The way I see it, there is no main, secondary or tertiary antagonist of the Infinity Saga. It's a saga that has many focus points, but it's main focus is the Infinity Stones, not that it is one story with one main antagonist. Thanos was the main antagonist for Infinity War and Endgame, and that's it. Loki was the main antagonist for Thor and The Avengers. Each of those films had their own main and secondary antagonists. Even Whiplash was a main antagonist within the Infinity Saga. The only way there could be one main antagonist of the entire Infinity Saga, was if they were in ever film as the main antagonist.
well Thanos is the main villain of the saga because he's behind everything that's going on Loki is the secondary because he appears more than anyone else and he was an agent of Thanos but who would be the tertiary and the villains wiki says that Thanos is the main antagonist of the Infinity Saga and Loki is the secondary
Those parts are completely irrelevant to the character, as it's just a whole paragraph addressing how the Avengers were retrieving the stones because of the snap, so they traveled back in time etc. It's just unnecessary.
Also, I am doing it as Nerdtastic did so on the Hank Pym page.
I am doing it as Nerdtastic did so on the Hank Pym page.
Makes sense for that page, as the alt. Hank Pym was just there for the one scene & doesn't need the Avengers background info. However, upon deliberation, I will be restoring it to the Loki page, as the alternate timeline Loki is one we will be seeing a lot of in the future, and I think the page should have it listed how this alternate timeline came to be.
For characters like Hank Pym or Star-Lord, whose alternate timeline selves had a brief appearance & whom we will (most likely) never see again, simply having "alternative timeline" can suffice.
I would advise that you leave the Loki page. They should all be the same. Despite your reasoning, there is no reason why any of them need that unnecessary context. Whether it be one scene or something continuing into a series, it's all the same.
Take Jane Foster being fused with the Aether for an example: There is no need to write a whole paragraph about how it got there and that it involved a battle between the Asgardians and the Dark Elves, leading to Bor hiding it away. All it needs to say is what is relevant to Jane. Same with Loki. So, unless the context is told to him, it doesn't hold any relevance.
I don’t know. Doing the Simmons page was a lot, especially as I did it twice essentially. And the only reason I did I or even could do it was because I was rewatching the series, so I would have to do that again.
Besides, I was going to actually complete the Peggy Carter page next, then re do the Captain Marvel page, as well as expand the Hulk and Ant-Man Endgame stuff, so I don’t think I’ll get around to Fitz anytime soon.
Thanks anyway, I appreciate that you would want me to do it, and maybe I might, but as of anytime soon, probably not.
However, and this is up to you as well (and I don’t know your workload), but I would suggest that you should do it. I imagine the reason you want the Fitz page done is because that is the one you are interested in, so you should totally embrace that. But, up to you.
By the way, that website is insane! I just though it would some images of hm from the episodes, not literally every frame he’s in. If only there was that sort of website for Simmons, that would
Have made things a lot easier.
As you've still got an in use tag on the Jemma Simmons page I won't make the edit myself, so would you mind changing the Alternative Timeline section at the bottom of the biography part of the biography, as I've had to do for Enoch, Quake and Leo Fitz.
I'm actually get off now, but I too would like to know. It is very annoying. Although, I can understand why you may make that conclusion. However, I'm not really interested in the badges, that just happened to occur as well. Occasionally when I publish the edit and it changes all of it, a black bar appears up top and says something about an error, but I don't understand it. Hopefully when a do a full restart it will change.
What does it matter? Normally I would, but due to the amount I am uploading, and how there is no grouping for them, I will just stick with making it easy and not having to think of a new title for every image.
Due to your recent behaviour, I have decided to evaluate your history of contributions and to check if you're fit for the role of Discussion Moderator, given that I granted you that role based only on somebody else's recommendation.
Checking the you history of contributions and your message wall, I see that you're prone to engage in edit wars over articles in the main space of the wiki.
Using the argument of "wondering" if somebody has OCD to justify yourself during an argument is something that cannot and won't be tolerated. With just this, no need for more digging.
Considering that, I had to strip you of your Discussion Moderator role. Sorry for the inconvenience.
I would ask that you rethink this decision. My activity on the wiki in relation to editing does not resemble how I act as the Discussion Moderator. I think you have taken these instances too hard, especially considering the actions you have therefor taken. I'm not telling you what to do, but I think that demoting me is not the right way to go about this, and not only are you depriving me of my role, but you are depriving a great chunk of the control that occurs over the discussion area. I would stop editing for good over not being the Discussion Moderator, that's what you need to realise about the difference between my activity on the two things. So please, find it in yourself to reconsider this, or at least make it a temporary thing.
Yeah... I think you misunderstood that OCD conversation. That's perfectly understandable being in your position. It sort of required you to be either one of us during that time to understand. So if that is your main point (which I know you'll say you have many), then I have to ask you to withdraw it. Also, there's not of interaction in my role as Moderator, it's mostly maintaining stability and order in the Discussion Area (deleting inappropriate post and comments etc.), so I think you also misunderstand the role. Once again, that's perfectly fine, you have stated you don't hang out in that area, it's understandable that you would overlook that (not that I am judging your ability). However, while I do not have access to these emails, from what you have told me in the past, it was Marvelus who was mentioned. Once again, I don't know what the emails say, but this issue has never really been addressed to me directly by the Staff or by you. The only thing was the polls being deleted, and that cannot be held against me, that it shared amongst other users. Let's be honest, this should be a temporary thing if you are content on stripping me of the role. And as for being considered for the role again, you should know that I am incredibly suited for the role, and there are not a lot of other people who are (with no disrespect to them). Every user who could be promoted have been, and the ones who also could be, aren't active on the Discussion area. And the ones that are, most are not right for the role. That's why I was only able to nominate Marvelus. So, once again, think about this more.
And regardless of what you think of my behaviour then, I can assure you that this, and those recent interactions (which let's face it, were poorly timed too close together), have made me want to change and better myself. But, once again, I think the actions that have been taken in response to all this are not the best, as explained above.
If it is not any trouble, I wouldn't mind speaking with the aforementioned Staff member who contacted you about me. I feel it would be most beneficial to help me grow and change, and help you rethink my demotion.