Wikia

Nukapedia

GarouxBloodline

aka The Scion of Delphi

Blocked
19,021 Edits since joining this wiki
May 17, 2011
  • I live in Storhet
  • I was born on June 22
  • My occupation is Bartender
  • I am the brewmeister
Archive
Archives: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16

It is nice seeing a legitimate role-playing forum finally happening again after all of these years - it has been way too long. Thanks, Saint. :) Edit

"It is nice seeing a legitimate role-playing forum finally happening again after all of these years - it has been way too long. Thanks, Saint. :)"

No need to thank me.. JOIN US !! None of us should know how the story ends ~ We just want it to roll on a wee bit longer ~;)

SaintPain TinySaintPainHere to help." 03:34, September 27, 2014 (UTC) You are more than welcomed SaintPain TinySaintPainHere to help." 03:39, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Help Edit

Hey Leon, good to hear from you. No I do not have Skype, I don't use it. I'm still interested in helping you out though if/however I still can. Enclavesymbol 06:09, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

No actually, haven't been in awhile either with how atrociously laggy and glitchy it's been. I can be though, for as long as it takes you and I to communicate. Enclavesymbol 06:33, November 4, 2014 (UTC)
Really now? That's pretty awesome. Sure I'm interested, I'll do whatever I can. Enclavesymbol 21:16, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

ClassificationEdit

Before you can classify them here, you need to be 100% confident of what status those works are:

  • Are they subject to copyright?
Then you need to remove them, unless you are asserting fair use. This is true even if its an "Orphan" work where you can't indentify the owner. If you are asserting fair use, pick that option.
  • Have they been made available with a CC license?
Then you should classify them as having a creative commons license, and include the information you need to uphold the terms of the license.
  • Have they been explicitly released into the public domain?
Then classify it as Public Domain.

Agent c (talk) 14:07, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to have to be firm on this. Given that a good number of them at least appear to be not public domain, I'm either going to need to see a source proving their PD, the CC license followed, a "fair use" exception, or the items removed.
I'm going to give you reasonable time to put this right, but if corrective action isn't complete by Friday, I'll have to start taking them down. I cant put the wiki at risk with unlicensed content. Agent c (talk) 23:13, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with you using "Public domain" images as long as you can show they are public domain. Given several of the images supposedly "public domain" have shown to not be, that is why evidence of this is being sought.

I have no desire for you to be forced to change your content, as long as it is truly public domain (and can be shown to be), there is no problem. Agent c (talk) 01:07, November 17, 2014 (UTC)


I find it unrealistic to be able to prove the authenticity of every single image I use.

Had there have been no non-PD work immediately spotted, it wouldn't have been necessary. As there has been copyrighted work spotted, all images are suspect.

Thankfully, google allows for a reverse image search that should allow you to find the origin, and competing claims easily. Agent c (talk) 10:07, November 17, 2014 (UTC)

The time chad gave you is now up. Jasper: The Wonder that is Shroomman! 00:09, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break this to you Leon, but you don't get to chose who can and can't delete your offending content. You were given a time limit to correct your images but did not (I don't care why, all that matters is you didn't do it) thus I am 100% within my right to delete the offending content. The fact you said "it's up to you" to chad doesn't matter because it was never your place to give him the go ahead anyway. Admins and bureaucrats do not need permission from users to enforce the sites rules. Jasper: The Wonder that is Shroomman! 20:50, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

And yes, I did delete the screenshot images because you used the "uploaded by author" copyright tag which explicitly states "not a screenshot". Jasper: The Wonder that is Shroomman! 20:54, November 22, 2014 (UTC)

I have not "gone behind your back" Leon. You've indicated that you've been in contact with CC to host the stuff there - you already have tried to go over our heads on this.

Given your previous behaviour and actions, I was reasonably confident that any attempt by you to explain our side would be full of what I will assume good faith and call "misunderstandings".

