Talk:Aaron Dembski-Bowden

He has seen us brothers. Hide all the pictures of his wife. AmbullFucker

- Shit, flee! Flee into the mildewy corners from whence we came!

Evidence of Aaron being a fa/tg/uy

Someone editing the page wanted proof that he's popped up on /tg/ on the odd occasion, so here it is. Took me all of three minutes to find it.

Direct link to an archived post he talked in: http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/13422964/

Direct link to a pic he posted in said post, proving his identity: http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/13422964/images/1294370168263.jpg

Namefags defending ADB

Head over to /tg/

https://boards.4channel.org/tg/thread/67675507

What do you see ?

So stop defending ADB at all cost and provide actual /tg/ memeries

>defending ADB at all costs by incorporating the criticisms into the article

Yeah, okay, bud. --LGX-000 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry buddy, posting a reply on a general thread where you're talking to yourself doesn't really cut it. For an example of how to let /tg/ decide, look at how Triacom kicked my ass. Basically, leave the page be, come back in a couple hours, I will edit it myself. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

So if I could get an explanation as to why this anon feels a need to satisfy an anti-ADB slant to the point of undoing edits that don't slam the dude as hard as they want, that'd be cool. As I've noted in multiple edit summaries, I'm not even disagreeing with the notion that ADB isn't looked on as favorably as he used to be, as was the case with the article itself pre-edit war; add to that the fact that anons have targeted this page and started similar edit wars over what amounts to a personal vendetta before, and you'll see why I'm skeptical of this. I mean, besides the fact that what's being written in reads like it was typed by a hyperventilating mouthbreather. --LGX-000 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, nice personal attacks. Really proves you right.

>Waahaha wahha Anon is on a vendetta.

No. Anon is updating a bit the outdated memes on 1D4chan, which were slammed by ADB himself for being outdated (See first and second image of the gallery ffs). Right now ADB (which I personally do not believe is a bad dude and I think is prose is fine) is being shat upon repeatdly on /tg/, topics after topics, since several years already. The wiki hence must reflect that /tg/ is mocking ADB instead of trying to pretend he is as loved as Abnett (for example).

See https://boards.4channel.org/tg/thread/67675507

1d4Chan is /tg/ wiki. For less memeries, alternatives exists(Such as Wikipedia, Lexicanum, etc...). But ADB is arguably repeatedly writing OC donut steel characters while pushing "modern" social issues in 40k. Those are facts, that both parties of the debate agree on. Wether this is good or bad doesn't matter, what matter is that /tg/ is making fun of it.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that's seriously being said ("haha he should be fired" not counted) is that he's not very self aware and he pisses people off unknowingly, which seems to be in the article already. Either way, why don't you leave the article the fuck alone for the time being, screencap all applicable parts of the thread(s) (since you felt the need to play a little game in the new 40k General), then come back and we can do something fucking civil. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The edit being fought overs are :

-Gallery Images which are screencap of ADB's posts -Gallery Images which are screencap of /tg/'s opinion on some of ADB's works -A single gallery Image poking fun at ADB writing using a fanart which is accurate representation of ADB's Character -Banners warning that just like Ward in his time, ADB is a new punching bag for /tg/ and that hence everything written here shall be taken as skub.

Yet you two newfag namefags insist on deleting those.

You can't really complain about personal attacks after claiming I must be some sort of redditor/Facebooker for undoing the edits and then making the complaints less overtly vitriolic - and again, I've actually acknowledged those in some manner, and the article already noted that /tg/'s turned on him long before. Insisting that we're "vandalizing" the article and "defending him unconditionally" while ignoring those points, as you can imagine, does you absolutely no favors at all, and insisting that we take this to the talk page even as the edit summaries that explained our changes go ignored makes you seem like you're infinitely more pressed about this whole thing - at the least there's a considerable air of dishonesty about your stance, especially considering the screencap of "someone" trying to force the edit war discussion into a thread. --LGX-000 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

>You can't really complain about personal attacks Yes I can.

>Insisting that we're "vandalizing" the article Removing relevant contribution because of emotional bias is vandalizing

...and writing in attacks on "normiebook posters" into the article and ignoring acknowledgments of those contributions' contents isn't "emotional bias" or "vandalism"? --LGX-000 (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

t. I keep removing the banners and the gallery because some anon hurt my namefag ego. Making fun of normiebook is also peak /tg/

I mean sure, if you want to look all the more sanctimonious for crying about personal attacks, then go right ahead.

The very thread you linked is treating the whole ADB discussion as a gigantic derail, which by all appearances it seems to be, not to mention the derision towards what looks like reaches being made on the ADB-hater's (or haters') part - and that just makes this edit war you started look like an attempt to drag the skub here directly instead of "just" noting it in the article. Not to mention said edit war still hinges on the idea that we're defending ADB from criticism, which we've already shown to be blatantly false. We're just not into the idea of the page being used as a soapbox for someone's hateboner - that gets in the way of the ol' "sacred /tg/ memeries" as much as anyone trying to shill for ADB. --LGX-000 (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Explain how the edit you are reverting don't fit ? Line by line.

>Flamewar

See now

>This article is about something that is considered by the overpowering majority of /tg/ to be fail

Do you actually browse /tg/ ? Also touched upon in the article, even more so because fallen from grace

>This article or section is EXTRA heretical. Prepare to be purged.

Waifu-ism, believe chaos is gonna win

>ADB think your nonsense is easy to ignore

Adb talking about 1D4chan is relevant on his article on 1D4chan

>Dare you enter ADB's Magical Realm ?

Funny ADB screenshot edit that originated on /tg/

>OC DONUT STEEL.

Most of ADB criticism in one picture

>ADB Waifu > Ur Waifu

Related to the previous image, in making the Waifu even more snowlfake

>/tg/ on Spears of the Emperor

Screenshot from /tg/ talking about ADB

>Diversity Quotas in Your 40k

Actual screenshot of ADB, illustrating points in the article. maybe moved up ?

>Based suit saying no to female Custards. ADB is big sad

Ditto

>Just like you, ADB hate painting and doesn't play the game

Just plain funny + relevant

I think you're 100% missing the point mate. The problem isn't that I or LGX loves ADB (although I am a big fan of Master of Mankind and Helsreach), it's that you're not willing to compromise and you're edits are dirtying up the article. You posted on /tg/ (which is a great way to solve an argument, like I said), but instead of making a new thread, you derailed two (I actually tried to reactivate one by posting my criticism of him, which was promptly ignored and shut down). You're butthurt and you want to trash this article to make yourself feel better. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Due to your unwilingess to address any of the specific points above (which is a line by line discussion about the edit your are blindly reverting), it seems that you are projecting the butthurt and are in fact not interested in the discussion, prefering instead draping yourself in some justice-boner, (as evidenced by your namefaggotry and your profile description) and are only interested in having the last word, irrelevant of the quality of the contributions by others. People like you are the reason 1d4chan has a bad rep.