Wikia

Nukapedia

Sarkhan the Sojourner

aka The Scion of Delphi

19,288 Edits since joining this wiki
May 17, 2011
  • I live in Dreamland, Grandeur
  • I was born on June 22
  • My occupation is Soldier of fortune
  • I am the brewmeister
Archive
Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17

look Edit

I dont like it when people act like they are morally and intellectually superior by hating things, I am going to stand up for what I like and defend it. They were insulting something I like first... Just because I insult something other people like, and dont like it and disagree with other peoples opinions... does not mean I am a bad peerson or need to be reported. and in the future if you have a problem with me say it to my face... Sorry that you are insulted by my presence because I like Fallout 3 the best, should everyone who liked fallout 3 be banned for being uneducated or something? ralok (talk) 00:14, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Not going to say anything much at the moment. Reminds me of Tagaziel, but just the other way around. Tag got away with it, so will Ralok, for now anyway. He's not insulting anyone as far I can see, just defending his opinion. Stop reacting to his comments I think if you want it to end. Jspoel Speech Jspoel 00:20, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I noticed that. He's just testing them out a bit as well is my guess. (You can remove my 2 comments here if you want) Jspoel Speech Jspoel 00:26, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

HeyEdit

Just dropping by.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 02:26, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

wow Edit

what an awful name you have Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate 03:27, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

I was like, "Who is this noob" then I saw "Scion of Delphi" and was like "oh." --Skire (talk) 00:16, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
Now all you need is a nice signature and it's like you're reborn! So, will you be on Skype/Minecraft anytime soon? I will be leaving for Ireland on Tuesday. --Skire (talk) 00:21, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like you'll be occupied till I get back, huh? Well either way, good luck with the competition and the meeting (that I will unfortunately have to miss). --Skire (talk) 00:52, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
I'll be back officially on July 1st. --Skire (talk) 00:58, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

MeetingEdit

That thing's tonight? OK. I'll message you, no problem. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 15:40, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

T minus 15.  The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 20:46, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Happy birthday!Edit

Icon sweetroll
You have been given a sweetroll.
Your efforts and diligence have not gone unnoticed, and you have been given a small token of appreciation.
Happy birthday man, I hope this sweetroll doesn't get stolen :p - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 10:21, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

ContestEdit

I haven't heard from J, but I have spoken to Gunny and Clyde. Neither were in favor of official participation. Gunny suggested that maybe something in your personal blog might be okay, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable even with that as it would arguably just be advertising for another site. Agent c (talk) 23:15, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

I think that really would be advertising if you did that, due to your personal involvement with the host site. A small line item mention in the news digest might work. Agent c (talk) 23:41, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

ContinuedEdit

Alright, well keep me updated on what happens. I just returned from my Ireland trip so I'll be available generally. --Skire (talk) 01:01, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

Any idea (even a rough estimate) of when you plan to bring the server up once again? :P --Skire (talk) 01:34, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Hey EséEdit

How's it going? We haven't spoken in a while, so I figured I'd drop by and say 'hello'. "Space. The final frontier." ~The-Artist-64 (talk) 15:06, July 13, 2015 (UTC)The-Artist-64

Your request Edit

I'm not particularly inclined to get into that argument over there, so I'll leave what few points I'd have here for you to parse:

  1. It could very possibly be that the R91 is the manufacturer's model number, while the M199 is the military standard nomenclature of the same weapon. The H&K 416 was adopted by the USMC as the M27 IAR.
  2. Having intimate knowledge of how the current and recent past US military procures and issues weapons, it's completely possible that they have a single standard issue weapon that every branch, including Guard units (which really are a separate thing, but typically equipped from Federal stocks) use, but it is just as possible that there are many standard and/or non-standard/secondary issue weapons. It's commonly known that the US Navy continued to use the M1 rifle (rechambered to 7.62 NATO and designated the Mk2 Mod0) long after the rest of the military moved on to the M14 and then the M16 platform. Hell, I was on the Inchon in the 80's and they still had M14s, long after we had M16A2s. I know for certain that Reserve and Guard units were still using the M1911 long after active duty units transitioned to the M9. I know this for a fact, as I ran the transition qualification to the M9 for a Reserve unit long after I had qualified with the M9 with an active duty unit.

