Talk:Sally Floyd (character)

message: "In Civil War Frontline #1 Spider-Man revealed that he respects Sally because of her interview with Marrow, which he judged to have been fair. Sally is one of the three journalists Spider-Man trusts."
Who are the other two?  Ben Urich and Joe "Robbie" Robertson?  Just guessing here.
So. Why isn't there any mention of her being a retarded bitch when she's supposed to be interviewing Captain America on two seperate occasions?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.179.114 (talk • contribs) 
------------
It's been restored (and needs to stay restored, since the fan response against the character BECAUSE of her comments to Cap in CWF are the only notable things about Sally
--BakerBaker (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section reads like an individual's personal opinion covered by allusion to nebulous "fan opinion."  If information like this is to be included, citations to reviews, articles and other sources need to be provided.  I will edit the section and remove any unsourced statements of personal opinion.--Galliaz (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Four things: (1) please do not confuse my good faith edits, aimed at keeping the entry informative and objective, with vandalism.  I have never vandalized the wikipedia, nor have I used it as a platform to express my personal opinions, which is what I believe that you are engaged in doing.  My edits were aimed, as I stated in my summary, at making the article clearer; providing a full description of the character's appearances; correcting errors of grammar, spelling, and sense; and making the descriptions concise.  (2) I have no problem with fan reaction, or incorporating fan reaction into the entry: we just need to provide evidence for it.  Fan reaction is "nebulous" when it is invoked without any citations to the presumed reaction appearing in the entry.  (3) I'm sorry, but you cannot deploy a writer's parody (of himself!) as evidence of his, or anyone else's, opinion: no rules or conventions of evidence that I know of would allow that.  (4) You need to think seriously about interacting civilly with our fellow editors: if you're looking for a place to rant about characters you hate, and engage in verbal fisticuffs with people who disagree with you, do it at your personal blog, not on the wikipedia.  Given your stance, which you state yourself as being implaccable, ("I'll ... change the article [sic] "no matter what"), I think it makes sense to bring in a neutral reader to assess the situation.--Galliaz (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

message: Looking at this article with an outside eye, I have to comment that both the Galliaz and BakerBaker edits could use a little work — characters should be referred to by their last name after the first mention, for instance, and there is unencyclopedic minutiae here that's meaningless to the general-interest reader at which Wikipedia aims. However, the BakerBaker edits contain so many violations of basic Wikipedia policy, particularly those of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and require such thorough rewriting that the only practicable solution is to revert them and to ask BakerBaker to instead make individual edits — perhaps one paragraph's worth at time — and let other editors with that collaboratively before going on to the next. I would strongly suggest keeping the Galliaz version as the baseline for now.
I would note that Galliaz asked me, a neutral third party and a longtime WikiProject Comics member, to comment. That said, I have no bias for or against either of the two editors involved in these back-and-forth reversions, and strongly believe the BakerBaker vios are bright-line enough that were other editors to be called in for an WP:RfC, they would reach the same conclusion.
What's most troubling is BakerBaker's serious breaches of Wiki etiquette. Saying things like "shut the hell up" and "I'll fucking change the article back and keep doing it not matter what you try to do" really can't be brushed aside or glossed over; it's just not excusable, and the latter statement is enough by itself to get someone blocked.
The intractability that BakerBaker displays, added to a highly opinionated and vehement stance at odds with Wikipedia policy, gives me serious pause over whether he would agree to read and understand the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia and then contribute collaboratively — particularly since he (or this account, at least) has been editing since 2005. 
I would ask BakerBaker to seriously think about his behavior. Really, man: Would you like someone saying "shut the hell up" to you? Think about it: Is that really a logical way to get someone else to  see your side of things?
We need to work collaboratively here, and I would ask BakerBaker to brush up on Wiki policies and then return here so we can all work together. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third-party comments

message: There is another famous Sally Floyd, a researcher who worked on internet protocols such as reliable multicast, congestion control in TCP, etc (for more detailed informations see ). Maybe we should mention her with a disambiguation note --EffeX2 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation