FANDOM

Welcome to Ghostbusters Wiki!

I like to Welcome you to the Ghostbusters Wiki! Thanks for your contributions.

Teamwork

I suggest if you have not yet, to read the Introduction page, which is created to help out new editors like yourself learn to ropes, and what is and is not allowed here. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -Devilmanozzy

Welcome message

Thanks for the welcome message. I'd like to point out that it should read, "I'd like to welcome you..." Right now it says "I like to welcome you." Minor? Yes, but I thought you'd like to know since I believe that message goes out to all new editors. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 05:27, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think at a later day a complete rewrite may be needed, but I have changed it to "I'd" in that spot on the Welcome template(s).  Devilmanozzy (Talk Page)  10:47, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Stop!

Stop editing and review the Community Portal and policies first. Mrmichaelt 01:38, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

Stop What?

On my talk page you told me to stop editting and read the community portal. First of all, I have read the community portal. Secondly, your message appeared abrubt, rude, nonspecific, and unhelpful. I am not sure if you meant it to be so, so I thought I'd let you know how it was received. I am unsure if the message was just a general suggestion, or if you think I made an incorrect edit. I recognize that you are an admin who has spent countless hours building this wiki, but to send someone such a non-descript message is unhelpful. I am an avid editor on wookieepedia and not some newb. Receiving your message after the nice welcome from Devilmanozzy was really discouraging. Might I suggest you do not tittle your messages with "Stop!," or really anything with an exclamation. Also make sure you use 3 equal signs when you are trying to make a headline, not two. As it is I have 4 unformatted equal signs in my talk page (left there out of respect for you.)