The important point is that there simply isn't enough evidence to support either the claim that the rifles are, or are not, the same. Were someone to attempt to change that content here, I would politely ask for some type of confirmation to verify that claim, as it completely falls under speculation, or as they would call it at Wikipedia {{WP:NOR}} (original research). Lacking any type of confirmation from the game, or a dev, there's just no way to determine with the info we do know whether they are the same rifle model. I hope this helps inform you. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 21:09, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Revert of deletion tagsEdit

If you disagree with the deletion tag please talk about it on the article talk page before removing the tag. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 18:54, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

As policy states, as an editor I am fully within my rights to revert any changes that I disagree with"

I'd like to see which policy you are referring to that says "editors can revert anything they disagree with". The deletion tag says on it to discuss it on the article's talk pages, so maybe you should do that. Shining obviously has reasons for adding the tag, and I suggest that you find out those reasons before removing them. The tags stay for now until a discussion has been had. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 19:02, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
This is as transparent as it gets: I told you very specifically that I fully expect ANY editing issue to be resolved on the article talk page. The template tells you to do exactly that. I'm telling you to do that. If you contest the proposed deletion, contest it on the talk page, right where I said I'd have editors do it, and right where you should. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 19:05, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
A mediator has gotten involved, two in fact. Myself and Gunny, and we have mediated that the deletion tag be left there until a discussion has been had. There has been no consensus made in chat, or though any other private means. The point of adding the deletion tag was to give the chance to find a consensus. If you think the pages should stay, discuss it on the article's talk page. That is final. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 19:11, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

I am the mediator. It was brought to my attention that you removed the tags. I replaced them so that the very discussion you are asking for can be had on the talk page. If you want to have a better explanation of her rationale, then I suggest you ask it on the talk page. In a case where a deletion tag is placed, and there's contention over it, how can the discussion be held if the tag is removed? In a typical edit conflict where the status quo state of the article is kept until the conflict is resolved, that's great, but in a case like this, the tag should stay to alert ALL EDITORS of the contested proposed deletion. You want everyone to have their say, in a transparent way, then this is the right way to do it. Removing the tag only works to silence that conversation. Talk it out on the talk page. I've already told anyone asking in chat to do the same. This is exactly what I promised you I would do. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 19:19, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

In future I suggest you don't go around calling admins and bcrats "pathetic" and "wanna be politicians" just because they disagree with you. For your hostile attitude and insults I am giving you a 2 week ban. I hope that in future you will chose to approach similar situations without insulting others. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 19:23, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Truth hurts, doesn't it? Maybe in the future, you all can stop breaking policies and bending others in-order to suit your personal agendas. And maybe in the future, you all can stop making non-transparent decisions and leaving everyone else on the wiki in the dark until you all finally decide to grace us peasants with a much needed explanation.
Once again: absolutely pathetic behaviour. Especially the cowarding behind admins aspect of this farce. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 19:25, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
I am going to say this one last time, Leon. We did not reach consensus on this. If we did the page would have been deleted right away. The point of the deletion tag is to call to people that we would like to reach a consensus on the article's talk page. I also suggest that when you have been banned for calling users pathetic that you do not then proceed to do the exact same thing JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 19:29, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
This is my last message in regards to this conversation, and I am going to make it perfectly clear: I have always called out users for doing shady shit on this wiki, even when it made other users mad at me. I have made this clear from calling out a good friend of mine for posting suicidal bullshit, which got my rights removed, to calling out The Vault for throwing libel at us, to calling out our leadership that abused the Inactivity policy, as much as I hate that policy.
So do not think, for a second, that your bans and threats of bans, will silence my opinions and observations. Because in no world, will I ever be intimidated into letting people roll-over me. Not one of you are going to even acknowledge your part in this matter, from the edit-warring, to the hiding behind admins instead of educating the community, to the blatant abuse of what is supposed to be neutral mediation.
And here is the blunt truth: all I wanted was an explanation. If it were not for the reversions of my reverts, if it was not for the mediator position being used to strong-hand in one side over another, and if someone would have actually taken the time to give an explanation instead of spamming the recent changes with vague-as-hell deletion tags, then what happened here would have never happened.
But I highly doubt any of you will take any responsibility at all as to this farce. Hell, I doubt either of my two inquiries that I made, which you two have conveniently ignored when telling me to attempt discussion, will ever be answered (except maybe in an attempt to make me feel foolish after reading this). So whatever. Do what you all want - I have expected no less from this wiki lately. With me banned, you all can continue on your way with treating everyone else like shit (-cough- like you do with J -cough-). User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 19:39, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try and simmer this whole mess down.

