Talk:List of X-Men members

message: To the person, that keeps insisting that Woofer is, I disagree. This has been discussed before in this talk page.Hotwiki (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, using Aiptcomics.com as a reference? Please find a better reference per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Hotwiki (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to be calm, Sir. It is not personal attack (attack is what you've just threatened to report me), I just wrote the events of what happened while adding Woofer. If I wanted some "attacks", I would've gone for edit warring and not be on the talk page. It is true that some editors are biased or otherwise Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias wouldn't have been existed. Just read the whole discussion again and see how you sound, so please try to be civil. Talks/discussion on the same topic can happen again with time and improvement. I humbly think it is biased (even if you were not biased while making that decision) because Woofer was removed because of small reasons. I countered those reasons above and got threatened to be reported. It doesn't matter of consensus / if you agree or not because I have another reliable source and that is enough according to Wikipedia:Citing sources unless you also want to declare it not reliable. That's why I had bold font while mentioning the sole purpose of Aiptcomics.com source there to indicate that writer himself has told Woofer to be an X-Man (Which can also be found on the first source). Again, I humbly request to add him to the list because I don't want edit warring. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, read what you posted. You blatantly accused this article of having some sort of bias. You were first questioning about inclusion of Dr. Nemesis, Jeffries and Boom Boom. Then when you were presented by clear evidence that those were members of the X-Men by two different editors. You suddenly made this about Woofer, Aurora and bringing up "bias" claims. Hotwiki (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And I backed off after being presented by clear evidence. I was also going to add a new topic on Woofer after this topic ends, but I decided against it because I got a point of references from you in this topic. Aurora was just a comparison/counter for the reason on why Woofer can't be added as he only appeared twice (She wasn't even declared as X-Man like Woofer in that issue). I am not asking for removal of Aurora now and also before Boom-Boom, Madison Jeffries and Doctor Nemesis as after you revealed that this whole page is based on "handbooks", I backed off and agreed with you to let them be. Then when I presented evidence regarding Woofer, instead of backing off or adding him to list (which again shows biased opinion), you keep talking rudely to me. One more thing, I didn't allegedly accused this whole article to be biased - just the decision of Woofer's inclusion. Please read the replies regarding Woofer carefully and the sources too. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No one was talking rudely to you in the first place. You exhibited bad faith when you used "bias" to describe things here and I simply to responded to it, since that came out of nowhere and your comment wasn't civil. Please learn to respect your fellow editors. Also, please find better references. The article is already tagged for needing better references and you don't need to add a fansite (aiptcomics.com) as a reference. Thank you. Hotwiki (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on my own talk page as well that I didn't intentially exhibited this bad faith you're referring and again I apologize for that. But Aiptcomics is not a fansite, it does podcasts, reviews and has its own news column too. Regardless of it as you said "The article is already tagged for needing better references" in the last reply, add Woofer in the list on the basis of first reference provided which is reliable. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I have added Woofer on the basis of references and above talk. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There is no consensus. Also, please read MOS:COLHEAD. If you're planning to drastically change the entire article, you should probably discuss it first to avoid issues. Also, Swords of X handbook isn't the main reference of the article for you to pinpoint it in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And the word "formerly" doesn't need to be in italics. Hotwiki (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, may I add, the current format of the article is fine as it is and doesn't need to be changed, unless new members are introduced. The drastic changes you made, made the article looked like a mess in my opinion and doesn't really comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Hotwiki (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I worked in my sandbox before uploading here but I can do it again one by one with valid reason so that it might not be "drastic change". First you tell me only those are members who are in the X of Swords Handbook page which can be clearly seen above and now you say X of Sword Handbook is not main reference? (Do you know how you sound?) Anyways that was why I added in note saying "they are based on". Regarding Woofer, according Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to it doesn't need consensus if you have valid references and that decision was biased which is shown as you didn't answered for five days an when I added Woofer, you immediately removed him. YOU get a point regarding Woofer, previous talk has decided, then references are not valid, now not reaching consensus?. and in doing so, you removed all the work I have done but I will do it again for the sake of the page's information because in my opinion it is absolute mess too but I will do it based on neutral ground and "removing all". And do tell me how to report someone? Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what you have done too much questionable changes, it is impossible to enumerate them all and I don't have all the time to explain them to you one by one. My suggestion is leave the article as it is right now. Thank you. Hotwiki (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to contribute to this page and you can't stop a Wikipedian in contributing pages of their choices in positively. Maybe you have created this page or maybe you have formatted the whole page that is now but that doesn't mean you own this page. As I also said I will again change those things on neutral basis (with perfect explanation) but still you keep reverting my edits. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not stopping you to contribute in Wikipedia. I just don't find the recent changes in this article helpful, thats why they were reverted. Hotwiki (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also you need to stop changing the issue in which the original five joined as members of the X-Men. What you did was misinformation. Hotwiki (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I can do that but that means I also have to add "(flashback story)" in Neal Shaara's issue. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: An why Professor X is still has joining issue as X-Men #1? Sure he had joined when he formed X-Men? If we are prioritizing flashbacks can you tell me which issue of flashback he had created X-Men? Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said before, leave the article as it is. Plenty of information in the article have existed for more than ten years and any misinformation would have been fixed/brought up a long time ago. You seem to be having a lot of questions about a topic (X-Men members) you seem unfamiliar with, based from your past comments. Please don't use this Wikipedia article as an experiment while diving into the X-Men lore. Hotwiki (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know about X-Men and asking question doesn't mean that I don't know about it. I am arguing "if that is then why not that?" (Talk page is for that only) I am going to leave the information as it is but I will make some addition to improve this page. Please read the explanations clearly before removing all of it because that is what many do they read explanation before reverting. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I've seen every change you've made in this article. Every single edit I reverted, didn't improve the article in the first place. From misinformation, to not following Manual of Style guidelines, to using unreliable sources. Hotwiki (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do my last edits look like I am not following Manual of Style guidelines? I have only added reliable sources so please mentioned those references here so others can see and confirm it too. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You just brought back everything that were already reverted and you just added them all back in? So stop adding Woofer. He's not a member and this was already discussed in the past. Hotwiki (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also may I add, you are overlinking too much. If you were already reverted previously. How about consider it was reverted for a good reason instead of reverting it back after an hour? You keep adding "formerly" when it was already removed more than once. So please don't restore this to your version again seen in your sandbox. You also keep removing table captions. Can you please give this article a rest with the drastic changes and wait for an actual consensus in the talk page? Hotwiki (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me the damn valid reasons why they can't be. And remove them with valid reason. Why did you removed "formerly"? I gave the page reason why I added them. See List of Avengers members first. I have just replace a.k.a. with formerly. You still didn't mentioned the references which are not valid. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Again wait for a consensus. Also stop adding Dr. as part of the fictional name. You don't need to add months in the issue where a specific character joined the team. You don't need to add multiple references (that was just copied by the way) to a single information. I'm asking you to take a seat back in the article and give this article a rest from drastically changing the article. Hotwiki (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the reason why the word "formerly" shouldn't be included because members come and go and some change their codename from time to time. This is merely a list of members, and you don't need to inform readers which is their current codename. These X-Men members have their separate Wikipedia articles, save it there. Hotwiki (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also please stop removing "recruits by decades". If I remember correctly, this was added by an article reviewer and there's no need to remove it. Hotwiki (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also no need to mention which reality certain characters were from (Rachel Summers, Cable)... unless different versions of a character joined the team (like 616 Logan / Old Man Logan). Hotwiki (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, those months next to those years. Are you sure those are referenced well. Why not just mention the year, like this article always used to? Also specifically t stating the number of reality/multiverse (for example,Earth-21923) is borderline Fancruft. The table already has Wikipedia links for each character, save the additional information there instead of mentioning it here. Hotwiki (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you are trying to be rude but let me tell you one thing, I spend one whole day to get "these months" by searching each issues individully. So I am confirm about it and you can also check (if you have time). Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But why mention the month? Isn't the year of their membership enough along with the comic book they joined as a member. Hotwiki (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen months included in many lists as you can see for example List of Avengers members. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a different article. And this article doesn't need to emulate that article. I'm asking you why the year/comic book issue of membership aren't enough? Hotwiki (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can ask you the same? Why not? But to answer you question I would say because many members here are not chronologically order so those months help to arrange those members of same year in perfect order. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Members here are chronologically order by the year they joined the team. If you have a problem by the current chronological order of the article, you should have discussed this first at the talk page, so we can review/discuss your proposed changes. I already told to discuss things in the first place when it comes to drastic changes (that includes adding months to every members) to avoid issues. If you are sure, that those months are well referenced and accurate, you can add the months back since we already discussed this change. Hotwiki (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I would like to wait and propose my proposal in this talk page and invited major editors of this page to that discussion just for consensus as it seems now that only two of are active on this discussion. Let me create that new discussion as it is my proposal and as well I need some time to type it all. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

text: @Hotwiki, I request you to add the months and rearrange the members chronologically (only if you have time) because I'm leaving this article and talk page. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I forgot to mention. "Dr." isn't an name, its a title. There's a difference. Hence it shouldn't be under the name column. So don'tadd "Dr." next to Henry Philip "Hank" McCoy and Charles Francis Xavier in the "name" column.Hotwiki (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I add as everything is removed by you. There is not a single edit done by me that improves this page? I can't belive it. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is false, I didn't remove the references you added that you forgot to update the access-date. When you removed the Comic Vine (Gaemspot) reference today, I didn't revert that as well. Hotwiki (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Woofer is not a honorable member of the X-Men

message: If you are gonna add sources to this article. You should update the access date as well. I don't know where you copied those references but the access date written isn't 2024 except for one reference. Did you access those pages in 2020? We are now in 2024. Hotwiki (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I got no response for this. If you are copying a reference from a different Wikipedia article. How about make an extra effort and change the access date when pasting a certain copied reference, and this is me assuming you also checked if the external link is still working and not a dead link. Hotwiki (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was going to replace it with this reference  but it got wrong. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you are still not going to update the access date of the references you added today - the ones that have 2020 in their access date? Hotwiki (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh nevermind, I didn't notice, you removed those references right after adding them in the article. Hotwiki (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I will but first I am putting in the new talk/discussion proposal which I am currently typing. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Can you please refrain making dozens of unreferenced edits without adding a reference. Also if you've been reverted, you should discusss changes in the talk page to avoid edit warring. Hotwiki (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ringardiumleviossa 

message: I noticed that from time to time, some characters' codename are being bolded indicating that they are currently members of the X-Men. Yet there is no reference in this article - where readers can see the current members of the X-Men. I suggest if someone's gonna update the current members of the X-Men by bolding their codename, should also add a reference (preferably a reference that mentions the comic book issue). Hotwiki (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been thinking about it. I read comics so I can say that we should reinstate bolding members and leave that job for someone who reads the comics constantly - who have easy access and resources for comics easily, because I don't think we should need references for bolding the current members. For example if a member leaves X-Men in the comics, we will also need to add references why we removed bold font from that member (In case an editor restart bolding that member just because there is no reference of their removal) and most of the newspapers or sources don't even bother to make an article especially for old members when they re-join. The references regarding pop culture especially comics varies like in the above mentioned cases. I had also noticed that without reaching consensus on the talk page, the whole concept of bold members was removed from this article - which I think is not good. Other articles on Wikipedia regarding similar lists like this article still have the bold concept and if edit war happens regarding any member's status, we an always settle dispute in talk page instead of adding or removing as we see fit. Sewnbegun (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, there is no