I am sorry we got off on the wrong foot, and I hope it was not intentional on your part. I hope if we have any more communication in the future it will be pleasant. (since, once again, it is hard to tell intention of words on the internet, let me assure you that this is a sincere hope.) Feel free to continue the discussion if you desire. I am watching all the real ghostbusters in rapid succession right so I will probably be on here with regularity. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 05:53, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't intentional. I don't know what happened with the first message I left, there was much more there and I was unaware it was cut off. I'm sorry about that. But we have a specific set way we organize our articles here, as I'm sure most wikis do. Please look at some of the existing articles then compare them to your first edits with Turlock for example. As for Talk Pages, we use 2 equal signs otherwise when we get an email notification it thinks a different section is being edited. Mrmichaelt 06:04, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'll say something, now that I have read over the articles in question and the histories of the articles. Also, since you promote your editing time at wookieepedia, I have went down there to read that too. (Link) From what I gather the issue was with article Turlock, and mostly with how you formatted the article. While it was suggested "Fixing article; New users read the Community Portal and Policies and familiarize yourself with articles before editing whatever you want in them", there is no current guideline for this sort of editing. However, "familiarize yourself with articles" part is true as shown with Toy Ghost. I also see a odd edit where you claimed Zunk was "(Mentioned only)" on Ghosts R Us, when infact there are pictures of him in the the gallery and on his own article from the episode.
I think at the end of the day, you came here thinking that since Wookieepedia was part of wikia, that all wikis by wikia have the same "local" rules. I have never even read the rules to Wookieepedia to know what is permitted and what is forbidden. What I'm sure of, is the wikis are quite different.
Ultimate thoughts: You in good faith made edits here not seeing how things are run at this wiki. It happens, and trust me, I know how it is to be questioned to death on edits. All is pretty much forgotten on the edit mistakes. We all make some. What I suggest you do is go ahead and read the Introduction page and then take a look at some of the policies listed on Community Portal. Let's start over, and try to work together here.  Devilmanozzy (Talk Page)  10:31, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • Since you say your message was cut off, it's all good. It was the abruptness and lack of helpful input in the attenuated message that was the most offputting. I am sure if I received a well written and detailed correction I would not have been offended. To Both of you: I did go back and look at the Turlock edit. First of all, sorry about the Zunk thing. I ment to put "(mentioned only)" next to Turlock in the Ghosts R Us appearances section, since he didn't actually appear. By the way I think parenthetical (mentioned only) looks better than a bullet point underneath the name, but that is a discussion for people more involved than I.
As for my edits on Turlock. I followed the formatting of Slug exactly. If there was a problem with the way I formated, then you should review the Slug article and make changes where needed. Slug does not use the animated classifications link. I fully agree that your changes after mine made the article better and more specific. Based on the Slug article, I don't know if I did anything completely wrong. I have seen your changes and will base my future edits on that, but if there were glaring errors please remind me specifically. Is "classification" vs. "class level" consistent on all other articles? etc.
IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 21:19, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
Very good point, and it's clear we did at one time edit it as Class Level. Seeing that suggests there are most likely other articles with the "old" formatting. Another issue that is raised because of this is how would one have known the right formatting system if they just walked in here. I see a clear problem just in that factor alone. Looks like this wiki needs some more formatting issues addressed in the policy area for the Editing Guidelines. I'll see what I can get on there soon.  Devilmanozzy (Talk Page)  22:04, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
It seems to have been addressed on most articles I run across other than the ghosts in the Ghosts R Us episode. Seemed quite misleading, Sorry we came after your edits like that. Live and Learn I guess.  Devilmanozzy (Talk Page)  22:16, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
It was my mistake, seems Slug, Zunk, and Snarg need to be edited. I'll fix those. "Classification" is consistent on all other articles. And sometimes, links are specific between the movies and animation. For instance, for classification; the articles related to the movies all have their own page: Class 1, Class 2, etc. but for animation we have use Animated Classifications for all of them and put in the "|Class x" after the "s" in Classifications. Mrmichaelt 23:40, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology. I am just glad that you see I did use an article for comparison and tried to format consistantly. I just used a poor article for comparison. Let me know if I make any further consistant mistakes. I am really impressed with how complete this wiki is, and everyone who has worked on here should be commended. (There is nothing sadder than a wikia that is less complete about its own subject than wikipedia). I recognize that this wiki is smaller than things like wookieepedia and dc database and has much less new information and editors. Therefore, it can seem like new kids coming in and messing up your place. But that is what a wiki is for- everybody adding in hopes of getting the best info. I'd suggest that new editors be handled like this: "thanks for adding the new information. Take a look at the edits I made to your formatting (link) so that you can make more consistant/better edits in the future. Also take a look at the community portal. let me know if I can help clear anything up for you."
If I was really a first time wikian I would have probably never come back to this page after trying so hard to fit my minor edit to another article's style, and then being told I need to stop editing (as if I didn't have a clue what I was doing). It is clear from our discussion that a combination of an attenuated letter and an incorrectly formatted article used as a guide has lead to our misunderstanding. I am glad we got it all sorted out. I now feel comfortable editing on here again and hope to add more soon (although most articles are nearly perfect already.) IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 17:49, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Ok I'll level with you

At first I thought you were looking to get in the door here, and was trying to be as friendly as I could. But suggesting to change ever little thing here is not cool. This system came to the way it is by years of editing from many perspectives. I am trying to be very welcoming, but you are not going to change ever little thing here. I think you fail to see how crazy (work wise) some of your suggestions really are.  Devilmanozzy (Talk Page)  03:39, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Well I am sorry you feel that way. First off I'd like to say that I am 31, and I am from danville, IL not too far from your hometown (where I went to Medical School). When I saw your profile, I saw someone who was similar to me. Furthermore, your evenhandedness helping me and the other admin sort through the miscommunication that was my initial entry into this wiki was very nice. So I am not trying to be a jerk or nit pick, but there are some easy fixes that will make this wiki great. Since you leveled with me I will be frank (not rude) with you: between the small typo in your welcome letter and some of the broken english I have found on a few articles, it is clear that there is no one looking at the details. Obviously it happens, it is a wiki not a term paper. But I am just trying to point them out so we can fix them. It is easy (and necessary) to have rules for everything when a wiki has 15 admins and 50-100 editors a day. With that many people, every single detail has to be worked out. Now here it is different, There are only 3 admins and only a little over 200 editor ever (I think I am close on those numbers). With that few people, you can fall into a rut. I saw on you community portal, that you don't want to be "cliquish" but that is what it feels like to me. I am new, and in good faith I make suggestions and point out errors. I would think you'd be thrilled that someone is actually talking back to you on the Forums. How many of your posts have no responses? Furthermore, I have really only made four suggestions: 1. Change the "type of" articles to make it easier to use the article names in actual sentences 2. Change the /animated to (animated) for grammatical reasons. 3. Make most articles "in-universe" 4. Make in-universe articles past tense.

Now the first two changes arent that much work and I told you I'd handle it if you want. You guys seem to disagree with it so it ain't gonna change. Your the admins, that is your right. The second two suggestions will take lots of work and will have to be done over a long time. Funny thing is MrMichaelT agreed with me on those two (for the most part.)

All of the things I have done or suggested have been to make the wiki better. My suggestions are just those: new ideas for the admins to consider. Of course I've been very active. This is new and exciting to me. I haven't worked on a wiki with so few active members and so many articles in need of expansion (well DCwiki when it was starting out, but that place was as messed up as the DC continuity).

I am sorry that instead of being happy that someone asked a bunch of questions to make sure he was doing things right, you find me annoying. I am sorry that you found my (4) suggestions "nit picking." I am still going to edit articles as I continue to watch TRGB. If I do something wrong, feel free to fix it. I will be limiting my communications with you so as not to annoy the admins IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 08:59, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, honestly I am a little annoyed right now, so this may be uncalled for. But just to prove my point about a lack of attention to detail: 14 minutes ago  Devilmanozzy (Talk Page) edited Ghostbusters Cereal, an article you created and edited on three separate days. The second sentence says, "However, the name of the cereal changed based on the franchise item at that point was." The word "what" is definitely missing from that sentence. I am not sure if these are typos or if English is your second language, but I have run across a lot of these missing word or word order errors. After seeing those I think that maybe no one has questioned the grammatical errors or naming conventions before. It is not nitpicking, someone needs to do it.

Ok that was a little personal, and I hope I didn't offend. I wasn't gonna say anything but as I said, the tone of your letter was a little annoying. I am over it now. I will go about my own business but feel free to respond. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 09:20, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Edits

Hey, since I am doing a lot of editing lately, could you tell me if you see me making any consistent formatting mistakes that you have to clean up. I don't read most of the edits after I am done with a page so I may not notice the corrections myself. Thanks. And also, thanks for adding the blurbs from the dvd collection to the top of the page. I don't have the collection so I can't. Normally I just put the blurb from the plot section up top and then write a full plot. The offical blurb plus reference looks so much better at the top. Keep up the good work. And let me know if you see any patterns to my mistakes. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 11:05, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

As an example, here's the History for the "Boo-Dunit" article: Boo-Dunit history which compares my most recent edit with your most recent edit.
I've noticed a few spelling errors like you did above, too, in your third to last sentence. Since you said you use Google Chrome and it doesn't have a spell check (I think, I'm not sure since I use Firefox and edit in Source mode). Perhaps, putting your edit through Microsoft Word's spell checker or rereading your edit 1-2 times before publishing may help with that.
Also, I've noticed you started to but be sure to keep the summaries in paragraphs in the Plot so it doesn't look like a giant blob.
Also noticed you do two spaces between sentences. I think that's a formal grammar rule, but here one space is preferred.
Take a look at how I changed the link for "Agatha Grisley's" in the first line of the Plot section. That's how those type of links are done here.
That's what I can think of right now. Hope that helped. Mrmichaelt 06:02, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
So chrome's spell check works in Source but not Visual mode. I mostly use source and re-read but I'll try to use it exclusively. Some typo's are always gonna slip through. We are all guilty of that.
I just learned here that double spacing during editing is collapsed into one space when the actual article is published in all wikimedia. So I can use double spacing after a period and you can use single and it will look the same when published. I have confirmed that holds true in Visual and Source editing here: (. . . . . ) and throughout the last paragraph.
Agatha Grisley's you are right on. I was just lazy. I kind of thought the hyperlink expanded to fit the whole word.
The only consistent changes I've seen so far is your changing of the intro. I really like your references in that section. Since I don't have access to the source, it looks like you'll have to continue adding that to all the articles yourself. I am usually just taking the original abbreviated plot that someone else wrote and moving it up there in the mean time. If there is anything I can do to make your edits of the intro summary easier let me know.
Thanks for your thoughts. Let me know if you catch anything else that is major. Keep up the good work and quick edits. I dont know how you guys have time to look up the pertinent info on every episode I edit, but keep it up. You and Ozzy might be a little irritable at times, but you are the most dedicated admins I've run accross in the WIkiverse. IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 09:03, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
Fine with adding the loglines myself. I'm also going to be adding in Equipment and Locations sections if they aren't in the article already. If you want to do that ahead of me, that's fine, too. I dabble in time management, it's something of an art form in my opinion. I've done a lot to the wiki so I do get protective and irritable at times. And thanks, in regard to that last line. Mrmichaelt 05:03, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Here We Go Again