As we have previously discussed, the general rule gives way to the more specific rule. In general Leon, you are correct, a revert should not be reverted, and should be left off pending discussion.

But a deletion tag has an extra instruction:

If you disagree with this page's deletion, please explain why on its talk page. If this page obviously should not be deleted or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself.

This instruction is the more specific rule.

As you didn't know the reason, or felt it was ambiguous, I don't believe it can be said that the "Obviously should not be deleted" part rule applies. The country pages are essentially stubs, tending to suggest that their reason to exist is tenuous at best. An obvious page that shouldn't be deleted for me would be something like the page on shady sands.

The first part of the statement however did apply. You did apparently disagree with the deletion. In this situation, the instruction is clear - you are directed to go to the talk page.

The correct rule/policy that applied was therefore that the tag should remain pending discussion. Any edit to the contrary is therefore in breach of policy, and returning the page to the tagged status would therefore be correct.

Reading rules in isolation is a receipe for failure.

Additionally, replacing the tag whilst discussing the controversy would also make more sense - the reason for the tag is ultimately to discuss if the page should be deleted. Having a discussion to ask if the tag should be there, followed by a discussion once re-tagged as to if we should delete it is illogical and nonsensical. This would suggest the "Golden Rule" of legislative interpretation should be used, and the rule read in a way that removes the absurdity.

As such, the correct action - as a matter of both policy and common sense - was to reapply the tagged status until the controversy could be resolved by consensus.

In any case, those edits to remove them, whilst against policy, were in good faith. You haven't recieved a ban for them, and nor would a ban be correct.

Bringing in insults, or making allegations about others are treated detracts from your argument and ultimately harms yourself. I understand you get emotional about this stuff, but its not an excuse. The ban on this seems to be justified.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Agent c (talk) 20:03, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I made two attempts to foster discussion, and neither of those attempts were publicly acknowledged. My problem, ultimately, was not with the deletion tags. If the deletion tags were properly made, I would have been more than happy to let them stand for pending discussion.

My problem, is that this wiki has progressively begun fostering an atmosphere of leaving everyone except a select few editors in the dark, leaving just about everyone confused and flailing about trying to grasp at what certain editors are doing, and their motivations behind what they are doing. That should not be the case - edit summaries are here for a reason. Forums are here for a reason. Blogs are here for a reason. Hell, the most relevant one in this case is that deletion tags are there for a reason. If even a single one of these mediums were used instead of spamming the recent changes with ambiguous deletion tag summaries, then this entire incident could have been avoided.

After the fact, the problem became apparent that no one was willing to explain the situation to the rest of us (until just recently with a forum), yet they were absolutely willing to force their views over mine. All I wanted was an explanation - and instead of even the most basic of explanations to tide me over, such as mentioning if they were planning a forum, I was instead met with reversions, ignored inquiries, and an admin blatantly abusing the mediator position. A mediator position is not so that an admin can call themselves one, and without trying to understand the opposing position, declares that their position is the best and only one.

As for the insults, I want to make it clear that they were not personal insults - they were observations. I did not call Jasper or anyone else as being pathetic human-beings - I specifically called out their current actions pathetic. Same goes for wannabe-politicians - they were most certainly acting like one; not saying that they actually are one in person. I still find what I said to be perfectly valid criticism of their blatant lack of empathy in what was clearly a confusing situation to anyone outside of their circle. If I wanted to actually insult anyone, I would have said a lot worse - and I have said a lot worse in the past when warranted.

In any case, I do not really care. Even if what I say is taken into consideration, I still stand by what I said, in that I have come to expect no less from Nukapedia these days - even over the most innocent shit, it seems like no one can be bothered to be immediately transparent anymore, aside from a very few select editors. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 20:27, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to leave you a response on three separate occasions but was edit conflicted each time so instead of continuing to contact you I instead simply wrote up the forum.
Shining-Armor (talk) 20:35, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

My problem, is that this wiki has progressively begun fostering an atmosphere of leaving everyone except a select few editors in the dark

I have no idea where you get this impression. We use forum discussions, talk pages, and even moved into public meetings for immediate pressing issues (one of the two you attended). The only person whom I can recall seeking a "private" consultation on something recently is yourself.

