User talk:AmazonianGoddess

I really would like you to know that simply reverting editors whose contributions you disagree with repeatedly and persistently to restore your preferred version of an article's content is typically considered as WP:Disruptive editing. Currently, it appears that you have been engaging in a WP:Content dispute on the Wonder Woman article, and have been with any editor who comes in to revert your changes. As multiple editors have extended you with the courtesy of explaining their edits reverting your contributions, while you have rarely done the same and have repeatedly chosen not to actually read other editors' edit summaries describing why your edits were reverted, the burden of responsibility would be on you to take your concerns regarding the article's content needing changes to Talk:Wonder Woman, instead of ceaselessly reverting every time, or else you may very well be engaging in WP:Edit warring and could be blocked from editing as a preventative measure if such disruption continues. It is best advised to engage with other editors in a discussion at the talk page regarding your content concerns. Please, don't disregard this message. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I already read the editors' messages. I just do what it has to be done, reverting to the accurate version of the article. I don't need to explain repetitively, Wikipedia doesn't accept unreliable sources, Wikipedia doesn't accept content that is not accurate because it contains personal taste or sources that cannot even being trusted. Even other editors once helped me to revert their changes too. Preventing vandalism. I am just preserve the article to what it should be. Thank you. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Just copy/pasting my message over from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AmazonianGoddess_reported_by_User:Trailblazer101_(Result:_) to continue the discussion from there:

That's totally acceptable. It would just help if we all were working with the same set of information, which we, and others, clearly we're not. I'd say that if your edits are compliant with DC's New Encyclopedia that addresses the evolving origin of Wonder Woman, which states ("If nothing else, Diana Thymeria stands for truth. However, she said she had been living as the daughter of Zeus and was the Amazon Queen Themyscira. However, she was known to protect her from the wrath of Zeus' wife Hera, his legitimate children. This gave rise to the legend that Queen Hippolyta had adopted Diana from clay."), then I would support you doing so. However, the lack of communication and information sharing throughout this whole process has been regrettable and I believe we all can learn from it in not being too hasty to reaction, whether it be in reporting or reverting. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I appreciate that you felt that way, yeah it's regrettable, we should communicate first, rather than hastily reporting someone without understand the context. My talk page is welcomed for anyone to talk to me by the way.

I appreciate your confession for that. Like I say, some writers can do things "out of line" when they write comics. But if the editorial of DC says A, then it's A. Even when the writers are doing an "absurd" things in the comics. But still, we should all look at what the editorial says. What the general comics follow? That's the guideline from the editorial/company. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, the words from the article that you sent here, from BleedingCool, there are typos or mispronunciations from that article you sent, user Shogun, the wrong English verbs/words, I mean. If you look at the page from the DC Comics encyclopedia in detail, you'd know. Also, I hope we all can learn that we should not be hasty, that we should understand the context first, that's important. I am sincere with all of you here. @Red Shogun412 @Trailblazer101 @EvergreenFir AmazonianGoddess (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

This is me COPY PASTE from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:AmazonianGoddess_reported_by_User:Trailblazer101_(Result:_) t with a polish a bit.

"According to what DC Comics stated in the principle of Wonder Woman, since every fictional characters have their own guideline, including Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman is indeed Olympian and Amazon. She is the daughter of Zeus and Hippolyta. DC Comics carried it from The New 52 over into Rebirth, and go on. She is an Olympian God as the child of Zeus (half-blood) and by the way, she has been ascended to FULL godhood. Wonder Woman is an Olympian God and Amazon, so the 3 species in the table is valid.

1. Wonder Woman volume 4, from The New 52

2. Wonder Woman, volume 1, 2019, Rebirth

Et cetera.

