"

User:76.110.22.186 left the following message on my talk page: 

I love how you just undid all my work on the Eddie Brock page without asking me to change or edit. Thanks so much for being considerate. Unsourced original reasearch? Its already sourced at the bottom of the page , do you really need me to resource it? 
It's all in Amazing Spider-Man and it's all characterization which is completely essential to the article whether you fail to realize that or not. So you removed it stating that it could be integrated into the publication section...IT WAS ALREADY INTEGRATED THERE BEFORE YOU REMOVED IT.

I’m sorry that you’re upset over the removal of the material you added, but part of editing on Wikipedia means that your edits may be mercilessly edited, and if the material you add is found to be in violation of policy, then editors required to remove it. They are not under any obligation to ask your permission to do so, and in general, the Wikipedia community is not going to rearrange the way they do things in order to suit the demands of a newcomer. Rather, it is your obligation to learn the ropes here.  Responding to my rather polite post above, in which I complimented your work, and provided links to the relevant policies in question, with the message you left on my talk page, which was rather rude in tone, and ended with an all-caps remark (which is considered the equivalent of yelling on the Net), is a violation of the Wikipedia's Civility Policy, and is not the best way to show the community that you’re willing to be a part of it.

For now, I’ll put aside your message to me, and try to explain a bit further the policies in question. 

Yes, Wikipedia’s Verifiability Policy does require that we source the material we add to articles, so that readers can verify the material. They cannot do this if we do not inform them of where the material comes from.

The sources in question have to be reliable. That means they must be considered credentialed experts in the area in question. For comics, examples would be sources such as Wizard magazine, Comics Buyer’s Guide, The Comics Journal, Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, books by analysts like Danny Fingeroth, and interviews on DVDs of movies adapted from comics, as well as any mainstream press stories you can find.

Websites whose content is user-generated, such as personal blogs, forums, message boards, fan sites, other wikis, The Internet Movie Database, The Comic Book Database, etc., are not reliable, because anyone can create a blog or submit material to those sites, which do not exercise editorial control over that material. Exceptions to this would be the personal websites of people would be considered reliable sources in the field in question, such as Mark Evanier, John Byrne, Peter David, etc. (See WP:USERG, which is part of WP:Identifying Reliable Sources.)

Similarly unacceptable is material derived from the editor’s own personal opinions, observations or analyses, which is called Original Research. Adding an analytical comment to an article about a film is fine if it's from a review you cite by Roger Ebert. Adding such a comment when the observation comes from the editor who adds it is not. Some editors point to the primary material in which the narrative is found, but the primary sources (such as an issue of Amazing Spider-Man) only contains the narrative itself; it does not contain any analysis of it. Material is not quoted or paraphrased directly from a source, but which constitutes an analysis or observation derived from it is called synthesis, which is a form of original research. The bottom line the need to ask, Who is the person making the observation? If it's the editor, it's simply not permitted.

The website you cited in your revert is not a reliable or verifiable source, not only because it is a fan site, but because it doesn’t even mention any of the material you added. It simply lists issues of the books. You can’t just point to books and say, “It's all in Amazing Spider-Man”. The original stories might be, but comments like ""The key difference between Brock's heroism and Peter Parker's mainly being..."" are not.

As for the remaining issues:
As far as the issue of integration is concerned, the analysis by Mike Conroy does not deal with the issue of characterization, so I added it to the Lead, where such summary-type analyses can go. The material on Paul Jenkins’ run belongs in the Publication section, alo