Talk:Nodwick

Untitled

I swear, why dont people read articles before they edit them? I made an edit about how it was revealed that Cont Repugsive is a chick, and someone came in later and edited it to say the exact same thing in the NEXT SENTENCE! there wasnt even a break between the two sentences, it was just "It was recently unveiled that Repugsive is actually a woman. We recently learned that the cont is in actuality a contess..." Please people, in the future read the article before you edit it so we dont say the same thing twice like that. DurotarLord 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nodwick (the comic) is much older than currently claimed in this article. The archive on the current website doesn't go back any further than march 2001, but by that time Nodwick had already appeared in Dragon Magazine for many years, and some of those comic were available on the old website. Great Cthulhu 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Checking my back collection, you're right. Dragon 246 has a publishing date of April 1998 and contains a 4-panel Nodwick strip. And it's available online here[[1]] 172.201.93.201 18:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I'll modify the article to mention the new date and remove the disputed tag. Great Cthulhu 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe Nodwick was also a secondary character in Dorkness Rising, the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.188.110 (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bezzler Nonsense

Can we please cut this "bezzler" nonsense? Anyone with half a brain cell can tell that it's a play on "embezzler" and has nothing to do with sex organs. I'm sick of this vandalism.--Filby 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate...--Filby 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism - but merely stating a definition. Does the accuser have sexual hand-ups.--149.4.106.121

Let's refrain from juvenile ad-hominem attacks, shall we? As stated, it is an obvious play on the word "embezzler" -- look it up. This "genitalia and urinary organ" business is puerile and even if it were intentional on the author's part, it has no place in the article.--Filby 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of the editors, including AdamBMorgan, Filby, and Wknight94 are obviously puritanical with respect to the ":bezzler" and not with the times. "Bezzler" is not an obscene or perverted term. --CJ Hafner 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't said it was an obscene or perverted term. I remove it because it is an irrelevant term that has nothing to do with the article. If you want it on Wikipedia, why not create a Bezzler article? AdamBMorgan 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, you're talking to a community-banned sockpuppeteer and troll. The bast tactic is to revert, block, ignore. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Nodwick/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I've read the article, and it acutally is almost "B" quality. It needs a decent bibliography (or at least a link to one - Aaron is very prolific). Bit without that, it remains a start class article. As far as importance is concerned, Nodwick is of Top importance within a specific sub-genere (RPG themed comics), so overall in the entire comics genre, I recon that puts it in the "Mid" catagory. Timmccloud 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)