If it's followed in general comics, well it's the principle from DC Comics for Wonder Woman, followed multiple times in comics. Of course, a writer follows what the editorials say. Writers DON'T have the authority over characters despite the fact that some writers' doings can be out of the line that ARE NOT BACKED UP by the editorial, editorial A.K.A the company does, they are the final say/decider." AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

You are correct that the Bleeding Cool recitation of the DC New Encyclopedia has an abundance of typos. The full page entry that they grossly copied from is here for reference: https://mlpnk72yciwc.i.optimole.com/cqhiHLc.IIZS~2ef73/w:auto/h:auto/q:75/https://bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ww-a.jpg. I'd like to find a way to access this page content in its entirety through the official DC New Encyclopedia as a searchable ebook to make verification and accessibility a lot easier, but this should suffice for now. The proper summary from the encyclopedia is as follows: "If nothing else, Diana of Themyscira stands for truth. However, it wasn't until recently that she realized she had been living a lie. Diana was born on the island of Themyscira, said to be the daughter of Zeus and the Amazon Queen Hippolyta. However, her origins were hidden for decades to protect her from the wrath of Zeus' wife Hera, who was known to hunt down and kill her husband's illegitimate children. This gave rise to the legend that Queen Hippolyta had sculpted Diana from clay." Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The encyclopedia book will be released on March, but now it's already available to pre-order, as far as I know. So I think you have to wait until March for entirety access. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

@Red Shogun412, look, for the 2026 edition of the new official up-to-date DC Encyclopedia book, this is the thing that I can found. From Amazon.com, there is a clear synopsis there in the shopping page. It's a proof that every DC Encyclopedia books are really from DC Comics Company, official material from the company and those books are up-to-date, and now the 2026 edition is here. At least if you haven't had the entirety access of the book, I think reading the synopsis would be enough for now, until March 3 comes. I am just trying to help.

Link: https://a.co/d/04Zc3V7A

It will be released on March 3, 2026! AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This is me COPY AND PASTE from the "deleted" section in "Edit Warring" report page. Thankfully I still can copied and paste this because I really think this is so important. I am sorry if you think that it might disturb you in your notification.

Here it is,

"I forgot to say this, I wanted to say something, an additional words, and here's the chance. I hope that all of us, the Wikipedians can understand that Wonder Woman and the other DC Comics' characters are owned by DC Comics Company, the company is the one who owns these characters and created the fictional world of DC Comics.

So, my point is, I hope we can remember that the DC company is the one who MAKE THE GUIDELINE regarding their characters and their world, they decide what happens of this and that. Whether origin, characterization, homes, etc.

So IN CASE, if THERE IS a dispute in articles related to DC Comics, whether their characters or et cetera. Just LOOK at what the editorial/company has said. Not the writers or anyone else, writers must follow what the company says, the guideline created by them. And some writers can do things which are "unusual" and some editors are just, can do "unusual" things too. It's simple actually. Just in case if dispute happens, be aware and let's prioritize communication and context as fellow editors.

Also, you can visit my talk page to see my discussion regarding Wonder Woman or if you want to talk with me, you are welcomed! Thank you. @Trailblazer101 @Daniel Case @EvergreenFir @Red Shogun412"

AmazonianGoddess AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello @AmazonianGoddess, I wanted to discuss your edits on the Wonder Woman Wikipedia, including a reversion you made to an edit I made. I believe the reversion made the page objectively worse in at least one way, but I also have several more disagreements that I am more open to discussion on. Since I was directed here by Red Shogun412, I decided I would try to work the differences out with you. Apologies if I am mistaken about any of these edits originating with you

First: Part of the article states that "Multiple runs in Rebirth, including in "The Darkseid War" series, still show Diana as the daughter of Zeus and Hippolyta as the accurate recent canon origin of Wonder Woman, in accordance with the guideline of Wonder Woman[54]." The inclusion of "Darkseid War" as an example of a DC Rebirth storyline is objectively incorrect. The finale issue of Darkseid War, Justice League #50, released on May 5, 2016, the same day as DCU: Rebirth #1, but 1 months prior to Wonder Woman: Rebirth #1 (June 8, 2016) and 2 months prior to Justice League: Rebirth #1 (July 6, 2016), which were special issues that marked the beginning of the DC Rebirth initiatives for their respective series. That a "DC Essential Edition" collecting the event released in 2018 does not make the event a Rebirth storyline anymore than an omnibus of Golden Age comics would make those comics modern storylines.