After the fact, the problem became apparent that no one was willing to explain the situation to the rest of us (until just recently with a forum), yet they were absolutely willing to force their views over mine

You failed to place your views in the appropriate forum (the talk page) as you yourself indicate should be used. Instead you made the private decision to delete the tag. Had you wanted an explanation you had the opportunity to put a note on the talk page, as the template directs. Yes, the template was not completed to standards, and the person placing the template was wrong for doing so; however two wrongs do not make a right.

You didn't request an explanation until you reverted, and then asserted a right to revert whatever you like.

Agent c (talk) 20:44, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

A perfect example is seen with a recent exchange with J, in which he was accosted for reverting changes that he deemed confusing, due to absolute non-transparency seen in yet another chat consensus that everyone not in chat at that particular time, could not have known about without external clarity. Denial is another big issue with Nukapedia - but that is something that cannot be addressed, as that is a personality trait - not something that can actually be fixed. Also, please do not misrepresent me - when I asked for a bureaucratic consul, I was already writing out a public sandbox, and released said sandbox shortly after our first words together.
I most certainly did not fail to put my views into the proper medium - please see: Moon. So, once again, you are misrepresenting me, as I only sent a TP message after my inquiry on the Moon article was ignored, and Shining continued to edit-in more vague deletion tags.

I also sent in my first inquiry before reverting anything. If you are going to call me out, please be aware of the fact, first. The edit history does not lie. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 20:56, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

You started reverting my tags as soon as you have left the message.
Shining-Armor (talk) 21:02, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
With the Moon article; yes, I did revert that deletion tag after my inquiry was made. And no; I did not send you a message first, before reverting or starting my first inquiry. State that again, and I will flat-out call you a liar. That still does not denounce the fact that it was just insinuated, that I did not use the proper discussion mediums, and that I began reverted before attempting contact/discussion. After my first inquiry, you made quite a few new deletion tags, with no answer on the Moon article, and so I began reverting your other tags and sent you a message in-order to gain your attention. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 21:05, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

A perfect example is seen with a recent exchange with J, in which he was accosted for reverting changes that he deemed confusing, due to absolute non-transparency seen in yet another chat consensus that everyone not in chat at that particular time

I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you mean where Gunny was working on a well publicized project with other editors, and J unilaterally decided to change things? That's not "chat consensus", that's cooperation between editors to a common goal.

Or do you mean where J was reverting changes that were in line with a policy voted on in a forum? Again, not a Chat consensus.

Also, please do not misrepresent me - when I asked for a bureaucratic consul, I was already writing out a public sandbox, and released said sandbox shortly after our first words together.

I don't feel like I am misrepresenting you here.

I most certainly did not fail to put my views into the proper medium - please see: Moon.

You didn't fail to in that single case. You did on the other pages. You also arguably broke policy by not waiting for consensus to revert the tag.

Again, I am not misrepresenting you, otherwise there would be a message on every talk page you reverted and/or you would not have reverted at all without waiting a reasonable period for shining to respond.

I did not send you a message first, before reverting. State that again, and I will flat-out call you a liar


Times taken from history page

19:45, 18 July 2015‎ - Message left on Moon Talk page.
19:46, 18 July 2015‎ - Reversion time on the moon.
19:49, 18 July 2015‎ - Message left to Shining.
19:50, 18 July 2015‎ - Reversion on Germany

It appears you did leave a message before reverting, but I don't think that was Shinings allegation. Additionally, you hardly gave Shining enough time to respond before unilaterally reverting. Agent c (talk) 21:15, July 18, 2015 (UTC)


I am referring to what Gunny told Onion in private, and then the indignation that took-place when J was confused by the work Onion was doing.

I do not care about how you feel. I am telling you that you are misrepresenting me there, as it is a fact that nothing I was wanting the consul for, was private information, as I released everything to the public almost immediately after our first message. You can "Feel" like your misrepresentation is fine, but I do not give a shit.

You are changing your story - so I am going to put it bluntly and say that I did use the proper discussion medium, and the inquiry I made was, and still is being ignored. And no - did not break policy. For me to even acknowledge this point, I am insisting now that you cite policy. All I did, was revert the spamming of vague deletion tags. If an anon or even a less-known user pulled off this stunt, the exact same would have happened.

I do not need to wait a reasonable time - I wait almost 5 minutes for a response after the Moon article, before I reverted anything else, and after making around a half-dozen new tags without responding to me, I continued on with both my message and the additional reverts. What? Want me to wait until he would have possibly made a few dozen mistakes, instead of stopping him at under a dozen? Because at the time, I had no idea that a discussion was in-mind - all I knew about were the vague deletion summaries spamming our recent changes and looking like a tangent. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 21:28, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

I am referring to what Gunny told Onion in private, and then the indignation that took-place when J was confused by the work Onion was doing.

So what you have there is not a "chat consensus" but two users working in concert on a project. There is no requirement on users working together on edits to start a forum, or whatever, to discuss every edit they're going t make.

It sounds like here you're making an assumption without being in possession of the facts.

so I am going to put it bluntly and say that I did use the proper discussion medium

On one, singular, Edit. Not on all of your unilateral reversions.

and no - did not break policy

I refer you back to the deletion template message.

or me to even acknowledge this point, I am insisting now that you cite policy

Scroll up.

I do not need to wait a reasonable time - I wait almost 5 minutes for a response after the Moon article, before I reverted anything else

Yes, you do. You removed the deletion template without discussing why it was there on multiple articles. 5 minutes is not a reasonable time to expect a response on that first edit.

What? Want me to wait until he would have possibly made a few dozen mistakes, instead of stopping him at under a dozen?

Did you have any good faith reason to believe they were a mistake? It seems like there you were not presuming the editor was acting in good faith.

Because at the time, I had no idea that a discussion was in-mind

The template specifically requires a discussion, unless the addition of the template was obviously in error.

all I knew about were the vague deletion summaries spamming our recent changes and looking like a tangent.

Which you could have discussed with the user before taking unilateral action in the presumption they were not good faith edits (as spamming would imply - although there is no such thing as spamming recent changes).Agent c (talk) 22:04, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

You apparently do not know what a consensus is - you are the only one assuming something there, by assuming that I am referring to a large group of people. The entire point, here, is that non-transparency is becoming the norm around Nukapedia, and then, illogically, people get indignant when their non-transparency causes issues across the wiki.

Does not matter - it was specifically stated, multiple times, that I needed to start proper discussion on a respective article-page, when I already had. Now, finally acknowledging that fact, but still ignoring that my first inquiry still has not been addressed, you are trying to detract from the fact.

Not a policy - I was not aware that you could insinuate ban-cause with an unwritten rule - an unwritten rule that I have never even heard before until you brought it up just recently. Not sure why, but quite a few people here are entirely ignorant of the difference between policies, guidelines, and unwritten rules. Or should I remind you of the user talk-page incident?

My reversions were not a case of good or bad-faith - they were to restore the status quo for pending and proper discussion, and to alert Shining to the fact that clarification was needed. Just because I used the word "...spamming...", does not mean that I considered Shining a vandal. It simply means that his intent was non-existent, and his mistakes were numerous.

What does that have to do with what I said? There was no forum explaining Shining's deletion tags. I was the one attempting discussion - Shining, however, was not, and still is not willing to address my inquiries. Even now, getting defensive on my TP, he still has not addressed either of my inquiries. Thankfully, at least now there is the forum.

Please stop misrepresenting me, and bastardizing the revert tool - reverting, inherently, is not a bad-faith action. Is is to restore the status quo. If I had thought Shining to be a vandal, I would have reported him and left the reversions to an admin. Instead, I merely sought clarification, and used the revert tool to restore the status quo and get him to stop mass-editing in-order to slow down and respond to me. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 22:21, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Do not bother responding anymore - because I am no longer responding to you.

1) You are entirely irrelevant - you were not the one adding the tags, doing the reverting, attempting to foster proper discussion, nor have you identified yourself with the other two... "Mediators."

2) If I opened a Dictionary, right now, I would, admittedly in an illogical manner, expect to see your picture next to the word, "Bureaucrat." - as in, you like to twist words around, bring up red herrings, and all-around make everything you touch convoluted and farcical. I heard an expression once here on Nukapedia, referring to you, and I find it extremely accurate - you are a Doughface.

So enough is enough. I keep getting sucked into extremely long-arguments with you that lead to nowhere, and in this particular case, you are not even a relevant piece of the picture. So if I have nothing to lose by ignoring you, and you are going to keep getting the facts wrong, then I believe that is exactly what I am going to do - ignore you. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 22:41, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

You apparently do not know what a consensus is

I do know what a consensus is. I also know when it is needed and when it is not. Two users acting in concert on a project is not a "chat consensus", its not a decision made in private, its two users cooperating to a goal. Something we need more of, not to look at with suspicion.