Given that you had already been in contact to explain your side (without fully disclosing to us what you said), there is no need for us to inform you on our part when we made our submissions and "correct" the record. Agent c (talk) 13:48, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Why would I have? None of the discussions I have had with Sannse, have been about you or Jasper.

No, but they have been about this wiki, and you would have had to have said at some point why we had a problem with them. Given a combination of 1) your history and 2) your ongoing comments showing a lack of understanding of our view (believing it to be an issue with PD or with credit), it was highly likely that you had misrepresented our position.

If you can show an email that you sent that details that you had used non-PD images and we had removed them because they were subject to copyright and you had not gotten permission beforehand, perhaps I can apologise for this.

was specifically about me, named me, and involved possible legalities, which means that was a discussion that required my mandatory presence

The message simply explained why we took the action that we did, so they can consider the request you had made in private in the fullness of light.

and your speculation as to anything I discuss with Sannse, is both wrong and irrelevant.

Again, if you present an email that details exactly why we did what we did - and the actual concerns we had, I'll withdraw it. As an administrator here, when you are proposing to do the same action on another wiki (especially when it is to sidestep action we've taken here), I would argue it is my duty to inform them of the concerns we have had so they can make an actual informed decision.

Are you insane? First of all: I speak with Sannse over Skype. If I did speak to her through E-Mail, though, I would be legally liable by sharing with you any responses from Wikia's E-Mail accounts

No, I am well aware of your history, where "I'll think about it" or not doing something immediately becomes a "refused to", or being asleep becomes evidence of bad faith.

I cannot in good conscience believe you stated our position accurately, especially with continued statements showing that you did not appear to understand the concerns.

Third: what is it with you and the false speculation? You are still wrong in your assertion. When Sannse becomes involved at CC, she will say the same thing, as our discussions are typically, and strictly, professional, with discussions regarding TtG fitting into those two categories of discussion.

You have through your own words and actions shown to have taken a lot of liberty when stating other people's position on things. I'm sorry you feel it is objectionable for me to dare to put out position clearly.

I would highly advise for you to set your biases aside, and stop fabricating discussions between Sannse and me, based off of your feelings of me. It is not making you look good - and I am sure that Sannse is not going to appreciate reading what you wrote on CC, either.

I would highly advise you to leave your threats at home. I do not accept them. I stated our concerns in a simple and clear way, but as always you turn it into a mess of irrelevant tangents and conspiracies and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of doing what you've actually done (but wont admit to).

Unless you can address the clear points as to why your images were removed, I expect no more communication from you on this matter. Agent c (talk) 21:07, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

Leon, you are now blatantly lying - or perhaps if I may speak your language "Fabricating Fabrications". I haven't Fabricated any conversation. You said you were in contact. All I said was I was confident in any such conversation you did not accurately state our position.

I am done with you, and your threats, and your blatant irrelevant tangents that have detailed the whole issue. If you cannot talk about the points that we were concerned with, I have no time for you.

I have been more than patient with you over this issue. This patience has now been exhausted. Agent c (talk) 21:22, November 23, 2014 (UTC)

User Conflicts Edit

Both you and Agent c have been in a conflict and this needs to stop. You have both left messages on each others talk pages to the effect of being done talking to the other and I suggest you adhere to that. Richie9999 (talk) 02:27, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

RE: Salient Green Edit

There is no exception to the policies. It meets the standards for textual correlation, and as such is valid in both that regard and the degree of consensus achieved on the talk page. I would recommend not engaging in edit wars. Until such a time as policy does not fit, the reference is valid. Talk page procedure regarding edit warring was followed. Feel free to create a policy, however, within the current one, as stated the reference is valid and therefore stays. EDIT: Use of teh item is irrelevant. Lack of developer confirmation is also irrelevant. Until such a time as policy requires developer confirmation FOR ALL behind the scenes info, it fits as has been pointed out many times.Richie9999 (talk) 07:19, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