Second: The article has two mentions of a "guideline", which you also referenced in your discussion with Red Shogun. However, in both instances, I believe the sources given are unreliable. The first instance has the aforementioned "DC Essential Edition" for Darkseid War as its source. While I have not read that source myself, I don't believe it would be a reliable source for current continuity given that it is a collection for a particular New 52 storyline, and thus would need to have its entries comport with the storyline being collected. The other instance of a "guideline" (or two instances together) has two sources: a Comic Vine "Respect Thread" and a Comic Basics article about Wonder Woman. For the former (which I assume was cited for the description for general Wonder Woman page's description, not anything particularly relating to the "Respect Thread"), Comic Vine is a forum and wiki, same as Wikipedia or FANDOM wikis, and thus is subject to editing by anyone, as far as I am aware. It is by no means an official DC source, and lacks any citations to justify the page synopsis. The latter is the writing of one Comic Basics writer, which also lacks citations for what she says, with the article also releasing prior to the start of Tom King's run on Wonder Woman, which means it cannot be taken as a sign of DC's stance or "guideline" since the start of his run. (I also do not believe the article is particularly good, as it references Demeter granting Diana superstrength, which I do not believe was part of the New 52 canon. If I am not mistaken on that point, that would mean the writer was mixing two distinct canons for the character into one. This is further supported by their use of pre-New 52 comic panels/excerpts throughout the article.)

Third: On the topic of Tom King's Wonder Woman and Mark Waid's New History of the DC Universe (which is discussed on the WW page just after the prior mention of a "guideline"), your edits and your discussion with Red Shogun are dismissive of those works as being the creations of the writers, not editorial. This fundamentally misunderstands the relationship of the writer to editorial: everything the writer plots and writers is subject to approval by editorial. Dismissing what Tom King and Mark Waid wrote as being out of sync with and unapproved by editorial is fundamentally incorrect. While it is true that not all books are scrutinized equally by editorial and mistakes can occur, this would not automatically invalidate the credibility of a new work. Not only have certain "mistakes" in comics become major pieces of canon (see Psylocke's body-swap story in X-Men comics being an accidental retcon or a color error leading to the Hulk being green, with his intended original intended grey coloration being canonized as his initial skin color in-universe).

Most importantly, the origin with Diana as the daughter of Zeus is itself a retcon, replacing the origin written by George Perez, which replaced the origin written by longtime writer Robert Kanigher, which replaced her origin by series creator William Moulton Marston. Newer comics usually supersede older comics (not always, I will admit), so I believe that there needs to be better sourcing for Diana as the daughter of Zeus if you intend to insist references to her clay origin as being incorrect despite appearing major DC Comics publications, like the main Wonder Woman title and the significantly publicized New History of the DC Universe, created as an official timeline for the DC Universe. The Zeus origin was in place for over a decade, but I do not believe it can be considered definitively canon anymore.Wolv022 (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, I will not make this complicated, let me make it to the point. I will make this TO THE POINT. Hope you can digest it.

1. You don't read the sources that are cited. It's clear from how you questioning it. You don't comprehend it. Comprehend it please. I am sure you will understand. So, when you are questioning without comprehend your reading, it's unfortunate. Diana is indeed blessed by the gods despite she is the daughter of Zeus, general comics follow it, that's what guideline is, from the DC Comics Company. Even Ares said it, so the writer of the comic basics article isn't wrong.

2. You clearly get wrong about Mark Waid's book of "New History of the DC Universe". You can check about what that book is actually about, about what, and you will see that the edit is make sense, because that what that book is about. It's a timeline book, but not for current time.

3. The Darkseid War is a crossover storyline, a mix between The New 52 and Rebirth. It's New 52 and Rebirth. 2016 was the year when rebirth happened, it has nothing to do with when Wonder Woman rebirth or this title came out. It doesn't work that way. As you said, "marked the beginning of the DC Rebirth". It's a mark, a mark is a mark, but not the "Rebirth happened when this title came out", it doesn't mean that way. Rebirth happened, then those rebirth wonder woman and justice league titles came out. There.

4. Comic Vine isn't a fan-wiki. Because the one who can edit is only the moderators. People can SUBMIT an edit, but at the end, it's the moderators who can decide to approve or not, if it's approved, the moderators will edit that. It's not the same as DC Database which is clearly a fan-wiki, that any fans can make wiki and edit. Fan-wiki isn't reliable source for Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia, fan-wikis are unreliable for Wikipedia which is a "BIG" wiki, the dominant encyclopedia. Also, the respect thread from Comic Vine is reliable, the person there clearly cited the sources, it's a forum thread post, I am sure you know what is a forum means. It's a forum thread post, not an article or something. A social media post, the person cited the source about her origin, which is indeed according the guideline of Wonder Woman, created by DC Comics Company, origin that was made in The New 52 and carried over into the next eras. It's not a wiki article, it's a social media post.

