Total War Wiki


900 Edits since joining this wiki
March 26, 2013
  • I live in Maryland
  • I was born on December 30

Please leave any messages or notifications for me here. Thanks! Brainwasher5 (talk)

Knights of St. John Edit

I've had this same slippery slope argument before. The ETW infoboxes stay, but the STW II ones can't be used generally for the basic unit.

--Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 23:12, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Somebody should have read the wiki policy first, hey? Let this be a warning: except in cases where the unit is unique to a particular faction, your articles must all be redirected to a new title with a faction name or they will be deleted. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 23:37, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to start out on the wrong foot here, so before I start let me just clarify that everything I have been doing and will continue to do was thought out weeks ahead of time for what is best for this wiki.
Let me get this straight.
You want an individual page created for every single faction? As in, you want me to create 42 different line infantry pages (because that's how many they are) when the only information that will differ is a palette swap in unit art? Along with 41 hussar pages, 41 cuirassier pages, 44 firelock armed citizenry pages, 44 pikemen pages...because of slight color differences. I am asking this because
a) for completeness' sake, you are asking me to do around 40 times more work than what I've already done for the ETW units, which in turn is at least 2 or 3 times what you and every other contributor combined has done over the course of the last three years. Given how ETW has been out for three years and your combined efforts during that time amounted to a dozen unstandardized and (this goes for every single page I've come across) incomplete, it's implied that you want me to do the rest of the work here if you want the database to be complete within the next decade or so.
b) massive, uneeded, unwanted clutter for a wiki. Is this what you want?
Might I propose that we simply create ONE page per unit type and, in that page, add a list of factions that have access to that unit? It saves literally months to years of time. It's far easier for users to navigate. It looks much nicer.
Brainwasher5 (talk) 00:58, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
In short? Yes - not that I'm forcing you to create all those articles. I shall reiterate, it's been debated before. But the fact remains that this was the established policy long before my time, and so it shall remain. We agreed to make exception for Shogun II: Total War units, but this does not extend to Empire: Total War, Napoleon: Total War, or Medieval II: Total War - per a community decision. We expect you as a new contributor to respect that decision, as I do in upholding it. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 02:59, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
You're the admin, for goodness' sake! If a policy is obviously flawed then it's not your sacred duty to stand by it, it's in your best interests to change it so that it best suits the wiki. Wikis are supposed to utilize conformity in pages to make it more accessible of an information source to its readers. If you guys made an exception for Shogun, that rule should have been made clear for every game. I'm betting--and tell me if I'm wrong here--that you made an exception for Shogun because you realized what a collosal waste of time creating the same page over and over again, fourty plus times, is. And, meaning no disrespect to you, you do not have a community here. If you had a community, you would have been finished with the creation of all pages regarding Empire: Total War by now, four years after the game was released. I've been here for two weeks and the place is a ghost town, with only (I counted this) 3 extremely minor edits from AWCs and a couple of edits from my wiki, Dark Souls wiki. Whatever decision the TW community came to three years ago should not hold in a wiki they clearly abandoned and do not care about.
If you actually had a dedicated team here that would cheerfully like to waste weeks to months to years creating the same page 40 times over for the two dozen or so units that most factions share, I'd be grudgingly ok with it. If the game had just came out and we didn't know that all these units are literally color swaps of each other, with otherwise identical statistics and recruitment centers, I'd forgive such a train of thought. But neither of those things are true. You do not have a tangible userbase that is willing to do any edits, let alone meaningful edits, let alone meaningless, repetitive edits. You are armed with the information that all those identical units for every faction are, in fact, identical and that creating more identical pages does absolutely nothing to enhance the information on this wiki and only makes it unprecedently cluttered. You have a wiki which paradoxically is bloated but simultaneously has nothing--not just Empire: Total War, but every other total war game's data--anywhere near complete.
The release of Rome II is just around the corner. This is a crucial time for your wiki if you want people to stop laughing it off as the half-baked, tragically incomplete information source that it is. Allow users such as me--someone who has contributed more to the wiki than anyone save two people in the course of two weeks while almost everyone else crawled through four years of disorganized incoherence--the obviously logical way of doing things, and you just MIGHT have a wiki that is presentable and ready to absorb new information by the time R2 comes out. Or, you can delete my articles and enjoy continuing being ignored by the fanbase as an irrelevant database.
If we cannot reach an agreement on this, then consider this my resignation. I understand that you don't expect me to create all those pages. What disturbs me is that you don't seem to have a plan to allocate ANY manpower (is there any at this wiki?) to do so. No one created those pages until I came along, and it looks like no one will in the forseeable future. Which would mean that, if I were bored or stupid enough to want to finish the database based on these guidelines, I would have to do it (if the wiki activity over the course of the last few years are any indication of things to come), and I have a lot of things that I could spend time less mindlessly on.