I am very unhappy with you IthinkIwannaLeia, we have a rule: (Introduction page:"We suggest to start in baby steps. Do basic spell check, grammar, and minor text add-ons. We strongly suggest against renaming/moving articles, adding categories, or adding images.") This was not clear as you state it was. His "b" or "d" sound a lot alike. I can't stress enough that there are talk pages on this wiki, learn to use them.  Devilmanozzy (Talk Page)  04:04, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

First off, I am not a beginner. I am very professional. I checked the talk pages and there was no discussion of the name abatha and agatha. I thought about starting a discussion but after listening to the line 5 more times, I concluded that there was no way that it was a "B" and that Abatha had to have been a simple typo.

Second of all, the issue is between a "B" and a "G" not a D as you stated above. With typo's like that is it any wonder I assumed that the Abatha was a typo and you would not have a problem with the change.

Finally, after listening to it, do you think I am wrong or right. I don't think this is about me being wrong. I think that this is about me changing things.

If I was wrong and you have access to a script that says abatha, then it is a simple matter of reverting 2 articles. No big deal- Press two buttons. Please do not reprimand someone everytime they touch your stuff. Since no one else edits here, you tend to get possessive...which is why no one edits here, and why this site is not very popular with some of the other GB fan sites (so I've gathered). This is a wiki. there are suppose to be edits and reversions and discussions with the community. Don't dismiss or belittle me every time I make a change you don't like. It is my right to do so if I think it is warranted. That is what a wiki is for. I should not have to start a talk page for every article I add or change. If there was a previous discussion on naming conventions that I ignored or if I continuously changed thing then it would be right to send me a message like this. Not every single time.

Listen to it again, see if the other admin wants to chime in. If you think I am wrong, revert it and let me know. If I am right (which I am--had 3 other people listen and they said "no question, its agatha") then just remember that.

You are a very expedient and dedicated admin and I appreciate that, but you have got to become less possessive. It is why wikia invented reversion buttons. Let people make their edits. If they are wrong, revert. If they are continuously wrong, THEN send them a letter (and try to make it friendly for Gozer's sake!). That is how all other wikia's do it. Try editing on others once in a while so you know the proper behavior for Admins.

Do not belittle my efforts and don't speak to me again with condescension. I make valuable improvements to these pages and you should appriciate, not berate. Thanks.IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 05:20, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

1) You are still considered a "Beginner" since you've only been registered with this Wikia for five months.
2) There are many times where I've had similar situations where I know what I heard and wanted to rename the article right away. But protocol for more moderate editing such as Renaming, always propose the change in the article's talk page first and allow time for us administrators to see the proposal, check it out ourselves, and post our agreement or disagreement. For things like changing "is" to "was," naturally you don't have to start a topic on the Talk Page and a simple sentence on the Edit Summary suffices.
3) The "b" and "d" sounded like a general observation he made about the voice actor.
4) This is about following the rules. The individual wiki's created under the Wikia brand have their own level of autonomy and set their own guidelines and rules. If someone registers here having prior wiki experience, all the better. But they still have to conform to our wiki's rules not ones they've worked on or are working on.
5) Of the 9 edits you've done recently, I've only seen Devilmanozzy write you a message for one. I don't see how he's dismissing you every time you've made an edit.
6) It's "appreciate" not "appriciate."
7) Who cares about being popular with some other GB sites? I don't. I hope Devilmanozzy doesn't. Sure, we've made a few friends with some of the other site owners (though I'm still not sure who doesn't like the wiki but don't care in any case). That's not the point of this wiki. It's the proliferation of information in a structured and procedural fashion. And really, try not to digress and get personal when you're trying to make a point. Mrmichaelt 06:05, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response MrMichaelt. It was slightly more professional than ozzy's certainly. That is my main point. Topics like "OK I'll Level with you" and "Here We Go Again" have an aire of condescention about them that are unprofessional for an admin. If he would have said, "Just to inform you, in the future all article name changes need to be talked about first," Then my response would have been, "Ok, I felt justified making the change, but I will make sure to do that in the future." It is because of the condescending and possessive attitudes that I receive here that whe are once again having a long discussion.
to answer you points:
1. I disagree and by thinking of me as a beginner, I think it is obvious why I receive the condescension. Regardless, Admins should be supportive of beginners, not snooty brats that don't like people messing with their articles.
2. You are correct. I didn't know it was such a strict protocol. I will start a talk before renaming from now on. I didn't originally because I thought I was saving time. I still have not heard if either of you think I am wrong (I wont say I told you so. I just want the article to be right).
3. I guess only he knows what he meant for sure but the G in the questioned dialogue is no way confused with B. I am watching a recording from a Jetex broadcast and my friends and I can hear it clear as a bell.
4. Each wiki is different. But their are standards of behavior that are common throughout most wikis. I have never experienced admins that were so condescending on any other wiki. I guess Ozzy doesn't have to be cordial when he communicates. And I think both of you tend to err on the side of overprotective and possessive when it comes to changes. This is natural because you don't see alot of other editors on this wiki. The reason is because of your treatment of said editors. You intimidate instead of support. You Condescend instead of educate. Both of you have been guilty of it but you much less so. If you don't want other people to edit, turn it into a regular webpage. If you want it to be an active wiki, encourage edits, even if they are mistakes (then educate about the mistakes). Reversion is not hard to do as long as it isn't happening multiple times a day.
Also, as Ozzy pointed out, it says "Strongly Suggest against renaming articles." It doesn't say, "the rule is that you have to talk about moving it before you do. That is why I felt I was within my rights to do so. I felt it was one of those rare cases where it didn't need to be discussed.
5. Yes I was using hyperbole. Although the frequency seems a little high (micromanagement) The real problem is the way he says things, as I have stated above. We should be friendly here, not annoyed with one another.
6.True but not really relavant. I think you were just humbling me huh?
7. If the point of the wiki is proliferation of info, more editors would help that. If you scare off all the other fans by being bitchy when they edit, then you get less people adding. So you saying, "who cares if they don't like us" is really missing the point. My point is, that I think your possessiveness of the site tends to scare people away. I am actually kind of nuts by staying her. I feel disrespected and marginalized for trying to help this wiki. Not only that, but I am pretty sure it is intentional. If you look at my talk page, It has been 90% negative. It seems that one of you will say something in a negative tone, I will call you on it, and the other comes in as a more impartial party. We get it worked out, then when you percieve I made another mistake, Instead of saying, "hey, Just wanna let you know that we prefer it this way" you say, "Look dude, quit making edits on the ghostbuster page that anyone can edit."
Admins, when you feel you need to correct someone, be positive about it. Compliment something someone did right, then correct the mistake. Or at least don't say, "Here we go again...I am mad at you. That is unprofessional and quite frankly more appropriate behavior for a TROLL than an ADMIN.