IF you have any salient points to add to the talk page feel free to add them rather than once more removing information because it does not meet the standards YOU require. As stated, under current policy the reference is valid. Procedure was followed and, unless I misread it would appear consensus was achieved. No real new opposing viewpoints appeared beyond what amounted to: It is speculation because a developer did not confirm it (not necessary), and we were wrong about Liberty Prime (which hardly should set a precedent for how each subsequent behind the scenes reference is handled). Use of the item does not matter, rather the name is all that is salient. Richie9999 (talk) 07:29, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
The textual correlation is rather obvious About as obvious as "It's 106 miles to Arroyo, we've got a full fusion cell, half a pack of RadAway, it's midnight, and I'm wearing a 50 year old Vault 13 jumpsuit. Let's hit it." To me it seems you have both lost respect for the wiki, the users and myself, instead going solely on the words of developers who clearly don't have the time to reference every question that comes their way. From what I saw, what was discussed, a consensus was achieved. Rather than continue on the talk page you chose to go to me directly. Rather than propose a new policy you have ignored a current one. Using argumentum ad populum is farcical because to avoid that it would be required that every user be able to verify every cultural reference and behind the scenes item (I know I cannot, can you?). Present to me why Salient Green is not a direct and obvious reference to the name of the film "Soylent Green" do not reference Salient Green's use as that is not relevant. Explain to me why Salient Green, which on its own would mean "Most Noticeable or Important Green" (nonsensical), "standing on its hind legs with the forepaws raised, as if leaping Green" (ridiculous), "a piece of land or section of fortification that juts out to form an angle, an outward bulge in a line of military attack or defense Green" (absurd) "Prominent or Conspicuous Green". Makes more sense than it being a reference to Soylent Green. The Developers chose the term for a reason, if they didn't want it to be a reference, then they would have likely chosen a different word/phrase or created a new one (they've done that in the past, they did not this time. Wonder why?) Salient was a deliberate choice, and it's not because the item is the most noticeable or important green. Richie9999 (talk) 07:48, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, I do not appreciate you ascribing malicious intent to my actions. If I was out to disrespect you I would be open about that. If I were playing to my own agenda things would not go on as they have. As far as protection goes, there is a lack of present admins at the moment, and I saw an edit war breaking what seemed to be an established consensus, finding an admin with no stake in this would require waiting and/or hoping for Paladin to show up as he is the only admin I have seen recently that doesn't have any horse in this race and, allowing an edit war to in anyway persist after again, a recently established consensus is not something that should ever be permitted. As far as policy changes go, feel free to propose one, I will not stop you and have no intention of doing so. Richie9999 (talk) 07:57, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

UnlockEdit

Done. Jasper: The Wonder that is Shroomman! 12:18, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

Questions Edit

Heya Leon, sorry I haven't been able to do anything with the TCG yet like I'd wanted to. I'm having some pretty serious computer issues right now, getting the blue screen of death quite a bit, think it's a faulty RAM or something. Anyway, onto your questions.

1: I find it hilarious that that article is on any part of TV. Looking at how Tag and Ant openly voted against the pure human article initiative, and were outspokenly opposed to anything having anything to do with it like snarling dogs...

Let them write their own damn article, and make them give it a different name too. That's your work primarily, and I helped a little. Enjoyed doing it to, and when the vote passed... made it all the more glorious. Still think it's pitiful we had to create a vote for something that is lined out in the lore of Fallout 1 and 2 quite abundantly and objectively though. The anti-Enclave zealots love ignoring lore though and creating their own, just look at some of TV's very own pages (and their references, which is key) for proof of that...


2: Been having computer issues like I explained a little above, but I can try and poke my head in chat for a while if you wanna talk. I'm always willing to listen, because unlike seemingly most in chat nowadays, I respect the hell out of you as a person and as a long-time vet contributor to the community. Enclavesymbol 00:25, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

Sniperking1Edit

Leon, clearly I remove his message on Mara's talk page since the message is being rude, its against the policy. --Cassie.Y MikuPink534629280947623198Talk 10:58, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, I get serious on everything. Alright, I guess you got the point, very well then. --Cassie.Y MikuPink534629280947623198Talk 11:11, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