On a side note, deletion of  the pages I have created will only setback the (at present) very medicore quality of the pages. I'd advise you to rename them to whatever faction you see fit, instead. Brainwasher5 (talk) 15:24, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
The wiki's community goes up and down at varying intervals. It's relatively static, though we have at least four who have made consistent contributions off and on during my time here. I will concede we don't have an active team, or even a semi-active team. When I first arrived, for example, I found myself completely alone for about eighteen months. But before you insult other users by insisting they have abandoned the site because you haven't seen them in the two weeks you've contributed, try looking into their work. One was responsible for the bulk of our infoboxes and did some superb formatting. Another helped by patrolling RC, reporting vandals, and marking the worst stubs for deletion. They did much, much, more to improve the quality here than the likes of a new member who bizarrely favors creating blank pages by the dozen.
Nobody requested your presence, and two weeks is simply not enough for one individual to set back a site policy entrenched for three years. If you wish to submit a 'resignation', I will not stop you. Your work has been, and will continue to be, advanced on a purely voluntary basis. Let me state there will always be others. You can work slowly within existing standards we have established, or rush through a fourth-rate overhaul which - if those empty Empire: Total War pages are of any indication - will detract greatly from our quality here as a whole. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 19:14, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Look at the work I've been doing on the ETW units and tell me, with a straight face, that those were creating blank pages. Then tell me with an equally straight face that those edits were worse than whatever was there before I got here in the first place. You didn't even have a page for fourth-rate ships of the line, let alone a fourth rate edit on them. If you think that my edits have been detracting from...whatever that was supposed to be when I first arrived, then I don't have a place here.
Maybe I'm just used to the people on my wikia who make more than, on average, range from slightly less than an edit a day to slightly less than an edit per week. There might "always be others", but at the rate you guys are going, you will be finished sometime in 2020, although that might be a very generous estimate if you want to add a page for every single infinitesmally slight variaton of line infantry, pikemen, light infantry, grenadiers, hussars, light dragoons, dragoons, brigs, first rates, second rates, third rates, fourth rates, fifth rates, sixth rates, and so on out there.
I'm done here, then. Please delete the work I've created. You'll find a majority of it in the Empire: Total War Units category, where I created most of them. I have no wish to have my name or my work affiliated with a lost cause. Brainwasher5 (talk) 21:08, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to purge everything you've written; this is hardly a personal vendetta. Simply specify which E:TW unit articles are unique to a particular faction, and I'll be more than willing to leave those alone. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 22:51, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Nope. You've had four years to find that information yourself, as an admin of the total war wiki. If you can't figure it out, best be safe and just delete everything I've done. Brainwasher5 (talk) 23:10, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
I do know that information, but quite frankly it's not my problem. Since it's abundantly clear that you wish to put forth no effort whatsoever into saving any of your work, I will take the above comment at face value. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 01:41, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
It is your problem, because you are the administrator. I would have also said that it is your problem to save this wiki from obscurity, but quite frankly you seem more interested in imposing archaic, broken policies on new users than actually adding information to this wiki, which is, after all, supposed to be an information source.
You've got it backwards. I've made it abundantly clear that I do not wish to have my work used by a failed cause. I'm not putting no effort to save my work, I'm putting in considerable effort to make sure that this wiki does not benefit from my work. Have the decency to not try to paint me as lazy. Attempting to do so would be ludicrously and comically hypocritical given your position as both an editor and the admin of this mess over these past four years. I will be back in a month to make sure that all traces of my work are gone. I'd do it myself but I am not given the right to delete articles as a user. Brainwasher5 (talk) 04:47, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
I think the faction-unique articles with infoboxes, links, categories, and images can remain - I've no right to remove those without adequate pretext. You can find the unit naming policy here, by the way, after we cemented it.
Our first discussion largely resulted from the release of Shogun 2: Total War; which nearly everyone was in favor of making an exception to what was then an unofficial rule. When I first arrived on the wiki, all the unit pages here subscribed to that guideline - it seemed like a good idea to follow that existing initiative and introduce some much-needed uniformity; hence, my reasoning behind establishing said guideline. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 19:50, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
