

I'd like to request a change for the 1960's portion. Currently it reads "In an apparent bid for power the character engages the universal embodiment, Eternity, in single combat, but is defeated and banished.[6]" There are three key problems with this as is:

1)Dormammu destroyed Eternity's avatar and was transported to another dimension as a result of his own unrestrained attack. Dormammu's massive spell caused Eternity to explode, and the resultant explosion caused one of Eternity's internal planetoids to collide with Dormammu, which, as was eventually revealed, lead to Dormammu being transported to a random dimension. The use of the word "banished" implies some amount of volition; no one intended for Dormammu to be transported to that dimension, so that wording is very misleading.

2)Additionally, the word "defeated" implies that Eternity won the battle, ignoring the fact that Dormammu's "banishment" was the result of his own rage-fulled actions; it also ignores the fact that Eternity exploded, and whether dead or not, Eternity was left completely incapacitated by Dormammu's attack. If I were to walk into a bank with C4 strapped to my chest and blew himself up with the whole bank, writing "Building defeats Dormammu!" would be a pretty bizarre way to recount the events.

3)And finally, Dormammu attacked Eternity out of frustration due to Eternity's constant interference with his goals. Calling it a "bid for power" implies that Dormammu expects to gain physical power or the like from the encounter.

Fondofpacman (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: Would you please suggest a specific wording for the replacement? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Requests need to be in the form of "please change X to Y", not simply "please change X." elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dormammu. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130627044842/http://uk.comics.ign.com:80/top-100-villains/56.html to http://uk.comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/56.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)