The Bird is the Word Edit

Oh I'd be down for supporting something like that. What you referred to in the way of speculation needs to go the way of the dinosaurs imho. Nothing is beyond needing a citation to me, and grand claims require grand evidence. I never got the implication in-game that VP Bird was Bill Clinton's VP until I heard this claim here. The lack of emphasis in-game and the emphasis on an uncited claim here on the wiki is what concerns me. Enclavesymbol 16:41, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more my friend, possibly. Just because FO4 is taking longer than expected does not mean our quality and integrity should falter as a result. We need references, period. Enclavesymbol 17:14, December 19, 2014 (UTC)

TomorrowEdit

If your forum tomorrow is on the same topic as today's then it will be locked. If you wish to discuss the topic Chad just made a forum on it, so making a new one is pointless. If you feel chad's comments don't cover the bases correctly then that is fine, feel free to add your own section explaining things form your point of view but do not make a new forum just because you don't like his, unless your is going on a suitable tangent to Chad's. Should your forum instead be an overview of many issues, then please remove this topic from it.
This is your only warning on the matter. If you do not wish to take part in the discussion, that is fine. But don't start a whole new one on the same just for the sake of it.
Merry Christmas. Jasper: The Wonder that is Shroomman! 00:45, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Like I say, this is your only warning. Do it or don't. Duplicate forums is redundant, so the first will be more remain, so like I say just say what needs to be said on the one that already exists. This is my last message on the matter. Jasper: The Wonder that is Shroomman! 01:02, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Leon, in your recent comments you appear to be acting in a rude and intimidatory manner. There is precedent for closing duplicated conversations on a topic. Any such decision to close such a converation is not administrative action against yourself, nor is it a "user conflict". Please adjust your tone accordingly. Merry Christmas. Agent c (talk) 01:20, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to leave this here Edit

I posted this on the forum (edit conflict killed it), but an admin asked that we return to the subject at hand, and loath as I am to move discussion that started on forums to talk pages, I will respect the admin's edict. So I leave this here for you:

Leon, I'm going to give you a piece of seriously friendly advice: When I find that I can no longer stand being a part of or being associated with something, I find my way to the door. I did just that when I could no longer stand being a bureaucrat here with all of you arguing admins. I respectfully and sincerely pass this on to you. If you no longer find that you can associate yourself with this place, find your way to the door. I'm not trying to be a dick here. If you feel that strongly that Nukapedia is not what you want it to be, then make the decision to cut ties and leave. Please take this with the sincerity and honesty I present it. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 01:36, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the candor and the amount of thought you put behind your reply. You could have just told me to shove it somewhere, and I appreciate that. And you are correct. Your passion is self-evident. It's the major reason why I nominated you a few years ago, even though we don't get along well. I hope you allow me to make a few observations here. You have mentioned a number of times that you feel ostracized, ganged up on, singled out.

A wise person once gave me this little nugget: "If you run into an asshole in the morning, you've run into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, chances are you're the asshole." Please don't think I'm calling you an asshole, but take the meaning there. Your ideas, your positions and your behavior have been decried by a large number of people here. I implicitly understand that you have a vision of what this place should be and ardently strive for that, but at what point does the resistance to your ideal become enough for you to question if your ideal is what the rest of us want?

You frequently say this is an encyclopedia. Correct, but more correct is that this is a wiki. Wikis are governed by the consensus of those contributing. Every thing we do, every rule we make. is only because a larger number of people agree to it than not. When your actions or ideas are greeted by such resistance from so many, is that any different? There is a consensus against your ideas and your behavior. You're not going to like it, but that's the way it is. You may not have moved on from this wiki, and your past labors here, but has this wiki moved on from you? We each only have so many hours in a day. Only so much time to give to our hobbies, our passions. So much like a failed love that no longer wants us, should we waste time pining after her?