Does not matter - it was specifically stated, multiple times, that I needed to start proper discussion on a respective article-page, when I already had

Yes, it does matter, as those were seperate edits. If you felt the user was on the wrong track, you should have discussed the edits with the user before presuming they were wrong and removing themm.

Not a policy

Yes, it is. Thats why the wording is on the box giving you a direction

I was not aware that you could insinuate ban-cause

No-one has been banned for it, so you appear to be up the garden path on that one.

with an unwritten rule - an unwritten rule that I have never even heard before until you brought it up just recently

The directive on the Delete tag was there when you saw the tag.

My reversions were not a case of good or bad-faith - they were to restore the status quo for pending and proper discussion

The general rule gives way to the specific rule listed in the delete template. A template that publicizes the need for discussion.

Please stop misrepresenting me

I am doing no such thing.

and bastardizing the revert tool - reverting, inherently, is not a bad-faith action

Never said it was. But it is not inherently a good faith action either. It speaks no way to faith. However systematically reverting all of a users edits without discussing them with the user is a use of reversion that leads to some concern.

Do not bother responding anymore - because I am no longer responding to you.

Do whatever you like.

You are entirely irrelevant - you were not the one adding the tags, doing the reverting, attempting to foster proper discussion, nor have you identified yourself with the other two... "Mediators."

I have come here in a good faith attempt to clear this up. Your hostile attitude is unwelcome.

If I opened a Dictionary, right now, I would, admittedly in an illogical manner, expect to see your picture next to the word, "Bureaucrat." - as in, you like to twist words around, bring up red herrings, and all-around make everything you touch convoluted and farcical. I heard an expression once here on Nukapedia, referring to you, and I find it extremely accurate - you are a Doughface

Leon, I'm going to be blunt with you.

If I didn't consider the previous argument we've had to be a conflict of interest, you would be now permabanned.

I have no intention of getting into a slanging match or user conflict with you. This is good faith outreach, take your hostility and insults elsewhere.

Any repeats of that type of hostility and namecalling with anyone and I'll have to reconsider whether or not me trying to avoid the conflict of interest is an impediment to my duties, and thus should be ignored.

Consider my patience meter exhausted.

Agent c (talk) 23:46, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

After reading this whole hot mess I am left with a few questions. First off, if you dislike how people act here why do you keep coming back here? And second have you ever considered that the way people act toward you could be a mirror reflection on how you treat them? You are hostile when confronted with the truth, but you will look at the truth and proceed to tell everyone else that it is not so. Or you make excuses for it. Or in the example above you "did not insult them, you made an observation." Or when people call you out you state they are misrepresenting you. Now as for the

calling out our leadership that abused the Inactivity policy, as much as I hate that policy

part, I feel as do many others around here that the whole ordeal was a personal vendetta of some kind. Why? Who knows? Do I care if it was? No. Irrelevant to me. I am active as I can be. The point is this, you rub people the wrong way, you bend rules and then deny it or say that they don't apply to you somehow because it is a "guideline". I agree with Chad, people here are tired of your namecalling and hostility towards anyone who disagrees with you. I've tried working with you. I've tried being nice to you. But in the end, you still come back to this. I'm not trying to insult you or offend you, I'm simply giving you another viewpoint from someone else. Have a good day.--Kingclyde (talk) 01:21, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

1) I have put a tremendous amount of work into both this wiki, and its community. A few users are not going to intimidate me and chase me off. A lot of people conveniently ignore this fact, but I have changed this wiki drastically, and for the better, in ways that are seen even today in our norms, editing etiquette, and even how our users write blogs. I know that I still can do good for this wiki - I know that, because I am currently doing a lot of good for The Vault over at Curse - but a lot needs to change before I can ever come back here in a productive manner.

2) I have a reputation here as one of the most blunt users on this wiki. If I said that I was making observations, then that is exactly what I was doing. I have insulted Jasper before when he deserved it, and many other users here - so do not think that I am mixing my words to make myself look better/make other people feel better.

3) I actually was not talking about you in regards to the inactivity deal - the community decided that you were/are active enough, which means I have never considered you in violation of the inactivity policy ever since the motion. I am actually referring to users such as Butterfly, who willfully kept coming back periodically, simply so that she could keep her rights longer.

