You have been permanently blocked for your your inability to have a respectful conversation with a fellow user, as well as your totally unwanted and rather unpleasant commentaries on grammar. Correcting mistakes (or what are perceived by us as such) doesn't make any of us better than anyone, thus do not act as if you're better than anyone for doing so. Have a nice day.
I already explained that I believed there was a feat to emphasize when I wrote the description of Voyager's powers. You might think it's not worth emphasizing, but don't say it was added for no reason when I added it and I know full well there is a reason I added it, and then say it's poor grammar.
That is subjective. As I already mentioned, the use of the word might have been superfluous, but don't hold your opinion as a fact to accuse people of poor grammar or to keep insisting that a decision had no reason when I just explained the reason behind it twice.
Again, don't hold your opinion as a fact. I considered the feat to insert entirely fictitious characters into people's memories interesting enough to be emphasized. And it is, since most of her other feats involved lesser alterations.
Yes, I came to your talk page, to respond to your mean-spirited edit summary from Voyager's page. But unless I'm mistaken, you answered, and all I've ever did was reply to your responses (and vice versa), so don't act like I'm spamming messages that go unanswered. You are at as much fault as me for keeping this conversation going. Stop pretending it's one-sided. I mean, for a person that said "Tah-tah!" you're still here as well.
If the only way you have to end an argument is to insult the other person while also acting condescendingly throughout the entire conversation, that only shows how poor your arguing skills are and how bad of a temper you have.
You enjoy being talked down to. Just look how much fun you're having with it.
You really are stupid. "Yes, I came to your talk page..."
You came here because you wanted to talk to me like a child and tell me the definition of a word any grown adult should already know. That should have been common sense to you but, it wasn't. Of course it wasn't. It would only be common sense to someone who knows when and when not to use the word. You don't.
You don't know when and when not to use "superfluous," either.
You don't know who can and can't "sustain an argument." I have literally proven you wrong on everything you have said to try and sound smart. Smart people don't try and sound smart. We are smart. That's why dumb people like you can't leave us alone. You keep coming back hoping you can have the last word and finally say something intelligent but... you're just more and more immature every time you continue your tantrum because someone corrected you.
No prob. I do remember an article where Fred ven Lente specifically names the 'Dead Avengers' characters as being dead again (and he says he wanted some to be alive but it wasn't up to him). If I can find it, I'll send it to you.
Its English etymology from the 17th century was differentiated from the term "adaptation" which evolved from French in the middle 16th century and therefore was not initially an "error word" as you put it.
Although some may now view it as such, that's simply because layman no longer understand the difference between the two words and when to use one instead of the other, thus the distinctions have therefore become blurred over time by the misconception of what's acceptable as "common language".
Anyway, my point is not to debate whether it should or shouldn't be used in this case, merely to provide edification that it was indeed properly used by whomever had originally drafted that section of those articles after all.
Uh huh. Thanks for the long, drawn-out version of what I already said: "It's an error word that, over time, has become common language, much like "ain't" or "irregardless." I was correcting an error word by replacing it with the actual one."