User talk:Asgardian

Please leave a new message. Thank you.

Applause

For what it's worth ... I recently was reading the Red Hulk article, which provided me with some interesting reading on the talk page for a while ... but I although we have little contact, most of my recent path crossing with your editting I've been quite please with. I noted a good degree of thoughtfulness in your edits, comments and responses which is impressive ... if not exemplar. So in short, a bravo to you, it seems clearly well deserved. Best of luck in cosmic Marvel-land it seems you're doing great virtual guardianship of it. -Sharp962 (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Ban evasion

Due to extensive ban evasion I am resetting the ban on this account, per WP:Ban#Evasion and enforcement. If you have any questions about this I'm happy to try and answer them, but I note that I'm doing this procedurally: If you think that the ban should no longer apply, or otherwise find the reset incorrect, please discuss this with arbcom.
Amalthea 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Spartan Pride"? Seriously? If you're also that "Cosmic Egg" fellow that popped up elsewhere with identical personality, arrogance, and attitude, you're starting to get as bad as JJonz in trying to select handles that you think will annoy me. Dave (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

You are banned indefinitely for repeated evasion of the 1 year ban placed in your arbitration case. This repeated evasion has been confirmed by CheckUser. You may email the Arbitration Committee directly if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Place to Comment

Greetings. I was invited to comment by SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} regarding this ([1]) but can't access the page as still blocked. Could someone kindly advise as to how to proceed? Some valid points have been made I would like to address them. Many thanks Asgardian (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can always add comments here and have them copied over; you could use the {{helpme}} template to attract someone to assist you. Amalthea 11:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do so. I will leave a note at WT:AC/N drawing people's attention to this talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth; do you have an email address I can reach you on? I've seen sonething I'd like to ask your opinion about. Kind Regards.

Asgardian (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response

My request to be unblocked seems to have solicited a variety of responses. Some are perhaps a tad melodramatic (I never thought of myself as a recidivist) or being "relentless". That said, I can understand why there is cause for concern. I was one of several people who at the time engaged in consistent edit warring to ensure that the articles were written "my way". As I indicated in my initial statement, I realize that this was a mistake. A near-perfect article (if there is such a thing) is wonderful and a point of pride - but not if you've walked over everyone else to reach this goal. The process is just as important as the outcome. I know now that instead of say, just verbally crushing a junior's editor's effort, I should explain to them why their edits need reworking and refer to policy (teaching to fish so they eat for a lifetime and all that).

I'd also like to applaud Nightscream for his civility and being a firm voice of reason. "Narcissistic" was right on the money. I would hope everyone can keep such perspective as we discuss this.

Finally, I see there have been some claims re: sockpuppets. Definitely not me - although there are some hardcore fans in my native city who I believe dabble in Wikipedia (after all, not everyone is based in the US).

Feel free to ask questions as we proceed. Regards Asgardian (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that last sentence a reference to my proposed criteria in the ban appeal discussion? Nightscream (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's fine. I'm also disappointed at some of the assumptions made by others in their responses. SilkTork, for example, claims that I am arrogant and deceptive? What is the rationale for this being the case now? I was condescending to many junior editors. Did you want more elaboration? As to the veteran editors, that's why I stated that I was happy to field questions. It would more productive to focus on what they have concerns about as opposed to a huge body of text by myself that may not address their concerns. By the by, I'm afraid I don't follow the last response (J Greb) at the discussion. Perhaps more clarification? Asgardian (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. You state above "I know now that instead of say, just verbally crushing a junior's editor's effort, I should explain to them why their edits need reworking and refer to policy (teaching to fish so they eat for a lifetime and all that)." Is it your view that those who leveled criticism against you for your behavior during the various conflicts leading up to your ban were generally "junior editors"? Can you define what you mean by the term "junior editor"?