5. Like I say, what the writers say, it doesn't matter when DC Comics Company says it, if it's A, then it's an A. If the company says it's the Zeus origin, then it is. Look at my discussion with user Red Shogun again, you definitely can get it and comprehend. Other editors also agree. So, it proves the point. Writers can do things that are out of line, but we just need to look up to what the company says. If you do not believe it's canon, then it's on you, but not DC. It's just your personal thing. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It's genuinely disrespectful to direct people who you have disagreements with to talk on you Talk page and then address them with this level of contempt, in a less public forum than the main Talk page for the relevant article.

1. Telling me repeatedly to "comprehend" sources does not make them any more valid. The Comic Base article cites no sources to justify its statements and the Comic Vine "Respect Thread" is a forum thread that has no official backing. Not only that, your citation for it simply leads to the start of the thread, without citing any particular quotation, post, or even page. More importantly, neither source is from DC Comics, so what basis is there for taking them as evidence for the "Guideline" of DC Comics? If Zeus is meant to be part of this "guideline" which you've provided no citation for, why does Woman's bio of DC's official website not mention Zeus? If you're going to insist on the authority of a "Guideline" that DC Comics uses, you need to establish its existence in the first place, which your non-DC sources do not sufficiently do. (Also, if you are going to claim Ares said something, please provide a source for that.)

2. I do not need to "check about what that book is actually about", I read all 4 issues of the book from start to finish, including the official timeline presented in the appendix of each issue, including the 4th issue, which includes 'up to the start of "DC K.O.", the current major crossover event. Saying "You are wrong" is not an argument. If you wish to insist that Mark Waid's New History of the DC Universe is not a current-day source, you need to provide sources rather than your own baseless assertation. I can and will provide sources if you insist, including news articles, a DC press release, statements made by Mark Waid in interviews, and editorial-approved statements in the book that contradict the assertion that it is not a book for current continuity.

3. What you are saying is factually and verifiably incorrect and you either do not "comprehend" what the DC Rebirth initiative/relaunch was or are attempting to just gaslight about it. Wikipedia's own article on "Justice League: The Darkseid War" states that: "It is the final storyline to feature the Justice League in the 2011 New 52 continuity, before DC transitioned to the continuity of DC Rebirth." You can tell this by the fact that none of the issues involved in "Darkseid War" have the "DC Universe: Rebirth" banner at the top of the cover. DC Rebirth was a line-wide relaunch that saw every title cancelled and relaunched with a "Rebirth" one-shot special issue and a new Issue #1. The issues involved with "Darkseid War" all are released prior to the relaunch of Justice League, which makes them clearly and plainly not part of DC Rebirth. (The sole exceptions to the relaunch rule are Action Comics and Detective Comics, which reverted to their "Legacy numbering" (i.e. their numbering had they not restarted at Issue #1 in the New 52) following Issue #52, with the DC Rebirth banner being added to the issues following the renumbering.)

4. Even if Comic Vine is a wiki requiring moderator approval for edits, it is still not an official DC source and reflects the views and judgements of the moderators for the site, not of DC Comics as a company. Further, the "Respect Thread" is created and maintained by fans, not solely the moderators. As said above, the citation only links to the thread generally, without reference to any specific post. If you have particular posts in mind, you should cite the post's sources, rather than claiming that the thread a whole is a trustworthy and relevant source. (I will also note that I recall that the thread began 8 years ago. I cannot check the most recent posts in it due to site maintenance at the present moment, but 8 years ago obviously predates both Tom King's and Mark Waid's relevant works, and thus could not be used to justify current canon contradicting them. Relying on something nearly a decade old would not inherently be relevant.)

5. Your discussion with Red Shogun revolves around a DC Encyclopedia that not only is unreleased but was unannounced at the time of your edits. (The bulk of your edits begin in November 2025 whereas the DC Encyclopedia New Edition was only announced in January 2026.) Furthermore, you've not established why the New History of the DC Universe is not an equally valid source beyond claiming, without any reasoning, that it is "not for current time", despite it going up to the start of the most recent event crossover.

As a final note: if you intend to continue repeating words and being condescending ("Hope you can digest it."; "You don't comprehend it. Comprehend it please. I am sure you will understand.") or make circular assertions without any sort of explanation of reasoning ("It's a mark, a mark is a mark, but not the "Rebirth happened when this title came out", it doesn't mean that way."), I will take this to the main Talk page for Wonder Woman, so that it will be more public, and where more people can comment and provide input. Wolv022 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Well, I'm open to discussion, but if the discussion is like this, it will waste my energy to be honest. Suddenly you told me that I am disrespectful, out of sudden. When I have been civil toward you, I didn't even use offensive language. I tried my best to be civil.

2. You clearly are, I am sorry, still don't get it, when it's actually clear. Well, I also read the "The New History of the DC Universe", but even the synopsis of the book is clear it's a history summary book of 90 years of DC Comics World's existence. Historical book is canon, regarding timeline, but it's not for current time, history is history. Including about history summary of existence through era to era. Even other people that I know, get it too, so I'm not alone.

3. You are a human, you have the ability to think, use it, you can do your own effort. I mean, I am not obligated to give anything to you, just like you are not obligated to give anything to me. In fact, you can do your own research, do your own effort. You can search by yourself without depend on people to give it to you. Even other editor like Red shogun did his own effort. I am NOT trying to be rude here, don't TWIST my word, I am just saying that you can do thing yourself.

4. Even DC Encyclopedia books say that Wonder Woman is the daughter of Zeus, not only the upcoming 2026 edition. But the DC encyclopedia books before year 2026 also state Wonder Woman is the daughter of Zeus. Search that by yourself. It's simple. DC Company has released another encyclopedia books before the upcoming 2026 edition. Mind you, the upcoming 2026 edition of DC Encyclopedia even has a foreword by JIM LEE, who is the CURRENT PRESIDENT of the DC Comics Company, shown in the book front cover, the president himself said a word. It's really from DC, real thing.

5. Darkseid War is the new 52 and rebirth storyline, even in various wikipedia articles of Wonder Woman in several languages, in the rebirth era section, it's stated like that. When Myrina (mother of Grail) died, in Darkseid war, it's even regarded as rebirth moment too. Darkseid War is like the bridge, closing the NEW 52 of justice league and opening the rebirth.

6. I had discussion before with user @Red Shogun412, @Trailblazer101, also user @EvergreenFir was there too, it was on "Edit-Warring" page, but now it's gone. Discuss regarding this. Even user Red Shogun said that it's regrettable that at that time we, the fellow editors, lack of communication, including the information sharing, like, the understanding of the same information, now we are all clear and agreed, cool, and then you came. When I was ACCIDENTALLY reported too hastily by user Trailblazer (but now it's already withdrawn, we are all cool now and I already forgave the reporter's mistake), we are all agreed too, us, on that time of discussion. Based on how Diana is written in general comics, general, and how the encyclopedia books like the upcoming 2026 edition say, it's clear. Despite a writer can do things "out of line", that some writers can do things that are "out of line", not backed up by the company, then suddenly DC re-affirmed that with their encyclopedia.

7. About the Comic Vine, I hope you can re-read my words above, and you will understand. The person there cited regarding Diana's origin, which is in accordance with DC stated for years, despite it's a forum social media post. The New 52 was a hard reboot, so, it's not surprised if the Zeus origin stays even until now, a change from hard reboot can stay durable, that DC decided to hold it. Even games and other on-screen adaptation also know that Wonder Woman origin has had a change.

8. Lastly, please stop trying to accusing me for being disrespectful. I don't do anything to you. I already replying to you, trying to be civil as I can, I even said "I am sorry". Don't "guilt-tripping" other people. I am a simple person, so if this discussion turns to the same route again and again, I will not engage to it. Because it drains my energy. I will not engage in discussion that only draining my energy because it's go to the same route again and again. I am also watchful in discussion. And yes, I have also my own life too, outside Wikipedia, I have my own busyness too.

9. The reason why the discussion is here, it's because I feel comfortable here. In my own space. Because I know that this is a personal matter between us. So, I don't think it needs to be brought to the Wonder Woman talk page. I don't think personal matter need to be brought to public crowd talk page. After all, you are the one who have a personal business against me, right?. It's a person to person. So that's why I encourage to just visit my talk page. Thank you, that's all I can say, that I can do. I just hope you don't "guilt-tripping" someone or using someone as the black goat. I can defend myself by the way. And I will not always engage to discussion because I am watchful whether this discussion is worth it or not, I care about to what thing I spend my energy to, I care about myself. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

1. I said you were being disrespectful because you were immediately being condescending by saying I don't "comprehend" and haven't read books that I have read.

2. That the book covers 90 years of published books does not automatically mean it represents "continuity at time of publication", nor is that the logical assumption to make. DC has helpfully provided for the timelines in the first 3 issues (the final one is not available for some reason, but there are pictures available on CBR thread). You can tell from the official timelines that the history is being presented as current canon as it includes many retcons from much later and excludes earlier versions of history, such as Superman being active alongside the JSA (as it was prior to 1986). I hope you can see that you are mistaken in asserting that the book does not represent current canon.

3. I have done my own research and am certain at least some of your edits warrant removal or further editing. You want to insist on false statements like Darkseid War being a Rebirth storyline or the New History not being current canon. These are objectively wrong and you've provided no basis for them or your claim that DC has an official "Guideline" that Diana is the daughter of Zeus in current canon.

4. The latest edition of the DC Comics Encylopedia prior to the 2026 edition is from 2021, predating both Tom King and Mark Waid's officially published and editorial-approved works. Not only do I believe that statements in a mainline comic and in a publicized comic-based guide book (as the New History of the DC Universe is), both of which are directly published by DC Comics rather than another company (DK Publishing) the way that the Encyclopedia is, the Encyclopedia does not even state that she "is" the daughter of Hippolyta and Zeus. The page scans we have state she is "said to be" their daughter. However, as I said before, the 2026 Encyclopedia was not even announced when you made those edits, so you could not possibly have based your dismissal of Tom King's run and the New History on the Encyclopedia, as it was not known to exist.

5. Now you are just acting in bad faith. Your edits are visible in the history for a given page, including in other languages. I can see that you are editing and reverting other people's edits on those non-English pages as well. You can't support your edits by pointing to other edits you made. It's circular reasoning. "What I said is correct because I said it in a different language with the same Comic Vine source." (You also didn't give any examples for me to check. If you know that it's on other pages, you should know at least some examples of which page.) Additionally, Wonder Woman is a primarily English-language IP, meaning that even edits by other users may be based on the sources and edits on the main page.

6. Red Shogun and others may accept the Encyclopedia as a superior source to the main Wonder Woman title and the New History of the DC Universe, but as said above, I do not. It is also hypocritical to claim that you are basing your stance on what "is written in general comics, general, and how the encyclopedia books" (though I don't know what the standalone "general" is supposed to mean), when you rejecting her sole ongoing comic book and a comic-based guide. You are explicitly rejecting "general comics" by stating that two recent published series are incorrect and that an unofficial wiki and a non-DC published Encyclopedia are better sources than them.

7. I read your words and understood them. I told you that you should cite the sources directly rater than leaving an unclear citation for the whole thread. I also told you that that thread spans 8 years, meaning it began 5 years before Tom King's run.

8. You opened by telling me that I don't understand things and haven't read books that I have, you are telling me obviously incorrect things in regards to Darkseid War, and you have tried to justify your edits by pointing to pages you also edited in other languages. It certainly feels like you are treating me like an idiot and trying to just say "I'm right".

9. Wikipedia is a public information source that everyone is free to edit. Not just you and me, but everyone. Trying to guilt-trip me (which is what you seem to be doing by framing your talk page as "comfortable" for you and thus the main talk page as "uncomfortable") will not work. If we can't come to an agreement (and there are several things that I will not back down on), I will open this up to comment from others. If you feel like you don't have the energy to defend your edits and opt to revert other people's edits without explanation (despite valid explanations by the other editors in the edit message) because you need to conserve energy, perhaps you should not be trying to reshape the Wikipedia article into your preferred (and, at times, poorly written; the phrase "the turmoil thing that Greg Rucka had done" is just poor writing which I corrected with minimal content changes, and yet you reverted it without giving a second thought) version. Wolv022 (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Wow, you are so stubborn. Why you expect me and other editors to follow you? Somehow. It feels that way.

You do not believe it? Fine, but me and other editors believe what DC Comics Company states. Even Jim Lee made the foreword of the encyclopedia itself. You denying Jim Lee? Wow, and Jim Lee is like, the current president of the DC Comics Company, it can be searched, the president itself made the foreword. DC Comics Company COLLABORATING with DK, so those encyclopedia books are from DC Comics Company itself. It is still from DC, despite it's not published by DC, it is explained like, in the synopsis, usually Amazon.com writes it, and on news account regarding DC Comics world on social media, explained too. You are rejecting and rejecting just because it doesn't in your way. You just denial just because it's not the way you want. Read the DC encyclopedia page for Wonder Woman of 2026 edition again. In the ABOVE, it's clearly said "Wonder Woman is Diana, daughter of Zeus" and BELOW, after "it is said.... ", there is a word "but her origins were hidden for decades..... to protect her from...." until "This gave rise to...". You don't even read it fully. Also usually in the synopsis, usually Amazon.com writing it in the shopping page or in DC Comics world news account in social media, they do it too, I think even GoodReads and Google Books write it too, it's written that EVERY DC ENCYCLOPEDIA BOOKS from the collaboration of DC Comics Company and DK, they are UPDATED, like UP-TO-DATE, up-to-date to the current era, are you gonna deny that too?. If you deny it, you are just stubbornly in denial.

If you are still stubborn about Mark Waid's book "New History of the DC Universe", I have no power to change your mind, but I will just ignore it. Because I literally have explained it, synopsis is clear, what does a history summary of existence is, it's clear. What does it mean to jump from era to era, it's clear. I am not the only one who understand, other people that I know on social media understand it too. I am not gonna explain it again and again.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, as long as with reliable sources and neutral point of view, and based on my discussion with user @Red Shogun412, @Trailblazer101, and @EvergreenFir, it's acceptable, even user Red Shogun provided the link in our discussion, above, in my talk page. Oh I forget, @Daniel Case also protects the article too, agreeing, he was there in that discussion too in the "edit warring" page. Also, general comics mean, comics in general, in a whole, not only from Tom King's work, look it as general, all those comics, a whole. Wonder Woman is depicted as the child of Zeus in modern DC era, in comics generally, that's guideline, also what DC affirms in their encyclopedia books, that shows clear what Wonder Woman canon origin is based on guideline made by the company.

About Comic Vine, skip, I am not explaining again and again. Already clear there. Also, I am not treating you like idiot, you are just sensitive who somehow use me as a black goat. Me telling you to comprehend isn't disrespectful, it's asking you to really understand it. That's all.

The "Myrina, mother of Grail, who was dead" is considered part of Rebirth, and it was happened in Darkseid War storyline. Also, the one who made that edit WASN'T ME. Regarding Myrina's case. I don't feel I did the thing.

Now you are accusing me again, like I edit the articles based on how I want, based on my taste. When in fact I just preserve the articles to what it should be, protecting it from vandalism. From unresponsible editors. Even @Red Shogun412 and @Trailblazer101 can understand. You are accusing me again, wow, my honor is disrespected here by you. And you are accusing me that I am "guilt-trip" you when you are the one who act as if I am this and that, as if I am "nonsense" or something.

Whether we like it or not, DC confirms what Wonder Woman origin is, what writers say don't matter because they are not the owner of Wonder Woman and the creator of DC Comics world. Writers must follow the guideline from the company, but some writers can be "out of line". Even before Tom King writing, it was clear that Wonder Woman is the daughter of Zeus before Tom got assigned. DC now confirms it again with their upcoming OFFICIAL encyclopedia. It's not decanonized if it's mentioned that way in OFFICIAL material. You are just refuse it because it's NOT WHAT YOU WANT, probably because you are not fond of the Zeus origin or something, well, I don't know. You are just in denial.

I know where is this going, so I am going to end it here, I am not gonna waste my time having discussion with someone who uses me as a black goat, accusing me again and again. My honor is important. Thanks. I am ending it here. Whether you talk to other editors or what, I don't know your business. I am just ending it here. Bye. Thank you. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

1. Jim Lee writing the foreword for the book does not automatically validate the subsequent entries. As an additional note, if you are appealing to the stance of "editors" and "editorial", it's worth noting that Jim Lee is not directly involved in editing at DC Comics. He is the President, whereas the Editor-in-Chief is Marie Javins.