I have a right to delete my work since I wrote it. Actually, you have a right too, as the admin. Anyway, you've already gone ahead and deleted the 1st Maryland page, and that was unique to the United States. So I think we've crossed that bridge already.If you don't delete it, I will cleanse all pages I created of any information I put in there. You can decide for yourself if you like empty pages or not, though given your deletion history I doubt it.
If you could be honest here, it'd be great--do you have any qualms whatsoever about the current system? Are there any apparent flaws to you?Brainwasher5 (talk) 22:03, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Bear in mind that one doesn't submit work to any wiki if he wishes to keep it safe from the merciless editing of others. By creating those articles, you have essentially surrendered them to the discretion of the site. I can delete the ones which are stubs, or blank, or in violation of our policies - but I won't remove proper pages already fitted with infoboxes, categories, images, etc. Yes, you can strip away the content, but keep in mind that unilateral action to that effect could be considered violating site rules, not merely one admin's petty guidelines. In short? Don't.
As for flaws with the status quo? I accept that every system is flawed, some merely to a greater degree than others. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 00:47, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
You've already deleted some pages I created that were properly formatted, so at least follow through with that or risk looking like an admin that chooses to bend the rules on a whim. I chose, out of my own generosity, to share my work and information with others that wanted to peruse this site. Bear in mind that when I open my work to be mercilessly edited by the people, that includes me, too. If other people can edit my work as they see fit, so can I. You took my request "at face value", and half-followed through with it. You seemed fine with calling my work "fourth-rate" (doubly ridiculous given that no one here had bothered creating a page for fourth rates), and such edits surely don't belong on this wonderfully-high standard wiki of yours. It's also "frankly, not [your] problem", right? let me handle it then, or at least have the decency to be consistent and respect other people's work and their rights to it. I'e made it abundantly clear, several times now, that I do not wish to see my work here. Don't flip flop between being ok with deleting my work, deleting many of my pages, and then claiming that you don't have the right to delete my pages once you realized that those edits were better than 90% of the stuff already in place.
Flaws are made to be fixed. As the admin you have the power to fix them. Please consider my words from a rational point of view, not from a user you disagree with. Brainwasher5 (talk) 02:33, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
I haven't deleted all the articles I'm going to in one day. The unsatisfactory ones will be removed eventually. Let me reiterate: articles with proper formatting that are in violation of wiki policy will still be deleted, regardless. I will leave the handful you actually managed to do right on the wiki - since it's not my place to delete those. What would be the point? If they're proper articles which conform to my standards, they stay. I've steered that course since week one and you haven't given me one good reason to alter it now.
Blanking pages, even your own, is unacceptable. A miffed contributor has no right to deface those articles simply because he's on his way out. If you attempt it, expect never to be welcome here again. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 05:38, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you've forgotten what you said.
"Let this be a warning: except in cases where the unit is unique to a particular faction, your articles must all be redirected to a new title with a faction name or they will be deleted."
None of my work was titled to a faction name. By your own statement, all of my work should be deleted, as I hadn't gotten to work on the faction-specific units in earnest at that point in time and had focused most of my efforts on units that every faction has. If you don't follow through with your first statement, then none of your statements hold any weight given the precedence of frivolity.
You have deleted articles that are identical to articles that you are keeping as acceptable. In order to be consistent it is only proper that you remove the remaining pages. Some of the articles I wrote that you since deleted, such as the Tufangis, were much better quality than the pages you created, which even lacked the basic infobox. So I guess you should delete those too since they clearly didn't meet your standards nor did you attempt to improve them in the years after you created them. And what about pages that have been around forever such as Great Cross, which has been sitting on this wiki for three years and is clearly incomplete given the lack of templates and incomplete information? Look, it clearly doesn't have a faction affiliated with it. Oh, the horror! Why hasn't this been deleted? What exactly is the standard by which you find pages worthy or unworthy of striking, can you clarify please?
My work is my own, and I implicitly reserve the right to use and withold it. It's how things work in developed countries. If you cannot appreciate or respect private rights, I will take this to a higher authority. If you think that the amount of respectable edits I made were a "handful", I shudder to think what you think of your own edits in the Empire: Total War unit pages.
I'd never want to contribute to a lost cause. I wouldn't have bothered attempting to save this wiki had I known that such an admin as you, who can somehow be patient enough to look at a failed policy that has done nothing but driven this wiki into obsolescence for four years and twiddle your thumbs complacently, yet immediately delete new pages when a contributor has added them only a few days prior which, judging from his performance thus far, was obviously going to complete within a few hours or days.
If you ever wonder why this wiki has had no substantial database, or why new users tended to not stay for the last two years, think really hard about why that might be. The answer's not hard to find.
Brainwasher5 (talk) 05:48, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Final Note Edit

I tire of this pointless discussion. Let me reiterate what you should understand at this time:

1. Articles which violate the "archaic" policy of this wiki will be deleted, and - in keeping with your wishes for as little of your work to remain here as possible - I shall likewise delete those which are lacking more than others in content or formatting. A handful which neither violate any wiki policy nor lack particularly in content will be preserved because they meet existing standards and I have no pretext in my role as an administrator to remove them.

2. Want to reserve exclusive rights to your content? Take it up with Wikia, or that 'higher authority' you specified earlier. Until I receive explicit directives from somebody over my head specifying otherwise, I am not inclined to recognize any such right held by an editor - myself included. Attempts to get around this stance by defacing your own pages will be dealt with accordingly.

--Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 20:31, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

K. I'll get back to you on that. Wish I didn't have to force you to do it, but it's your loss. You can talk about lacking pretext or rights to remove pages all you want, but the fact is that you already had removed pages that were meeting with the standards (hence my expectation for you to do so). Whatever helps you justify your actions, I guess. Brainwasher5 (talk) 22:56, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

At least the inquiry will be conducted through the proper circles now. For the record: I haven't removed a single article which complied with site standards. All of them either violated an existing naming convention (such as a single article for a unit unique to both Egypt and the Ottoman Empire) or weren't particularly resourceful in images, information, formatting, links, etc. Exceptions may have been considered for some of the latter, considering that we do have many other incomplete articles of similar quality (or lack thereof), had it not been the author's expressed his desire that as little of his work as necessary be affiliated with the site. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 23:39, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
Yet you had no problem with deleting my work before I expressed my wish that I didn't have my name on the work here? Brainwasher5 (talk) 03:15, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
Only the articles which already violated the naming policy. --Byzantine Latinkon (talk) 15:32, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

They come from Elite units of the west.39clues1 (talk) 17:39, June 20, 2013 (UTC)39clues1

thanks,will do39clues1 (talk) 17:43, June 20, 2013 (UTC)39clues1

Poland-L Edit

should we recreate the poland-L article?39clues1 (talk) 19:37, July 31, 2013 (UTC)39clues1

Don't do it! Edit

What? Don't delete your articles! They're contributions to this wiki!

TheNapoleonicEditor (talk) 19:27, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Still, keep your articles on whatever changes you have made. 01:09, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

 ??? Edit

What do you mean, tell you what to do???? If it's about not deleting the Empire: Total War articles, you shouldn't delete them. They're all we have!

TheNapoleonicEditor (talk) 23:42, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki