Talk:Lady Deathstrike

Untitled

Question: I'm reading William Gibson's Neuromancer and noticed a character toward the beginning who struck me as very similar to Lady Deathstrike. The book appears to predate, if not the creation of the character, the addition of her claws and abilities. Is there any evidence the book was inspiration for the comic book character?

• • Stepping Razor. As I remember, her claws work differently, being little more than small retractable blades under her fingernails. In any event I would suggest a simpler inspiration for this character would be "female wolverine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.200.32.232 (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following from the article because I really don't think RPG stats belong in Wikipedia. Since large numbers of these "vital stats" sections have been added to various articles, I'm using Talk:Strength level (comics) to discuss this issue in general. Bryan 07:50, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Detailed Description

• Name: Yuriko Darkwind
• Group Affiliations: The Reavers (disbanded)
• Hieght: 5'10"
• Wieght: 150 lbs.
• Sex: Female
• First Appearance: Alpha Flight #133, 1986
• Origin of powers: Cybernetice implants. Adamantium laced skeleton and claws.
  • Intelligence: Above Normal (possibly greater due to artificial CPU}
  • Strength: Enhanced Human (Can military press 2 tons)
  • Durability: Superhuman Regenerative
  • Reflexes: Enhanced Human
  • Speed: Enhanced Human
  • Agility: Enhanced Human
  • Stamina: Superhuman
  • Other powers: Lady Deathstrike is an advanced cyborg designed to be several times stronger, faster, and more agile than is humanly possible. As she still has some biological parts that do not seem to be affected by the adamantium bonding process which would be lethal to any ordinary human, it has been speculated that she may be mutant with similar powers to Wolverine. However, there is so little left of the original biological article that is difficult to say. She is an expertly trained assassin; master of weapons, marksmanship, stealth, and both armed and un-armed combat.

• • So I'm not very good at editing Wiki pages, but I would like to note that in Ultimate X-Men, the issue Deathstrike gets her neck snapped is in Issue #65, Part 5 of Magnetic North. HPDDJ (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pursuit of Bullseye

My edit mentioning that Bullseye was also pursued by Lady Deathstrike due to him possessing an admantium laced skeleton was removed a few edits ago by , within a large change of text. Was this removal intentional or accidental? I do know that Bullseye had an admantium-laced skeleton, as referenced in one of the books (Predator's Smile?). There's a mention at http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2855/deathstrike.html of her having thought she was pursuing Bullseye but instead finding Wolverine. It's stated at http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=2456&si=126 that Lady Deathstrike's father observed the process of using the admantium to heal Bullseye's shattered spine, this after he'd re-developed the procedure after it was stolen. Also mentioned at http://www.classicmarvel.com/cast/lady_deathstrike.htm or a number of other places found by typing Bullseye "Lady Deathstrike" into Google.

Bullseye's skeleton is not laced with Adamantium. After he was paralized in the fall fighting with Daredevil, Lady DeathStrike's father, Lord DarkWind (the creator of the Adamantium/Skeletal Bonding Process) only replaced the damaged bone in his spine with Adamantium. Lady DeathStrike, to avenge Bullseye's dishonor towards her father, then hoped to track Bullseye via his Adamantium implants, but the tracking equipment she used lead her to Wolverine instead. To my knowledge she never resumed her vendetta against Bullseye. Now she is even apparently his teammate in The Thunderbolts. Her quest for vengeance against those who stole from her father, namely his original Adamantium/Skeletal Bonding Formulas, should be focused squarely on Bullseye (who technically never repaid Lord DarkWind for saving his life), as well as those who supplied his stolen formulas to the scientists involved with the Weapon X Project. I don't think those avenues were ever written about, yet vendetta was the core of her character from the start. 74.244.63.126 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullseye's (non-spinal) bones, while not precicely laced or bonded with Adamantium, are reinforced with strips of it (Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe et al.), so it isn't clear where he falls on Deathstrike's hit list. Noclevername 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If in fact Bullseye's entire skeleton is reinforced with Adamantium, then I stand corrected (as I don't follow Daredevil or Bullseye stories), but the procedure was not performed by Lord DarkWind. As stated earlier, he only replaced the damaged bone in Bullseye's spine with Adamantium, giving Bullseye a 50/50 chance of surviving the process. In return, DarkWind demanded the assassination of a Japanese Foreign Minister, which Bullseye implied he would carry out. After he recovered and left DarkWind's island, he welched on his end of the deal, as he was not actually "paid" by DarkWind. Bullseye recieved some Adamantium replaced vertebrae in return for an assassination he never carried out (Daredevil #197-199). Technically, he stole from DarkWind, as was Lady DeathStrike's notion when she began tracking him (Alpha Flight #33). I'd be interested to read the story about Bullseye receiving Adamantium reinforcing strips on his skeleton, if it was actually written about... the instances in "Bios" and "Handbooks" where the writers clearly have no idea what they are talking about, or are just fabricating previously unknown "facts", are pretty numerous. 74.244.63.126 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ULTXM60 COV.jpg

Image:ULTXM60 COV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Main picture - ???

Perhaps its just me, but the main picture this one looks weird, if not disturbing. What exactly is displayed there? Is her leg armor split open? I would suggest some different picture - this one probably only makes sense if you know the whole situation...--Cyberman TM (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me as if she is simply wearing a sort of loincloth that hangs down from her belt at the front, back and both sides.Khajidha (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A list for those too stupid to read

My goodness, how bad of a fanboy you have to be to not note how ridiculous this section is.

1. highly skilled in a variety of Asian martial arts
2. a skilled martial artist
3. expert in [...] other samurai warrior skills.

1. especially skilled with swords
2. expert in the art of Kenjutsu

Also,

1. "healing factor" [Note the link]
2. This cybernetic healing factor enables her to quickly repair damage done to her biological and cybernetic components.
3. Evidently, this power enables her to regenerate damage done to both her biological and cybernetic parts.

These are really, really difficult to spot. --91.55.214.168 (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting what I re-added (and I only did that to preserve the article as it was before edit warring) will only keep the edit war going. You should fix up the entire section, because that is what is needed, and explain that in the edit summary. Deleting part while leaving the section still in poor quality will not help. --Spidey104^contribs 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Trying to end edit war

I requested the semi-protection for this article because of the ongoing edit war that is happening on the article. I will admit that I do not know enough about the character to determine if comments in the article are correct or not. Hopefully the 10 days of semi-protection will allow everyone involved to calm down and make constructive edits. Please provide citations (issue numbers are perfectly fine for that) for information, and if you are removing information that you believe to be incorrect put an explanation in your edit summary. I am not trying to take either side on this dispute, but I'd like it if everyone was able to get along. --Spidey104^contribs 03:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you start a second section for your answer; the arguments that you made a grave mistake are just too compelling to face. Anyway, it's not productive, so please reply within the section above. --91.55.241.173 (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I started a new section because I'm not debating the content of the article. I am only trying to keep the article from being in an eternal edit war. The semi-protection was to allow you time to calm down, so please calm down. I have no clue if the information in the article is correct or not, so I cannot debate the contents that you want to debate. All I want is for the edit war to end and for citations to be included in the article. --Spidey104^contribs 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to join the discussion as soon as you can think of something useful to add. (You obviously read neither the article nor my list, which is really kind of funny.) --91.55.241.173 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to read what I am saying. I do not know if the information in the article is correct or not. I just wanted the edit war between you and another guy to end, so stop trying to get me to debate content. I cannot debate the content. --Spidey104^contribs 22:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lady Deathstrike/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs reference citations and formal references. Badbilltucker 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lady Deathstrike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509080011/http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/78.html to http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/78.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)