Nurdboy42

Because those covers depicts characters from the Marvel Battle Lines game and not characters from Earth-616.

The Marvel Appendix confirms the two are one and the same. As per Dave Sexton:

"Zoroastrianism believes in a constant struggle between opposing forces of good and evil. My original thought with Zoroaster was that he was connected to the Eternals and Deviants. He is actually the Zoroazztor that appears in Conan in possession of one of the Cornerstones of Creation, the Serpent Crown. He sought to use the tainted artifact for good and it broke his mind. I don't know that this works with the timeline. Maybe after Conan claimed the crown, Zoroaster recovered, started Zoroasterism and eventually became the SS."

Comments in the Marvel Appendix are usually taken aside, but given it's a writer participation, it is indeed to be added to the wikia.

And you kill two birds with one stone, as the comment also establish the Serpent Crown as the Crown of Wisdom, clearing at least partially the uncertainty about the Elder Gods and the Cornerstones of Creations being the same in Conan and in Mystic Arcana (and even adding the connection between them).

Yes, as long as your image adheres to the naming conventions and has the proper licencing.

They're reprints from 1976 of Daredevil #22, Daredevil #26, and Daredevil #27 respectively.

Oh, that's interesting. I've never heard of that series either. Looking through the Grand Comics Database it appears that issues #1-2 were called Marvel Adventures, while issues #3-6 were published as Marvel Adventure, without the S. There's already a Marvel Adventures page which means that will have to be renamed before a page for this series gets made.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

It was confusing with & w/out the "s". Of course back then they just wanted to make some $ off reprints and didn't think about the title or volume numbers. So, they are definitely not in there, right? Let me know if you need any add'l info for the issues that I have. Thanks.

If you could take pictures of the indicia to visually confirm the spellings it would be much appreciated.

Not a problem:

Let me know if you need me to crop it. I don't know how many they printed in the series. I only have these 3 issues. Back in those days when I was collecting I only had so much $ to buy & sometimes some titles had to be cut from my paper boy budget.

The lack of citations on certain articles are because they were added during a period of time when we did not enforce referencing. This Wiki has been around for over a decade and has a lot of material that has been added before certain policies were put in place. That doesn't negate the requirement to add them now. If you add content without references you're going to get your edits rolled back. This is coming from someone who is an administrator of this website.

Some of the rolled back edits are sentences that five or seven words long followed by another one of the same length so you really expect people to place a reference every fourteen words when it's surrounded by other information that completely lacks it?

That also still doesn't answer the question of why we have to add an overabundance of references that direct to pages that are basically empty and thus do not back up the information as a source in the slightest

You've got a few choices here:

Option One: You can continue to argue semantics and not following our guidelines. This will result in your edits being rolled back and you will rack up warnings.

Option two: You can follow the guidelines when you add information, which doesn't require much extra time and effort.

Option three: Instead of complaining of missing information/lack of citations elsewhere, you can add the missing information as we need more people to add these sort of quality edits that are absent at this present time.

The first option is a fast track to having your editing privileges revoked, because you're creating more work for others and doesn't help. The second is doing the bare minimum of what is being asked of you and we won't have any problems with this issue moving forward. The third option will actually earn you respect among other contributors since you're adding information that is absent and much needed on this Wiki.

Your choice.

So someone couldn't have messaged me 'hey put references all over this cause we expect it now but have no desire to do it on anything older' rather than just rolling it back right away causing me to loose what i obviously haven't got saved anywhere else and then when I point out that that having a butt load of references isn't helpful when they don't go anywhere you also want to add all the info for that as well so I'd have to write up two seperate comics full synopsis' for references that consist of 'she has a history of drug abuse (reference 1) and self harm (reference 2)' cause at the moment those pages references are empty and I have to do all this with the mentality of 'put up or shut up'. Yikes, seriously yikes, I'm the bureaucrat and admin of a wiki and if I started blowing my role out of proportion and expecting people to take this kind of thing and like it or I'd block them I'd be seriously worried that I was letting my tiny amount of online presence and authority go to my head. This only serves to alienate people who would otherwise contribute and seems pretty weird to me cause a quick look over a few recently updated pages shows that adding multiple references per sentence doesn't seem to be enforced very well seeing as how most recently updated pages aren't smothered in them like you're demanding, I won't be contributing on here again cause I don't need petty admin dictators and passive aggression in my life

While I agree you should have been informed why your edits were rolled back, that doesn't change the reason why your edits were rolled back. Nurdboy is actually quite good at informing people why he is carrying out actions. Perhaps informing you slipped their mind at the time and you should give them the benefit of the doubt.