You can either continue on your quest to reshape this wiki to your ideals. You may gain support, you may not. Right now, you have much more opposition than support. You could recognize that there are other people here who are just as passionate as you, but hold a different ideal. You could work with those people if you chose to, but all I see is dogmatic resistance to anything other than what only you hold dear. Or you could decide that your aims no longer are those of the majority of the wiki and leave. One of the three is going to happen. You will either cause more conflict, help mitigate that conflict or cease to be involved. As they say: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. But understand that the way, and the what, that you're leading now is opposed by more than agree. I don't really want to see you end up getting banned for creating more conflict, but you need to recognize that there are other valid opinions, other valid ideals, that you disagree with. You can't expect to simply dismiss them because you don't agree with them. This isn't, and never will be, Leon's Fallout Wiki. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 02:28, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

ForumEdit

I'll leave you my answer here as I'd like to keep that header more to the point of listing up. I do understand your concern. I'd say in case there is doubt about either something is obvious, we can use talk pages and in case that doesn't work, a mediator can be appointed (like the discussion about Melissa (Lewis?)). That way there is control in case it gets out of hand. On your second point, I do support your concern there to some extend. But I also agree we can't ask everything to the devs. If I remember correctly, this discussion comes forth from the Salient Green thing. Our users would like to read extra background about it, if it's there, and it would be great if we could get confirmation from devs, but sadly we aren't always able to get it. As I can imagine there are different opinions on this controversial matter, it would be best to just make a vote on this particular aspect, I think, as we can then see what the majority thinks is the best for the wikia. Do you agree on this or not? - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 17:38, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. My main concern however is just to end all this discussing with a solution everyone can agree on. Would you be able to accept the result of a community vote on this specific matter (a vote for adding the addition of "specific rules dominate general rules" and a vote for allowing "obvious references, with mediation of a madiator both sides agree on, in case of discussion")? - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:00, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
A vote has been started with the proposed questions, you can find it here. Thanks for helping clear up the questions regarding your opinion, and happy holidays! - Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 21:35, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

BtSEdit

Since it is very clear that we will not reach much of a consensus on the forum I think it should just come to a point where we take to vote. I have outlined each option already but here is a shorter overview.
Option A) The specific rule supersedes the general rule.
Option B) The general rule is rules all and the specific rule is removed.
Now, I already believe that option A is the current rule, and to my understanding you do not. We could spend ages talking about how we view the rules as now, or we could just get it over with and vote on what we, and the community, think the rules should be. Hopefully this is a fair compromise/next step. Jasper: The Wonder that is Shroomman! 18:05, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Okay good, that clears a lot up for me and can hopefully help with the next step. Thank you for your reply. Jasper: The Wonder that is Shroomman! 18:11, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Please place any comments you have in the relevant forum and and where you have a point on topic. As for your other comments, I shalln't be rising to your bait, I don't need to answer your questions to make sense to the comment, it makes sense as it is. Agent c (talk) 18:41, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

I again restate my above comment. Agent c (talk) 18:44, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Ban Edit

For being involved in, as well as starting numerous user conflicts, most often with Agent c as well as making personal attacks directed at him and harassing users I am banning you for 1 week as this, according to your block log is not your first offense.

Both you and Agent c have been in a conflict and this needs to stop. You have both left messages on each others talk pages to the effect of being done talking to the other and I suggest you adhere to that. Richie9999 (talk) 02:27, November 24, 2014 (UTC)


When I left both you and Agent c that message in late November I left it with the thought that it made rather clear that this sort of behavior is unacceptable, especially when it is between two users who should be very familiar with the rules as one is a bureaucrat and the other was an admin.

Today's exchange between the two of you is the latest in a string of spats stretching out for much longer than it should have been permitted without administrative action being taken. It is clear, based on the talk pages messages between you and Agent c that he understood the point I was making as he did not rise to what appears to be rather obvious bait on his talk page but rather directed you to discuss it in the relevant area. You decided to reply with more bait and an insult. That is enough. This has gone on for too long and it will not be tolerated.

It is not lightly that I ban any user of this wiki, especially when it comes to the cases of regular users, however, in this case I feel it is warranted.

I hope to see you again in seven days.

