User talk:A gx7

Fascinating

Following around your edits, I'm totally fascinated. You're completely obsessed with perceived exploitation and negative portrayals of fictional female characters, especially lesbian exploitation. Why? Also, you were snarky to me on my talk page, so I replied in due snark, and then further lowered myself with another note on your talk page, and your response was very impressive and humbling. Then you suddenly add a very cryptic line to your user page and blank your talk page. I'm riveted. -- AvatarMN 10:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I admire your concern. But I notice you're directing it mostly at fiction instead of reality, with a curious interest in girl-on-girl behavior. I wonder what that means. I can't tell if you like lesbians or not, your opposition to identifying Poison Ivy as bisexual is curious. I also wonder if you're qualified. You're male, so lack an certain intimate conenction to the subject matter that would be an advantage; and you're very young, so lack the experience that leads to insight and understanding, too. My edits will show a lot of subjects that touch on LGBT related content, but I'm a 32-year-old LGBT person who keeps abreast of the issues with a lot of reading and such, so I pretty much know what I'm talking about. Another thing you're doing wrong is coming at it from a very emotional, unsubstantiated angle; I can tell you right now that your new "portrayal of women in video games" article is not going to survive long. It's nothing but opinion and original research. It's contentious stuff that you're going to have to back up with the sources, and I wonder if you really know enough about it. For example, you argued that Storm's eyes have not always been blue, which is completely false. Do you often put in content that you don't actually know is fact? Misogyny is the main focus of your interests in editing Wikipedia, and you didn't know how it was spelled. Do you really think you're ready for this? -- AvatarMN 20:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're focussing on my credibility instead of what I've written, which goes against the basic principle of this site. This isn't the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit as long as they have no opinions. Another misdirected focus is being put on the fact that the content of the article I just started isn't up to standard. To say that an article whose subject matter has importance (and precedent in the form of the analogous comics article) shouldn't exist because of its current state is ridiculous. A gx7 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have addressed several specific things you've written, though I then went on to speculate on your credibility/ability and motivation, using them as examples. Maybe that's out of line, I don't know. And despite my efforts to help, the portrayal of women in video games article is going down in flames on it's AFD, as I predicted. -- AvatarMN 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Portrayal of women in video games

Portrayal of women in video games, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Portrayal of women in video games satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portrayal of women in video games and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portrayal of women in video games during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Melsaran (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikibreak ?

Hi, it looks like you gave up on wikipedia, or are you just having a break? I still would like to thank you for a contribution you made, when you get back; would you please drop me a note?  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello A gx7, I am going to revert your most recent edit on the batman enemy page and explain why in the discussion. Its nothing personal, lets just discuss this first. Thanks man. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Villains

I'll do my best to chip in if you want to use the Bat-villain Talk Page to suggest some revisions, but I fear that the sensible/sweeping/controversial changes that have been suggested many-a-time will not happen without razor-sharp sources and a lot of willpower! And sources are few and far between - and when I found several, they were picked apart, ignored or stating the obvious... Still, let me know if more comes of this. :o) ntnon (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Joker

Well if you source it, I can guarantee you that it won't be reverted ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk - your recent additions

Justing looking at your recent additions, some nice prose. Good job. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it :) A gx7 (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Items in the Mario series

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Items in the Mario series, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:NOT a game guide, previous article on a similar topic was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items in Super Mario Bros.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. shoy (reactions) 06:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batman

Hi, Agx7. I'm sure that the current intention for the main continuity DC Universe comic books is for Dick Grayson to be Batman for a while; perhaps even for a few years. However, there are three arguments against mentioning this in the lead of the article: one, in every other presentation of the character (including many currently published DC comics, such as Batman/Superman and All Star Batman and Robin) Batman will continue to be Bruce Wayne. Second, there have been times in the past when other characters have become Batman for a period (Jean-Paul Valley, Dick Grayson for a while before), and it always reverts to Bruce Wayne. And third, the article introduction should describe the character as he has appeared in 99% of Batman stories, and not give undue weight to recent developments. It's appropriate to mention the current status with Dick as Batman later in the article (you'll note that I didn't remove your addition under the "characterization" section), but not in the article's lead. In an overview of the 70-year history of Batman, Batman is Bruce Wayne and the current DC Universe storyline isn't that relevant. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, A gx7. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Arnold John Flass

The article Arnold John Flass has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable character

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arnold John Flass for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arnold John Flass is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rao (comics) for deletion

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

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

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

Jontesta (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Fantastic Four in film

Fantastic Four in film has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]