2. In the evidence I presented to the Arbitration Committee in March 2010, I summarized four recurring behaviors on your part that I pointed to as the reason for the revoking of your editing privileges. Do you agree that you indeed exhibited those four behaviors, and persistently? Or do you disagree? Nightscream (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream, thanks for stepping up and asking me some direct questions. OK, I think almost everyone misconstrued what I meant by "junior editors". That was never an allegation against the likes of yourself, or say, Tenebrae. It was a reference (without venom) to users such as Ghidorah (see Juggernaut) or DrBat (see Vision). You can pick fairly quickly who is more "mature" by the style and manner of their edits, and, it is a fact of the world that anyone can edit and some users are older and more experiencd than others. Realizing this, I should have used discussion to deal with our differences instead of butting heads and blindly reverting, irrespective of whether I was right or not. Although we clashed at times, it was never an allegation levelled at you. In fact, looking back, I don't why I ever argued against things such as a Publication History. And I still respect Tenebrae for adding his finesse to articles such as Adam Warlock. I hope that clears that point up. Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the second point, the gist of all four is the edit warring, which I constantlly engaged in. If there was no edit warring, there would have been no animosity. No need for umpteen discussions, wars of words etc. Quite a waste of everyone's time when you look back at it. For that, I am truly sorry. Asgardian (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome.

You say you were referring to users such as Ghidorah and DrBat. But when I provided, during the ArbCom case, a list of the 18 editors and admins who had provided evidence against you in the December 2009-February 2010 RfC, you responded with the comment, "Unfortunately, Nightscream's assertion that there are '18 long-tenured editors who wrote or endorsed summaries against him (8 of which are administrators)' actually doesn't paint the whole picture. Many of these editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked..." So it wasn't just two editors with whom you were involved in editorial conflicts; you indicated that "many" of those who presented evidence against you were inexperienced, even though most of them were not, and even though editing experience bore no relevance, since RfCs and ArbCom cases are not editorial matters, but administrative ones, in which the relevant criteria are the ability to discern whether someone has violated policies or guidelines, and not editorial experience. Is this still your viewpoint of those who presented evidence against you during the RfC and ArcCom?

As to the second point, the gist of all four is not edit warring.

When you make an inappropriate comment about another editor, stating that they are "unbalanced", "unhinged" and that you can imagine him "shrieking at the computer", and you ignore attempts by another editor or admin to advise you that this is unacceptable, and even go further be later alluding to that editor's medical condition, that has nothing to do with edit warring.

When you state a falsehood, and an admin points out evidence of this, and you respond by claiming that providing said evidence was somehow "immature", and falsely claiming that this is grounds for losing one's admin privileges, that has nothing to do with edit warring.

When you systematically dismiss the positions and criticism of others ad hominem by claiming they are "emotive", "subjective", and merely "opinions", and employ other non sequiturs, instead of falsifying their arguments via evidence and reasoning, or stonewall entirely on questions put to you, that is not edit warring. That's a character issue that goes directly to WP:CIV and WP:GAME.

Again, if you'll pardon me for asking again (and I'm only asking because I want to be clear on your position on this), do you agree that you indeed exhibited those four behaviors, and persistently? Or not? Nightscream (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll have to excuse me if my memory on exact points is hazy - I haven't read any of those entries since they were written. I can only say again that I am sorry for the part I played in all the edit warring. Yes, others were also at fault at times but we're talking about me. I'm a far cooler customer now than I was then, and have a certain perspective. If anything was said that you took persoonally, I apologise again. Rather than rehashing specific cases, I would much rather just try and move on (as I said, perspective - at present my native Sydney is being lashed with storms and much of the eastern seaboard is flooded. Wikipedia ia fun, educational and a great humanitarian tool, but we're not saving the world. These days I can handle someone reverting me and be fine waiting a few days to discuss!)

Regards Asgardian (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Terraxia.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Terraxia.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Invaders-36.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Invaders-36.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Amazing Adult Fantasy, no. 9 (front cover).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amazing Adult Fantasy, no. 9 (front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock notice

The committee has, by motion, suspended Asgardian's site-ban on the following terms: -

Asgardian is indefinitely topic-banned from Marvel Comics, broadly construed. Violations of this topic ban may be enforced by blocks, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. The third such block shall be indefinite. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.
Asgardian may not edit from any Wikipedia account other than "Asgardian", nor edit anonymously, without the express prior permission of an arbitrator or a checkuser.
For the period of one year after unblock, if Asgardian edits disruptively at any time (particularly if he is given a legitimate block by an administrator), he will be blocked indefinitely. This would include breaching his single account restriction.

These conditions will be posted to Asgardian's user talk page (at which point he will be unable to remove them for one month, so that they are clearly visible to any editors who view's his talk page during your transition back to contributing). The conditions will also be announced at the "WT:BASC" Wikipedia page, and a link to them will be included in the block/unblock log for the account.

For the committee, Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]