reason to specify who are the current members of the X-Men as those who were bolding names - indicating certain characters are members, can't provide a reference in the first place. Also this is merely a List of X-Men members. Current members of the X-Men are already highlighted in the infobox of the Wikipedia article of the X-Men. Hotwiki (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And fyi, I also just read a bunch of new X-Men comics recently. So if you're implying that I don't read the comics, then thats just your opinion and not a fact. Also editing this page isn't a job. Everyone here is welcome to edit this page as long as they follow the rules. If you were so adamant removing "unreferenced" information. You admitted in your user talk page that you were that Ip user, then you shouldn't question other editors for removing unreferenced information as well. Hotwiki (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I mentioned you @Hotwiki in above discussion? No, then what you told above is also your opinion of me which you clearly misunderstood because I WASN'T implying that. And what I admitted was that I MADE AN EDIT WHILE BEING LOGGED OUT, ONCE WHEN I REALIZE THAT I WAS LOGGED OUT, I LOGGED IN AND CONTINUED MY EDITS. I didn't admitted what you are implying here. I can question an editor if they remove an important part of the page (that remained for years) by only adding an discussion in the talk and not waiting for consensus to reach. Even though I agree with you on the infobox thing. Sewnbegun (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Then it is absolutely fine with me if the X-Men members are listed in the infobox of that Wikipedia page. Sewnbegun (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: "most of the newspapers or sources don't even bother to make an article especially for old members when they re-join." At this point, I am not even certain whether hardcore readers are aware when characters leave or rejoin the X-Men. The Utopia crossover (2009) effectively resulted in the X-Men establishing their own state and inviting all of the surviving mutants to move in with them. For several years, the X-Men were living with and co-operating with a large number of former students of the Xavier Institute, various past allies, and villains who took up the offer to join them. A decade later, in the Dawn of X  relaunch (2019), the X-Men established a state with an even larger population, inviting most of their past allies and foes to join them. Resulting in several closely affiliated teams, and a huge cast of characters for several years. Which of them are X-Men and which are allies is not that clear anymore. Dimadick (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is best to NOT highlight who are the current members of the X-Men. Highlighting who are the "current" members of the X-Men would just lead to more editors, updating the current membership without leaving a reference. This was already the case before and most of the time, it also led to misinformation. The Wikipedia article of X-Men, doesn't even line up to this article, as a bunch of editors just update the current members of the X-Men in the infobox of that article without any reference. Hotwiki (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should leave the current members of X-Men to the infobox only. Sewnbegun (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

text: That is why we should rely on References along with previous/future Handbooks. Sewnbegun (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current members of the X-Men 

message: Removal of Indra because he is not official X-Men in training. Sewnbegun (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't remove Indra. Let me explain why - there are three Marvel handbook that listed X-Men extensively - Official Handbook of Marvel Universe A to Z #13 (2010), X-Men: Earth's Mutant Heroes #1 (2011) and X of Swords Handbook #1 (2020). Danger from X-Club and X-Force members after Vanisher were removed and those removals were valid because they were not listed in any of the above mentioned three handbooks. Indra was listed in along with other trainees in X-Men: Earth's Mutant Heroes #1 but he wasn't listed in X of Swords Handbook (it was simple error). That was why Indra was included with X-Men-in-training section many years ago. Here is the image for it. Another error happened was in Official Handbook of Marvel Universe A to Z where Cipher was mentioned to be member of sub-team in the year 2002, even before her debut which was in 2008. Here is the image for it. In the same handbook Longshot's joining comic was wrong. Here is the image for it.  Another error happened in X of Swords Handbook where several codenames were wrong because they didn't used them as X-Men like Betsy Braddock - Captain Britain, Kwannon - Psylocke, Gabby Kinney - Scout. Here is the image for it. Although handbooks are canon, errors sometimes happen. Reinstate Indra in the list on the basis of above points and solicitation of this - . 2409:40C1:1023:5D0C:BDF8:DE8B:9AE9:9F5C (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added him back. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Indra 

message: I am suggesting these changes because an enormous amount of changes were done in this article on the basis Handbooks and those are canon so it can not be wrong.
I was reading the previous talk pages in the archive and got to learn about the involvement of handbooks in this article. Many sub-team, splinter teams and unofficial teams were removed on the basis of handbooks. I also agree with that because there is no official definition of X-Men except the handbooks but there is this one thing. In X of Swords Handbook, it was stated Cyclops' team of X-Men was not officially sanctioned X-Men and was up to debate. I would like to add that above mentioned Unofficial X-Men section again with Cyclops team and trainees in this page as it was clearly mentioned in the Handbook.
Recently I removed joining comics from some X-Men in trainees because they didn't have sources and were unreferenced. I would also like to tell that if anyone can find a reference of them becoming trainees at which comic issue, feel free to add or correct that issue to their row. Till then I have to say that I will have to add the exact comics mentioned in X of Swords Handbook because that is the only evidence we got here at least for now. Sewnbegun (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Those information you removed, have been in the article for more than 10 years - will be restored as I plan to post scans of those comic book issues in this article, so stay tuned! Hotwiki (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There were many information in this page that were here for years but were removed due to handbooks and I am just leaning to those handbooks right now. I can also provide scans of the current comic book members which were removed from being bolded but you asked for reference. Even you admitted of reading new comics in Talk:List of X-Men members#Current members of the X-Men, still you wanted references. These article don't need post scans. This article needs additional sources. Sewnbegun (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the lack of reference was discussed on February 15, 2024. The removal for unreferenced current members of the X-Men was on February 20, 2024. Today is February 28, 2024. If you have scans in the first place to provide as a reference, no one is stopping you to post them here. And Yes, I read the comics, but that's not an excuse not to post references, especially NO comic book issues were mentioned in the article for the list of current X-Men members, that readers can look up for verification. Also may I remind you, you removed information in this article for being unreferenced and you directly told me don't restore them until references are provided. Practice what you preach. Hotwiki (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh God, I do not have a personal agenda against you! Are you reading above discussion? I said I am TOTALLY FINE WITH INFOBOX THING. Sewnbegun (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: May I add, you removed the comic book issue in which Loa/Trance joined as a trainee of the X-Men and it had nothing to do with the handbook, which I reverted. Then you told me (via your ip address) to provide a reference, which I did today. Hotwiki (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all I did not told you anything. I made an edit with valid point and explained it why I made that edit (not explained to you but to other user who might me editing too). And again my IP address has only one edit and that too by mistake which I am done justifying. You did not provided references. Sewnbegun (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the edit summary of that edit  which you made with your IP address. If those weren't your words then who typed those? You admitted in your talk page, it was you who made that edit/revert anyway. And as seen today in this talk page, I have added a reference for the comic book issue in which Trance and Loa joined as a X-Men trainee, since you told me directly to add a reference. Hotwiki (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mentioned you directly!!!! Whatever I type in the edit summary is for all other editors which also includes you but it wasn't about you trust me, it was like in general instruction. Sewnbegun (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Also @Hotwiki, I think we should include Cyclop's team of X-Men in Unofficial section as it was also mentioned in this  that they were not officially sanctioned X-Men and their membership can be up to debate. I can find some references with time but add them right now on the basis of consensus and talk page. Sewnbegun (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-Men in training and Unofficial teams 

message: Here are the comic book scans for certain X-Men trainees, joining as a trainee of the X-Men - uploaded from my own IMGUR account. 
* Trance (X-Men Legacy #227) 
* Loa (X-Men Legacy #238) 
Hotwiki (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: These scans does not show that they joined as trainees as it does in handbook and we also don't have sources yet. Sewnbegun (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The handbook scan posted in this talkpage, doesn't include the comic book issue - in which characters joined as a X-Men trainee. I have provided in this talk page, comic book pages in which Trance and Loa are seen with the X-Men as a trainee and that should be enough. Hotwiki (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reference of your own that would disqualify these scans as a reference. Then okay. But until then, those pictures I uploaded, should be enough for Loa/Trance. Hotwiki (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't own this page. We even didn't reach consensus and you didn't wait for another editor besides us to share opinion before you added the misinformation like you wanted. I am not the one who need references buddy! So don't talk to me like that. Though I have better scan for you - []. I get that you are actively editing to this article and that is good. We can add this because this clearly mention which comic they joined until we can have solid reference. Sewnbegun (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that a better scan? Loa and Trance aren't even shown or mentioned in that scan to begin with, to disqualify the pictures I posted. Hotwiki (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Hotwiki see again because I made an link correction edit. Sewnbegun (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And how will those who didn't upload the file will know for sure that scan is from Official Handbook of Marvel Universe A to Z #13? If that is legit, then you had that scan in the first place yet when you removed the comic book issue for Loa/Trance, you didn't mention Official Handbook of Marvel Universe A to Z #13 and didn't replace it with information based from that handbook? Hotwiki (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Why you dwell on the past? Firstly, I removed them on the basis of unreferenced and I was going to add those information from the handbook once there was consensus in this discussion which as the main topic and you can again read above. This is legit. I can't prove it to others unless they themselves have this handbook to confirm. Sewnbegun (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You should have brought up the handbook first before you started deleting things, anyway thanks for the scans! Hotwiki (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome, You forget I have just joined Wikipedia and one of the first thing I ask at Teahouse was of sources that's why I was adding sources to this article and was trying to edit with sources or consensus. Sewnbegun (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my opinion. If you told me in the beginning you have a scan with comic book issues in the first place, when you removed the information about Loa/Trance several days ago, we wouldn't have this long discussion about references/removing information. Instead, you told me to find a reference and when I did, it was only then, you posted these scans. Hotwiki (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I did mentioned about handbook but then I had to find references as you can see here in Talk:List of X-Men members#Boom-Boom, Madison Jeffries, Doctor Nemesis, Woofer. After I couldn't find any I removed them and came here to discuss. That's it. Thankfully we reached consensus. Sewnbegun (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: While remaining others except Stepford Cuckoos can be find here [] Sewnbegun (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So I looked those scans and compare them to this article. How do you explain that Choir (Irina Clayton) isn't mentioned yet Cipher was in New X-Men in year 2002? Should we remove Choir (Irina Clayton) based from that scan? Hotwiki (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Choir is mentioned in the 3rd Row of 3rd Column. Sewnbegun (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw it. I'm trusting you that the scan from Official Handbook of Marvel Universe A to Z #13 is legit. I'm not going to add the comic book issues for the other characters as I'm too tired now, so if you don't mind, do the rest for the other trainees. Hotwiki (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do it no problem. I just hope that maybe I can find some references for others. Sewnbegun (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trance and Loa 

message: @Eijikkieru, @Higher Further Faster, @Hotwiki, @DrBat, @Gtrmp, @AlligatorSky, @Lipshiz, @Omnipaedista, @BD2412 and also @Dimadick, you have been invited here because of being top editors of some X-Men pages along with being active at Wikipedia last month; as the top contributors of this page are either retired, blocked or had simply stopped editing. The invitation is for the consensus on whether Captain Krakoa should be added alongside Cyclops or not; on the basis of recent comics of X-Men (Volume 6) and on the basis of these references which were already provided above discussions. ( and ) Sewnbegun (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Hotwiki (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I also oppose, Captain Krakoa was just a disguise for Cyclops in X-Men (vol. 6). AlligatorSky (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my reasoning as well. Hotwiki (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Same reasoning as above. Eijikkieru (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears we can finally close this suggestion, originally proposed by the blocked editor User:Ringardiumleviossa by not adding Captain Krakoa as a codename of Cyclops as a member of the X-Men. Hotwiki (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should close this discussion since the consensus is very clear against it. Sewnbegun (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, may I add, you changed certain words to "this team", thats not encyclopedic and not very formal way of writing. Don't also remove the current description to Lucid, especially that character has no Wikipedia article to check/read. So a more substantial description for Lucid, instead of just a "honorable mention" would be better. You keep changing a dozen of things here that aren't very helpful, and it is really reminiscent of the blocked User:Ringardiumleviossa. Can an administrator, please check if User:Ringardiumleviossa and User:Sewnbegun are the same editor? I don't really know how to file a report on Sockpuppet investigation, a help would be appreciated in this situation. Hotwiki (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also for those names, you don't need to add a reference to every single name in this article, especially if those names weren't being challenged or questioned in the first place. A reference for each character joining the X-Men, specifically a reference to the comic-book issue in which they joined as a member is enough. Hotwiki (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Hotwiki, firstly, you reverted Ringardiumleviossa's edits when they made changes in this page on the basis of as per Wikipedia page - . And now let me repeat your word when you reverted my edits -  (Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters.). Secondly, I also noticed you only choose only certain names from Ringardiumleviossa's proposal and till this date you keep reverting any changes in name section (if they are different from your original edit) until they are referenced. And now here you say these names don't need to be referenced? I still don't get the meaning of both of above mentioned situation. You even reverted my all edits not even thinking that some of the names were being challenged and changed by providing reliable sources. I think you are very good editor on the Wikipedia and very busy one but at least watch/read the changes in the edits and not just peak over it so that you know that not all changes/edits are invalid and then make appropriate edits instead of reverting it all. I understand your point that not all names need references and it is the page of list of X-men members (and not of names), but if I had made any unreferenced edit, it would have been reverted back. If I have to change certain names which are misinformed in this article, I will have