2. The Superman entry, which has also been previewed, shows that the Encyclopedia is not a reliable source for current canon. This is exemplified in the fact that the description for Clark Kent's origin as Superboy matches what was presented in Superman: Secret Origin, published in 2010, and the brief retelling of Superman's origin in Action Comics #977 (The New World, Part 1). This is in spite of the fact that Mark is currently writing a run about Superboy in Action Comics that supersedes and contradicts that version of events, which Superman Group Editor Paul Kaminsky has explicitly referred as being the new canon in a "Digging for Kryptonite" podcast interview.

3. Just to reiterate, Tom King's Wonder Woman run is edited by a Senior Editor at DC Comics, Brittany Holzherr. Not only does she edit Wonder Woman (and acts the equivalent to a Group Editor for a few other titles alongside it), she also was the editor for Mark Waid's New History of the DC Universe. Do you really intend to insist that two books edited by a Senior Editor do not reflect the views of DC Comics Editorial? Is your stance really going to be that a foreword by non-editor Jim Lee makes an entry in the same book, which was not written by him, supersede works edited by a Senior Editor?

4. You have not explained anything about The New History of the DC Universe, you just insist that it's not meant to be a canon timeline when DC's own website and the interior of the book says otherwise. The opening for the prologue for the book is literally Barry Allen sitting down and saying "History keeps changing, so I'm going to do my best to map history out". There's literally retcons added to this book, including the change that the Golden Age Superman and Power Girl were part of an army brought by Pariah during the events Crisis on Infinite Earths rather than being part of the same universe as the JSA. Or, Issue #4 presents Jason as the half-brother of Wonder Woman when discussing the Rebirth era, rather than her twin brother, which is obviously reconciling the events of Rebirth with current canon (Diana as a clay baby).

5. It's hypocritical to insist on inserting a Comic Vine fan-made forum thread as a source. Your only justification is a social media post, which you could just as easily cite directly.

6. Comics are full of retcons, with new stories superseding old stories. Your insistence that what Tom King and Mark Waid wrote are non-canon because Rebirth-era stories contradict them is hypocritical, as the Rebirth-era stories themselves contradict and supersede the New 52 stories that created the Zeus origin in the first place.

7. Yes, you are that made the edit stating that Darkseid War was part of DC Rebirth. The part I was referring to was NOT the part talking (which was also the part that edited, which you reverted) about Myrina Black, which is relevant to DC Rebirth by virtue of James Robinson (but not Greg Rucka) following up on the plot thread. What I actually referred to is to when you assert that it is an example of a Rebirth storyline referencing her as the daughter of Zeus (Multiple runs in Rebirth, including in "The Darkseid War" series, still show Diana as the daughter of Zeus and Hippolyta as the accurate recent canon origin of Wonder Woman, in accordance with the guideline of Wonder Woman.), for which you cite a 2018 collected edition for the 2015-2016 pre-Rebirth storyline. That edit originates with you, dating back to November 27th, 2025, at 11:43. Please do not try to deflect responsibility for your edits.

8. "Now you are accusing me again, like I edit the articles based on how I want, based on my taste." Yes, that is what I believe you are doing, given that you do not take any feedback, insist on de-canonizing recent comics, and falsely state that "Darkseid War" was a Rebirth storyline, going so far as to say that it is somehow both part of the New 52 and Rebirth, despite Rebirth explicitly being a post-New 52 relaunch. You go so far as to ignore Wikipedia's own page for Rebirth and instead point to non-English Wikipedia pages that you yourself edited.

Since you clearly do not intend to budge and neither do I, I will be preparing a post to make in the main Wonder Woman talk page to collect further opinions on the matter. Wolv022 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

User talk:AmazonianGoddess

April 2025

Wonder Woman edits (Discussion of February 8, 2026, status: ended)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion (STATUS: ENDED, WITHDRAWN, DUE TO IT WAS JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING TOWARD ME. I was reported too hastily because of that misunderstanding, but now all parties are cool/okay. AmazonianGoddessAmazonianGoddess (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC))

Related Articles