Richie9999 (talk) 03:22, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Nice favouritism. Chad gets away with calling me a crazy person that broke the policies constantly as an admin, and he gets away with it. He gets away with insulting me in chat and through PMs on an almost daily basis, which I know for a fact that you have been a part of those discussions. He gets away with harassing anyone that defends me, such as him giving Nate the nickname "Leon's spy", all because he was tired of Chad's private message shit, and decided to tell me about it. I respect Peace's wishes, along with Gunny and Jasper, and not only does he refuse to respect Peace's wishes, but then he uses ad hominem to attach malice to my words, by saying that was baiting him, even though I was simply moving the discussion as Peace wished.

So, very nice. I also appreciate you jumping to a 7 day ban, even though I do not have a ban record. Really appreciate that, too. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 06:11, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

According to your block log, as you might note I pointed out, you do have a ban record. As for favoritism I'm going with the culmination of events up to today. You both received the same warning in November. Agent c chose to heed it in directing you to discuss it in the appropriate area. You chose to continue discussing it on his talk page exacerbating the conflict between you two that has gone on much too long, one that you seem to keep starting back up. As for insulting people in chat, everyone does that. Additionally, I know this might surprise you, but I can't block Agent c. "Private message shit" happens with everyone and I highly doubt that you don't engage in some form of it.
In regards to me being party of discussions, I am a part of many discussions with many people in chat. People seem to find me to be a good person to talk to, a good sounding board and/or confidant. As far as baiting goes, your messages, particularly your last one to him seems to be very clear bait.
As mentioned in my discussion with Skire, this has gone on far too long. Had the participants been anyone else, there would have been a ban long ago. The fact that there has been no real action taken, even in the form of warnings, until November 24th is a travesty. The wiki exists to share information, not as a source of drawn out drama and vendettas.
In regards to favoritism, I don't play favorites. I enforce the rules to the best of my ability. Whether I like someone or not is wholly irrelevant.

Richie9999 (talk) 06:23, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Good God. You banned me, and you did not even properly research my ban history, first? My entire ban history was exonerated, and removed. I have absolutely no ban history, except an illegitimate ban history that has already been dropped with evidence. I hope you are not this clueless with your other bans.

And I really do not care about your excuses. It sickens me, how the favouritism around here goes. In chat, users insult others constantly, and viciously, yet none of you ever have the balls to do anything about it when it comes to the popular users, letting the wiki become more and more and more toxic.

The moment a user speaks up against these toxic users, they are vilified. Do you know why so many users are leaving the wiki? Prominent users? Users that we could have really used, but got absolutely sick and tired of the back-room politics, and the chat-room viciousness? Just think of where we would be, if users such as Ghost, 69, Chris, Danny, Tag, and others, were still around because they did not become absolutely sick of what is going on around this wiki?

Anyways, I have had enough. I thought I could still stick around, and try and help. But the fact is, that no matter what I do, I am harassed for it. I want to create a lore article over Pure Humans? I get harassed. I want to update our notable loot policy? I am harassed. I make a vote on any forum? I am harassed. I want to have fun, and participate in the Apprentice? I am harassed.

Maybe one day you will all wise up. Maybe one day, you will realize what really goes on behind the curtains. Like how I was abused over Skype, and I was called a sexist that advocated rape, and fucked everyone I laid eyes on. Or maybe how Chad used to be my biggest supporter for the Clyde reconf, and when he realized he did not need Clyde out of the picture to become a bureaucrat, he threw me under the bus and created his smear campaign against me. Maybe, one day, you will discover the backroom decisions that are made over Skype, PMs, and on Gunny's personal wiki.

But I doubt it. At this point, my only hope for this wiki is when Fallout 4 comes out, and there are more users with the balls enough to call out the bullshit on this wiki. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 06:33, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Garoux, I want something to be abundantly clear to you. I do not play favorites. Had I seen Agent c as being the one to be starting up what was almost certainly going to result in days of back and forth jabs via talk pages between the two of you, I would have done everything in my power to see to it that he was blocked. How quickly you insist on me playing favorites and siding with Agent c, how quickly you forget the amount of respect I had and continue to have for you. I have supported you. When that situation with your chat ban happened I was not out for your blood, rather I was coming to your defense.
As far as back room politics and chat viciousness go, they are both irrelevant to your ban. They have nothing to do with it and are not worth discussing. Others harassing you is inexcusable but it does not give you or anyone else the right to harass others. Two wrongs do not make a right.
In regards to your ban history, if you can direct me towards something indicating that you were exonerated for whatever Ghost banned you for, I will look into to it, and should the evidence prove sufficient, reduce your ban time as appropriate.
However, I implore you to take this time to calm down and reflect. This wiki has enough pointless drama and it needs to end. I would much rather see you on the side of civility and ending the drama rather than the side that exacerbates the situation.
This will likely be the last I am able to discuss this with you for a while as I have work for 15 hours tomorrow and need to head to bed.

Richie9999 (talk) 06:50, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

And just to show you that I am not blowing smoke. I lost most of my evidence when my hard-drive went bad a while back. But I still have this one, which, while not hard-evidence, is still telling. Anyways, this is my last message. I just thought I would give you an example of the ignorance floating about. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 06:51, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I'm stepping in here due to my name being in the screenshot above (from months ago, when Chad were in a down spot). This is a private message. This was never meant to be presented to the public. The fact that this happened means you violated RULE 4 of the chat rules. Nice job Leon, you show that you are not to be trusted and that you break rules for personal gain RangerSequoia "Some say this user used to be a Moderator..." Wiki 07:02, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
You gave me permission, to record our discussions for future reference, right before you accused Chad in public not long after the discussion being shown. I broke no rules. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 07:07, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
Now you are lying. Really Leon? You have to lie? I know I would never give consent to anyone screenshoting any PM's of mine. You are like a child who breaks something and blames the other person. Dig your hole. I'm done with your shit. Everyone is. The shit that's talked about in chat is nothing but truth. You are a selfish person. Hopefully you see that someday. Other than this message, don't bother replying as I won't. RangerSequoia "Some say this user used to be a Moderator..." Wiki 07:14, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
No hole is being dug. You accused Chad of exactly what we discussed about. You cannot deny this, and I believe it is still in the chat logs when Rarity still was taking over the logs. We had already had multiple conversations about my chat ban, on Nukapedia, and the Moose. Shortly after this discussion, which I originally screenshotted for myself, as the conversation seemed unreal at the time, we spoke again on Nukapedia, as I had upset you over something on the talk-pages or some forum (I do not remember anymore), and we spoke in chat that night and came to an agreement. In this conversation, you told me that you were going to confront Chad in public chat, and you gave me express permission to record our conversations for future reference.
I have never lied on this wiki before, and I am not about to start now. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 07:18, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

ProtectionEdit

I apologise for the need to protect your talk page. This was to attempt to prevent another user engaging in disruptive behavior. Unfortunately, this was only partially successful as the event still happened anyway but on another page. As the need to protect it has now passed, the protection has been removed. Agent c (talk) 08:06, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

It is fine. Honestly, unless content is being removed, my talk-page never needs to be protected. Slinger wanted to have his say, and that is perfectly fine with me. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 08:13, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I know my TP might have been protected to keep matters from escalating between the two of us. Do not worry about that. I never actually meant to respond here anymore over the issue, but I wanted to respond to make sure that it was known, that I did, indeed, receive permission. Other than that, I would prefer it if no one else got banned in this matter. It was already regretful enough that Slinger got involved, and even though I am a bit concerned with where he is getting his information about me from, I do not feel that he should be punished.
Since I am the one being insulted by him, and I say now that I have no issues with it, I would appreciate his ban being reduced to 3-days, as I know he still violated his warning from the admins. I do not say this to brown-nose. I just have no issues with users venting to me, regardless of how misinformed their venting might be. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 08:17, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Other Wikia wikis

Random Wiki