to provide references. I am not going to add the sources to every name this time, just only those which are misinformed or incomplete here. Thank you! Sewnbegun (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Based from your edits, you seemed to accomplish what User:Ringardiumleviossa what wanted to do in the article. Your account was created, the day after User:Ringardiumleviossa was blocked in Wikipedia. When it comes to wanting to mention "Captain Krakoa" in this article, you both share the same opinion. Both of your sandbox are suspiciously the same. Based from talk page activity of this article, aside from me, you are heavily active discussing changes just like the blocked editor. Like the blocked editor you are constantly making "drastic" changes into this article, and doesn't seem to be editing plenty of other articles aside from this one.  since I noticed you, in the talk page of Ringardiumleviossa, can I ask if you could help me about a sockpuppet investigation, if  is connected to Ringardiumleviossa. Their editing pattern is suspiciously very similar. Hotwiki (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Hotwiki I didn't have the same opinion in the Captain Krakoa as Ringardiumleviossa. Read above talks again and you know I never said I wanted Captain Krakoa codename to be added because in fact I wanted to go with consensus instead. That is why I added Consensus on Captain Krakoa talk and also because you keep reverting my edits and I was angry because of this talk . @CoffeeCrumbs understand what is happening by reading exact above reply and the discussion here , because Hotwiki is always controlling this page. Reverting unreferenced change? I get that, but why revert whole and every edits without checking that there could be some valid information there. Also, I am not accomplishing Ringardiuleviossa's proposal, all I am doing is just editing on the basis of reliable sources. So you can't remove those without discussing first. I do edit this page primarily from few days because I am also editing the same articles in various websites (including Marvel Database/Wiki) and if you see my edit history, I have also edited some different Wikipedia pages too. And again I am telling, you are welcome to sock puppet investigation on me. Sewnbegun (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I will oppose because of the same reasoning as above. Teedbunny (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion needs to be closed. Teedbunny (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on Captain Krakoa 

message: Someone just added "members" appearing in new comic book titles to be released in July/September of 2024. Please don't add them until those comic books are already released. Hotwiki (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future members 

message: Hello to everyone - @BD2412, @Dimadick, @Eijikkieru, @Higher Further Faster, @Hotwiki, @DrBat, @Gtrmp, @AlligatorSky, @Lipshiz, @Omnipaedista and @Sewnbegun. You all are invited from previous consensus. Last year in this discusssion (), there weren't any reliable source back then and it was decided that we should wait for few more comics to add him in the main list of X-Men. So I have also invited @Storm1221 , @ToshiroIto7 to see if they still maintain their opinion from previous talks.
The first thing I would like to talk about is ForgetMeNot's position in this page, he is added in Other status section, even though he is official member of X-Men according to handbooks (also sources). He is neither an infiltrator nor an honorary member so how come he have any other status instead of official member. If it is about his power of being forgotten, we can add a note as well as notelist section to mention his powers. We should move him to the main list.
Secondly, even if Woofer is not added to the main list, he is still currently eligible to be added as honorary member of X-Men. Let me explain why. Lucid was made member by then X-Man Storm - . Woofer was made member by now X-Man Shadowkat in X-Men, vol. 6 #25 - . As per previous talk, we waited and again he was implied to be an X-Man in Fall of the House of X #3 - . It's not like we don't have any references, we have a reliable secondary source (because it was already asked for in previous talks in this page) - 
We should also know that definition of X-Men members is gray and that's why many editors on this page have sticked to different handbooks of Marvel Comics but till the new handbook, we should include Woofer as honorary member.
Hoping for response/feedback on consensus of both ForgetMeNot and Woofer in some days.
 2409:40C1:1006:ACEB:CEC:BAB6:F1A4:A58B (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not this again with Woofer. How about we wait for an official handbook from Marvel Comics rather than jumping to conclusion once again. This was already discussed before. Hotwiki (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As for ForgetMeNot, I also disagree. He's in other status for a reason. He was retconned as a long time member, yet his actual membership date isn't very clear. Hotwiki (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also may I add, Woofer's appearance in Fall of the House of X doesn't change anything. He's still not ever seen with the current X-Men team. Hotwiki (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: We didn't waited for handbook during Synch, Prodigy, Rasputin IV and Ms. Marvel's inclusion. In fact Rasputin IV don't even have a reliable source. Sewnbegun (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We didn't wait for the handbook because it was CLEAR they are part of the current team, unless you are questioning the membership of those four members. Woofer is a different case especially there are different opinions in this talk page, if he is a member of the X-Men. I stand by my opinion. Keep Woofer out of the list and keep ForgetMeNot in other status section. Hotwiki (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Hotwiki No, I am also against with Woofer added in team too. But I also agree with that if Woofer is seen with X-Men, we have to add him atleast as honorary member. I don't he qualifies as official X-Men unless it is proven in future handbook. Sewnbegun (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Again what is presented