You're being told now, and that should be your take away from this conversation.

If you don't want to edit on this site that's perfectly fine. Nobody is forcing you to contribute and you're more than welcome to spend your time elsewhere.

None of my past edits have required an over abundance of references, none of them have been rolled back and none of the pages I regularly visit that get frequent updates/edits are plastered with references and even when they appear they often don't have a corresponding comic page that actually exists or that features any more info than the publishing information.

I don't get why the entirely accurate information I provided having just read the issues the information I was providing was from had to be wiped out entirely when it consists of a half dozen different edits with information I would have to reread two seperate tpb to garner again when none of my previous edits have had to have this level of intrusive referencing.

Like I said before I'm a bureaucrat/admin of a wiki and we only have 2 dozen books and a dozen short stories worth of info with a few hundred characters to keep track of so I can go over edits myself and make sure they're correct, we don't do references cause info being in the correct headers or stating/quoting where it's from is enough seeing as there isn't as much of it to deal with as you obviously do here

The amount of references nurdboy would want to put in would be at least a dozen for what amounts to just over a paragraph of words, less than I've typed here in this response which just seems excessive to me when all the information is coming from the same dozen issues, some of it just from the same one or two over and over again and given that none of the other edits I've made have been expected to have this and all of them have been recent since the end of November.

I just don't get why I got the book thrown at me on this one and why I warranted the response I got, maybe its something that's just going over my head cause I'm autistic.

Well, I can empathize with your upset, I myself am on the spectrum. It's something I struggle with every day so I understand where you're coming from. I can also understand you becoming incredibly defensive with your work, I can get pretty defensive of my own work myself.

In a perfect world, all wikis would have the same policies across the board. However, that's not the case as each wiki operate independently. Also, the source material can be vastly different. As you pointed out, your wiki is dealing with two dozen books worth of material. Ours is dealing with 80 years of material across multiple entertainment platforms. Because of the decades of material we're dealing with, we require a lot more citations than most other wikis.

That said, as you are an admin on another wiki, you should show some professional courtesy and respect our autonomy and policies. If the roles were reversed, you would expect any one of us to extend that same sort of respect and courtesy if we were going to contribute on your wiki.

I understand this has gotten you upset, but perhaps instead of escalating things further accept that there has been some initial miscommunication and let's move forward. At the end of the day, all we want is for others to be following our standards and making productive contributions.

I guess I can understand that, doesn't help me understand why this particular pages edits were singled out when none of my previous ones were and why it was handled the way it was but it's not like I can change that, after all I'm not going to put the time into it again on this particular one when I feel like I'd have to have the rules open in another tab so I can be sure that whatever I do won't just get blanketly removed again so I'm at an impasse as far as this wiki goes.

I can try editing again and use references where I think they're needed by my own judgement as I had been doing and which hadn't been rolled back before for some reason or I can try the over citing method but with the amount of time I'd have to put into it I just don't really think it's worth it.

And which to me is a shame cause I like contributing and ensuring things are accurate but not if I have to jump through hoops and overwork for something that should be much simpler for me and had been on this wiki up until today for some reason.

Sometimes things slip through the cracks, but I assure you the mods are just doing their job and not singling anybody out. The lack of explanation on the article as opposed to a wall message is because unfortunately the rollback function does not provide a chance for an edit summary; however, remember edits are never actually lost, you can always retrieve them from the article's history later to go back and add the references to save time.

Also, if you're worried about "over referencing," one trick I use is to hide a reference if it's identical to the one that follows, that way it's visible to editors, but not the general public. For example, here's a couple redundancies I bolded for ease of understanding to note how I hid them while cleaning up Donald Pierce's article recently:

Anyway, I've changed the text at the end of the "References Warning" to better explain it wasn't always the case here, but being reliably peer reviewed is now a focus on the Marvel Database, and hope that helps others avoid confusion in the future.

In my opinion they're a style choice that helps provide context both to the setting, as well as the nature of various factions, though I typically only include them if they're a plot point or serve as a counterpoint to a named individual.

Is there any documentation about this? At the DC Database, we don't include a bunch of elbows in the background. This could easily spiral out of control...

There's an overhaul of the guidelines ongoing.