Originally posted by Mr MasterAgain, I've explained it numerous times in the past. Thoroughly. With established facts. I'm quite sure I've even explained it to you, actually.
Cool.But I wasn't seeking an explanation, just an issue title/# where WF was referenced directly/indirectly would suffice.
... even handbook/interview whateva should do.Mod's iron hand means nothing here good friend. 😛
Yes, a Mod ruling does mean 'something'. If you disagree, feel free to PM them about it. 👆
Originally posted by Galan007Again, I've explained it numerous times in the past. Thoroughly. With established facts. I'm quite sure I've even explained it to you, actually.
Yes, a Mod ruling does mean 'something'. If you disagree, feel free to PM them about it.
Mod's word means nothing in the comic book debate scene. They can be just as wrong as anyone else. This isn't about kmc rules.
Originally posted by Mr MasterSearch function.
My friend, it takes more time for you to write all that down, than to just write the title and # of an issue.
Yes, I believe I have seen explanations,
I just can't recall if other books were actually associated with WF in any way shape or form.
This is why I was requesting such. But it seems more difficult than I thought.Mod's word means nothing in the comic book debate scene. They can be just as wrong as anyone else. This isn't about kmc rules.
An outside party(a Mod) reviewed the evidence at hand, and found it sufficient to prove that WF is canon to Mxy. Again, if you have a problem with this, PM the Mod about about it directly. Stop hassling me. 👆
Originally posted by Galan007Search function.
Originally posted by Galan007An outside party(a Mod) reviewed the evidence at hand, and found it sufficient to prove that WF is canon to Mxy. Again, if you have a problem with this, PM the Mod about about it directly.
Originally posted by Galan007Stop hassling me.
I'm sure wiki can be wrong a lot and all... But how come it says this?
"Superman and Batman: World's Funnest is an American single issue prestige format comic book published in 2000 by DC Comics. It was written by Evan Dorkin and illustrated by many artists. It is an Elseworlds tale and as such is not considered part of the main DC canon/continuity. "
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I'm sure wiki can be wrong a lot and all... But how come it says this?"Superman and Batman: World's Funnest is an American single issue prestige format comic book published in 2000 by DC Comics. It was written by Evan Dorkin and illustrated by many artists. It is an Elseworlds tale and as such is not considered part of the main DC canon/continuity. "
COiE appeared during the WF iirc, which is an event that went through all alternate realities, also the Elsworlds became canon to DC, which changes this also.
Originally posted by NibedicusI could personally log-into Wiki and change that entire excerpt to read "pickles" if I wanted. Wiki is about the most unreliable source of evidence on the interweb. We go by comics here. Wiki articles and web-based interviews are entirely irrelevant/inadmissible.
I'm sure wiki can be wrong a lot and all... But how come it says this?"Superman and Batman: World's Funnest is an American single issue prestige format comic book published in 2000 by DC Comics. It was written by Evan Dorkin and illustrated by many artists. It is an Elseworlds tale and as such is not considered part of the main DC canon/continuity. "
That said, I've proven why WF is canon several times in the past--using in-universe evidence as my reference points. Prof TC listed one of those reasons above. Another short answer as to why WF is canon to Mxy is "Hypertime"--which Imps have access to(as Qwsp confirmed.) People just don't like accepting WF because the feats Mxy/BM displayed elevate them WELL above pretty much any other character in comics... But it is what it is. /shrug
Originally posted by Galan007
I could personally log-into Wiki and change that entire excerpt to read "pickles" if I wanted. Wiki is about the most unreliable source of evidence on the interweb. We go by comics here. Wiki articles and web-based interviews are entirely irrelevant/inadmissible.That said, I've proven why WF is canon several times in the past--using in-universe evidence as my reference points. Prof TC listed one of those reasons above. People just don't like accepting WF because the feats Mxy/BM displayed elevate them WELL above pretty much any other character in comics... But it is what it is. /shrug
Another short answer as to why WF is canon to Mxy is "Hypertime"--which Imps have access to(as Qwsp confirmed.)
So you edit Wiki articles to suit your argument.
Mindset was right, your soul is a cavern of lies.
^Wiki is not a credible source for anything, hence it is not allowed to be used in Academic writing in our University, for the already mentioned reason by Galan, everyone can edit it.
I love it and there are many good articles that are well made, still one has to do his/her own research, you can use it as inspiration but seldome as proof.
I actulally regularly edited Wikipedia articles to mess with my friend as all his reports he would constantly use it as a reference (even though our professor told us not to)
He was not happy when he found out about the changes I made that he "thought" we're accurate and included in his report 😖hifty:
So in summary no wiki is not a good reference
Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbeActually, that's an antiquated view of wiki that's no longer applicable and academia is starting to realize that. There's a lot more oversight on articles than there used to be. There's also referenced citations so fact checking can be easily done. Professors used to be scared of students using the internet at all because they didn't think it was reliable, they're old and slow to change, but Wikipedia is growing on them.
^Wiki is not a credible source for anything, hence it is not allowed to be used in Academic writing in our University, for the already mentioned reason by Galan, everyone can edit it.I love it and there are many good articles that are well made, still one has to do his/her own research, you can use it as inspiration but seldome as proof.
I remember you were pro wiki years ago. The problem with references also is they can redirect you to a website which may not be accurate. Majority of universities still don't use it as a credible source. Not sure about community colleges though? I know 8+ years they were against.
For instance I can still change articles at my whim, however they have started to lock some articles.....but their mostly just celebrity pages
Originally posted by -K-M-I don't know if I was ever pro wiki on here, but most scientific articles are monitored constantly, have cited sources, and are more up to date than a lot of the other written literature. I know of doctors that use wikipedia for drug facts, etc. and it there have been studies down showing its reliability in regards to that. A lot of universities will let you use the references that are cited in the wiki articles, just not the articles themselves, but years ago, at least where I went, my highschool teachers didn't even want us to use the internet at all because they didn't feel it was reliable, we see how that opinion has changed.
I remember you were pro wiki years ago. The problem with references also is they can redirect you to a website which may not be accurate. Majority of universities still don't use it as a credible source. Not sure about community colleges though? I know 8+ years they were against.For instance I can still change articles at my whim, however they have started to lock some articles.....but their mostly just celebrity pages
Originally posted by Mindset
I don't know if I was ever pro wiki on here, but most scientific articles are monitored constantly, have cited sources, and are more up to date than a lot of the other written literature. I know of doctors that use wikipedia for drug facts, etc. and it there have been studies down showing its reliability in regards to that. A lot of universities will let you use the references that are cited in the wiki articles, just not the articles themselves, but years ago, at least where I went, my highschool teachers didn't even want us to use the internet at all because they didn't feel it was reliable, we see how that opinion has changed.
Google Scholar is good if you're looking for cited stuff as it links straight to it.
Originally posted by Mindset
I don't know if I was ever pro wiki on here, but most scientific articles are monitored constantly, have cited sources, and are more up to date than a lot of the other written literature. I know of doctors that use wikipedia for drug facts, etc. and it there have been studies down showing its reliability in regards to that. A lot of universities will let you use the references that are cited in the wiki articles, just not the articles themselves, but years ago, at least where I went, my highschool teachers didn't even want us to use the internet at all because they didn't feel it was reliable, we see how that opinion has changed.
I will agree it is much much better. I personally would prefer more pages locked to prevent editing from anyone with a username. There are just far to many pages and people can't constantly watch them 24/7.
Yeah I have used references used in Wikipedia in the past for my university courses. Doesn't mean every reference they use is credible though. All my professors throughout my 6 years of schooling were not against the Internet as a source but were hesitant of Wikipedia being unregulated as it is. It's better, but still needs more work.
Originally posted by One_Angry_ScotSo does wikipedia.
Google Scholar is good if you're looking for cited stuff as it links straight to it.
Originally posted by -K-M-You're an old man, they didn't even have the internet when you were in college. babby
I will agree it is much much better. I personally would prefer more pages locked to prevent editing from anyone with a username. There are just far to many pages and people can't constantly watch them 24/7.Yeah I have used references used in Wikipedia in the past for my university courses. Doesn't mean every reference they use is credible though. All my professors throughout my 6 years of schooling were not against the Internet as a source but were hesitant of Wikipedia being unregulated as it is. It's better, but still needs more work.
I think there was a study done that showed Encyclopedia Britannica had as much erroneous information as wikipedia, this was like 10 years ago.
Originally posted by Mindset
So does wikipedia.You're an old man, they didn't even have the internet when you were in college. babby
I think there was a study done that showed Encyclopedia Britannica had as much erroneous information as wikipedia, this was like 10 years ago.
I just meant how it's another good thing you can use that's all.