in X-Men #25 and Fall of the House of X #3 are similar. Woofer is STILL not seen with the current X-Men team. If a handbook from Marvel Comics mentions him as a member, then add him. But until that doesn't happen, keep him out of the list. Hotwiki (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if he is seen clearly with X-Men and is called an X-Men before. It clears everything. He needs to be mentioned as X-Men. We can always remove him if handbooks is not mentioning him. Just like you did two year before when you remove many members from this page when X of Swords (which is right by the way). Sewnbegun (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are assuming he will be seen with the X-Men which we can't say for certain will happen. Me mentioning an updated handbook doesn't automatically mean, "handbooks" are only the source of information in this article. This article didn't need a handbook reference, for those who were/are clearly members of the X-Men fyi. Hotwiki (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I am not into adding him RIGHT NOW, only IF he is seen alongside X-Men. also yes, handbooks aren't the only source of this article - he already does have a source. I am also against him in adding in the main team but we have to at least add him as honorary member because he is called an X-Man. We should wait and see what the future comics hold. Sewnbegun (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

text: No, I am not questioning the other members but I was pointing out that Rasputin IV don't have a reliable source while Woofer have. It was clear to add them because they were seen alongside X-Men and were declared X-Men and so that should shall be the case with Woofer he is seen alongside X-Men. Sewnbegun (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't why you are suddenly making this about Rasputin IV. If you read the comics, you will see that she is with the current X-Men since X-Men #25 (2023) with other members such as Shadowkat, Talon, Synch and Kamala Khan. If your problem is lack of reliable source for Rasputin IV, you can surely find a better reference or comic book scans. Hotwiki (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was making another point which you got to to read again in my previous reply to avoid misunderstanding. I am not suddenly making this about Rasputin IV. If I was challenging her membership, I would have simply had her removed on the basis of unreferenced. Sewnbegun (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So is this you  ? The only edit of that Ip user is oddly similar to your edit when you asked for the consensus for Captain Krakoa. Hotwiki (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't done those edits. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you realize how similar your edits are to these Ip users who have only edited this 1 article in Wikipedia? You haven't been cleared by an administrator for not being connected User:Ringardiumleviossa. Thats why I remain suspicious of your editing. Then these Ip users, suddenly doing massive edits in the article (in a short period of time) doing drastic changes that somehow align to your edits, and also doing talk page consensus? I've seen a couple of sockpuppet investigations in my almost 20 years stay in Wikipedia, and this is usually how sockpuppetry is caught. Either jumping through another Ip or switching to a different account, to manipulate the outcome of the article. Hotwiki (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you that I have nothing to do with those edits, I think that blocked user is doing this from different IP. I don't align with, it is just I don't revert every edits and let them be which are correct, referenced and many time, I also check if the edits are done are correct or not before reverting back or making any change. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh now you think this is the blocked editor Ringardiumleviossa editing in different IP users. The blocked editor that has the same editing patterns as you, from my observation. And somehow you seem to agree on every change from these "suspicious" IP users? Okay. Hotwiki (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't always agree if see the talks in this page clearly instead of proving that I am that blocked editor. And again I don't revert everything, I checked them and if they are right, referenced or on majority consensus. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with you about the change of ForgetMeNot, only because of the point that he is official member and not a member of different status. Although I differ in opinion that Woofer should be added, for now atleast. It was decided in the previous talk to wait for atleast his three appearances which is not completed yet. If in future issues of current X-Men headling comics (X-Men, vol. 6 or Fall of the House of X), he appears alongside X-Men we can add him as honorary member. If you insist to add him in main list, we will have to wait for next handbook. Sewnbegun (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: ForgetMeNot has been more of a covert operative, who has had minimal interactions with his teammates. There are not many sources on Woofer, since he is a brand new character. According to the Marvel Database wiki, he has a total of 4 appearances since his debut in May, 2023. Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: It is my opinion that both ForgetMeNot and Woofer should be included in the Honorary Section.  I'm not going to explain why because ultimately this page does not follow consensus and it'd be a complete waste of time.Storm1221 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with ForgetMeNot's proposal but disagree with Woofer's. Teedbunny (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Woofer (and arguments here) was mentioned in the AIPT's X-Men Monday #252. Jordan said it's fine to consider him an honorary member. Eijikkieru (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: AIPT isn't a reliable site.Hotwiki (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. I'm not joining the consensus on this subject, I'm just stating what the X-Men editor said in the interview. Eijikkieru (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus of ForgetMeNot and Woofer (again).