I don't think I am alone in my opinion. I think everyone else that faced this adversity just left. This is why I bring up fans on other forums not liking this page. I think I may be the only one who took the time to tell you to your faces. As for being personal. I think this is a personality problem. There is no U in Wiki, but there is a Wi. :) Please take this as an honest and selfless attempt to try and make this wiki a better, more communal place.IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 07:14, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
A) Yeah. That makes sense with the message titles and the tone. I'll make a note of it and look back at previous Talk Pages I've posted on.
1) We're going to have to disagree on this point. I don't think either us will change our stance on it.
2) I did throw my two cents on the Talk Page. I agree it sounded like a "G." We're just waiting for Devilmanozzy to sign off or for the conversation to continue. Then we'll go from there.
4) Like A), I'll take all of what's been said into consideration. But I will say there have been times when we've been repeatedly cordial and nothing changed. So we haven't been doing things wrong 100% of the time.
5) Sure, a good tone is a plus in these situations.
6) To be frank, your spelling is still erroneous at times. Though not as bad as before. Does your Editor window perform an auto spell check for you and underline misspellings in Source Mode? I know Firefox and Chrome do so, but I'm not sure if the new version of IE does. I'm fairly sure Visual Mode doesn't do the check.
7) Well, I'll say I came in as impartial because I wasn't online when this rename happened so I'm catching up to what's going on. I'm trying to be more patient and change how I go about these conversations, as well. I think I've improved over the last couple months.
B) For the last two paragraphs, I'll take that all into consideration as well. A lot more people have to be frank with us or we'll keep doing what we're doing, y'know? Devilmanozzy just had an anonymous survey up on the front page so everyone had an ample opportunity to voice their thoughts without identifying themselves. Mrmichaelt 07:56, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't know where to begin with pages of text here. I like things brief, and I will say this again that you didn't follow protocol.
You in your accusations say "Since no one else edits here, you tend to get possessive...which is why no one edits here, and why this site is not very popular with some of the other GB fan sites (so I've gathered)." I wont try to speak for all gb fan sites but I hear good things about the content itself. I do hear bad things about the ads being intrusive. And we both know Wikia's game so there is nothing to be done there. I have been made aware that along with being supported by Spook Central, and Ectocontainment, we also are among many sites the IDW team uses to come up with they references and inside jokes in the Ghostbusters Comic series. I am proud of that, and that to me is most important. Winning favor with the general fan-base, while nice wouldn't really change much for me. Been at this 4 years.
"slightly more professional"... that would have been to simply block and undo. I didn't do it cause I still "assume good faith" even tho its not the policy here, I still like the kid gloves on in the hopes we can work through these differences. If I had thought you were a troll or vandal I wouldn't have bothered to deal with all this. I think you missed that point somewhere in your angry bashing. Try the same type of edit at Batman Wiki and in a day Doomlurker would have undone everything and sent you on your marry way out.
Wiki's all have different standards to what is permitted. Ghostbusters Wiki over the years has went from "everything goes" to "reference it or we undo it, and also take your issues with content to the talk pages or a blog". Is this a good thing, maybe or maybe not. But the content here has the respect of people in the greater GB community in the know. That is what I concern myself with.  Devilmanozzy (Talk Page)  09:56, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
If you think professional equals block everyone who is editing this in a way you don't see fit, then you really missed the point. I will try to be brief: You should not have started off your message with, "I am very unhappy with you." Just state the facts of what needed to be corrected. Leave you opinions of me out. If you don't think your behavior was personal and unprofessional, I hope someone cans steer you in the right direction.
As far as policy, the only one I see says "strongly suggest againts renaming articles." As above, I felt this one was a typo and didn't need discussed. Guess I was wrong.
Also, I am not going to be waisting time with these long discussions anymore. If you see something of mine that needs to be corrected, then do so. If I make the same mistake multiple times, or a huge one, then send me a message stating the problem plainly and in a polite manner. Other than that, there is no need for us to be having long discussions.
As for the content...yeah it is great. And I want to make it better (more complete and with proper composition). Lets hope that we can all get along so that that can be done. Your both great admins in terms of expediency and involvement (your people skills or message writing needs work). I think it is pretty clear that I am trying to help improve things, so lets be cordial.
IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? END OF LINE

Spoiler Policy for comic

I undid your edit to the Ghost in a Can article. The spoiler policy for comics is a four month waiting period before editing any article related to what's in an issue. Mrmichaelt (talk) 01:37, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

  • Didn't think of that.IthinkIwannaLeiaWaddaUthink? 02:26, March 2, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.