4) I understand your words, even if you do not understand the situation. You cannot possibly know what I have been dealing with - the blackmail attempts, the Skype harassment, the cute little names they refer to me by in chat such as "Lemon," the lies, the political bullshit, and you would not believe how much I have bit my tongue in-order to not cause a further shit-storm on this wiki, such as the chat-logs that I have showing a bureaucrat attempting to skirt around the rules in-order to ban me and/or have my rights removed, all because they were freaking out over Theo leaving the wiki - a.k.a. fascist tendencies to attempt and silence any form of criticism leveled at someone that is popular enough/friends with enough people at this wiki.

As a conclusion, I have never had a serious issue with you, Clyde. I know you think I have a vendetta against you, but aside from a few isolated instances, I have actually respected you more than most of our leadership. Of course, you can take that as me ass-kissing - but the fact is that you can ask anyone from the wiki that talks to me outside of Nukapedia, such as Danny, Nate, Zerg or others, and they will tell you that I feel the same way about you behind your back, too. Anyways, that is all that I really have to say here for now. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 01:42, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

A Review of your Block Edit

Howdy Leon, in the interest of transparency, I am leaving you this message. I was called in to review your block in regards to the events that happened today. While I don't feel that the situation was handled as best it could be handled the ban was ultimately about insulting other editors, rendering a large part of the lead up moot.

When it come to a ban regarding insults to other editors, what is and is not insulting comes down to a matter of opinion. If user X feels insulted by user Y due to a talk page message than it can be considered an insult, granted there are some circumstances where that general rule of thumb may not apply. However, in talking to the involved parties, Jasper stated that he felt not only insulted but that he felt somewhat undermined. Which he used as his justification for banning you.

I was further called in to review the later comments you made on your talk page regarding Jasper's behavior being pathetic and whether or not that warranted an increased ban length and frankly, I did not find justification for an increase in the ban duration.

If you have any questions for me, please leave a message for me and I will try to get back to you when I can, however, I make no guarantees regarding a prompt reply due to working two jobs and not getting that convenient "You have new messages" pop up when you reply to me here.

Richie9999 (talk) 21:16, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Then I did not insult them - I offended them, if you say it comes down to whether or not they "Felt" insulted. As I said to Chad, I was not personally insulting them - I was giving what I still feel to be valid criticism in regards to their behaviour and actions.

Sorry if blunt criticism offe... I mean "Insulted" them. Maybe they should grow thicker skin, especially when they handle situations so shittily and deserve to be called out?

Anyways, I am sorry for the snippy response to you - it is not you I have a beef with, and I want to make it clear that I am not lashing out against you or anything. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 21:31, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

TestEdit

Leon-Reaper - when you get around to seeing this red-link, J, I am hoping that you can temporarily restore the image for me. It was specifically created for me by Saint (if this is the image that I am thinking of), and as I was not able to recover a lot of my images from my old harddrive, I would really appreciate getting the image back in this capacity. Thanks a lot, J - you are the best.

Take your time - there is no huge rush. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 10:13, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

You are assuming J would be the first to do that. ☢ Energy X ☣ 11:37, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Dammit - that is not the image that I am looking for. I appreciate you going out of your way, Energy. Guess I need to keep looking. User:Sarkhan the Sojourner 18:46, July 26, 2015 (UTC)
look harder boy Detroit lions Hawk da Barber 2013 - BSHU Graduate 19:55, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

RE: Attribution forum & Dean Domino blackmail evidence article Edit

I replaced (refined really, just an edit conflict in between) the content changes you made to the Dean Domino blackmail evidence article to not only accomplish what you had with the tooltips and dev notes but also reference it properly and delineate a few of the developer notes that were broader than others in the form of quotations.

I also read your forum and appreciate you taking the time to do it, as I felt something should have been said about proper attribution to the point where Chad and I were going to discuss it tomorrow as to whether or not -I- should write a forum but you've already gone ahead and touched on everything I was going to.

All in all you basically did everything I was planning on doing before I was finished (or even started in the case of the forum) and I wanted to thank you with the side-note that I had some changes in mind for the article. As for the forum, I'll comment if necessary. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 04:17, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a few changes your edit made that I accidentally wiped in my gross copy-paste of my edit. I have gone ahead and re-added them after a refining of one.
I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 04:26, August 2, 2015 (UTC)
User Avatar talk
Hello, Sarkhan the Sojourner. You have new messages at The Ever Ruler's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Other Wikia wikis

Random Wiki