Talk:Josef Bugman

From 1d4chan

Since you're growing desperate Auroch, I'm going to do you a favour and move the entire discussion here. For anyone new, all the following used to be on Auroch's talk page, until they got so upset at it they repeatedly started deleting it in an attempt to hide that it was happening. -- Triacom (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Arguing on the main page is not a quality correction, a quality correction is correcting the information instead of arguing against it. -- Triacom (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The change you keep reverting does correct the information. You're obviously in the wrong here; drop it and let it go. --Auroch (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I know you haven't been here long, but arguing on the main page is one of the wiki's unspoken rules, you don't do it. It does not help, it's worse to read and it takes longer to do compared to correcting the info properly. If you think I'm in the wrong, I'd invite you to talk to every other user who's been here longer than you, especially the admins like Root and AssistantWikifag, and see what the general consensus is for arguing on the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
"I know you haven't been here long" oh, also, fuck off, that's not even true. Three years at least, most of it anonymous. --Auroch (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
If that were true then your oldest edit wouldn't be in June of 2019, or you changed IP addresses and there's no proof. It doesn't matter though, that's still after the rampant strikethroughs were removed from the wiki and it became unacceptable to use strikes as a form of correction. -- Triacom (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
What part of "most of it anonymous" did you not read? I remember the rampant strikethroughs. This isn't at all similar. --Auroch (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
If you think it's not, then you don't remember the rampant strikethroughs. -- Triacom (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The No True Scotsmen are out in force tonight, I see. No, I remember them perfectly well; the Dark Angels page was a total mess, Abaddon was only slightly better, and a bunch of other pages were less terrible but not good. I'm not advocating to go back to that; this change to Bugman's page isn't that at all. You have some PTSD around it or something and are oversensitive; remembering the situation does not imply agreeing with you. --Auroch (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
So you do remember, well then you'd remember this is the exact same kind of edit that was all over those pages. If you think this isn't what those were despite doing the exact same thing, then you might want to start explaining how it is different. -- Triacom (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I have explained how it's different a half-dozen times now; you haven't been listening. The difference is that this only has one side and therefore isn't an argument. The bad part about strikethrough arguments was not the strikethroughs, but the arguments. If someone edits the page later striking out part of this and adding a new version, then you have my blessing to wipe out the entire struck-through part and leave only the 'final' version. Until then, your PTSD around strikethrough on the wiki is not a valid reason to reject useful additions to the page. --Auroch (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
If you explained where it's different you'd be able to point it out, but since you haven't, you cannot. This kind of edit is no different than all the strikes that were on nearly every tactics page in the past and which made reading them a mess, and bringing those back would make the wiki much worse. -- Triacom (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
See, I knew you weren't going to do the minimal work required to look at what I'd already written, so I repeated the core point right there. The difference is that this only has one side and therefore isn't an argument. The bad part about strikethrough arguments was not the strikethroughs, but the arguments. This is not an argument; it is purely a use of strikethrough to indicate a change of information. This was a common method of conducting arguments back in the day, but that does not mean it is conducting an argument now. --Auroch (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I've highlighted both sides twice already for you, do you want me to do it a third time? Here's the first side: While not shown up in person, there are rumours in the lore that he is still alive and he may have remade his brewery but these are just rumours, right? And here's the second side: Wrong!! Across the various sky ports of the Kharadron Overlords, Bugman's Ale is a highly sought after product, in heavy competition with the coveted Barak Thryng dark ale. So as you can see, it's a clear argument, and just saying it isn't an argument doesn't change it to being a non-argument. -- Triacom (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You have quoted the page several times. You have not attempted to make a case for the old version of the page being a side. I have explicitly stated exactly what circumstances would have to change to make this an argument, namely that someone added another layer of striking through and correction. That would be a second side, and therefore a) would be an argument and b) would be a mess which encouraged further editors to make the mess worse. All the bad cases in the past met this criterion and made both a and b true, and b is why they were bad. This does not. I've really been far more reasonable than you've deserved, trying to be very clear what my position is and what you'd have to convince me of to make me change your mind. You have not taken advantage of this and preferred to assert the same things over and over long after it was very clear that I did not consider them to be true. --Auroch (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
The old page says one thing, you say something else, that's two sides right there. If another person showed up to add another side then that would be three sides having an argument, and that would be shifting the goalposts from "an argument needs two sides" to "an argument needs three sides". Why do you think the main page isn't a side? -- Triacom (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
As I've said a few times now, no, that is not a side. A side produces visible debate. The page does not have visible debate. This correction is like "Let's get that one." "Wait, I think the other one might be a better deal.", which is also not an argument. --Auroch (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Holy shit, now you're deleting what I'm writing on your talk page, but deleting what I write isn't going to make it go away you know. This clearly is a debate because the original page is one side, then your edit is the second since it argues against the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think the main page isn't a side? -- Triacom (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually while we're at it, why do you think arguing against the main page isn't debating the main page? -- Triacom (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Look, Triacom. We weren't arguing. It was just a bit of fun. It was a playful jab I threw into in the initial statement, and then I added in the new lore piece. Auroch wrote that section and he was fine with it, and he even playfully added in the "Beer Never Changes" bit. -- Bear Eater (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about arguing with users, I was talking about putting arguments on the main page. If you're crossing off what was written and arguing against it then that's clearly an argument on the main page, and not doing that became an unspoken rule when that sort of thing was all over the wiki and took up huge paragraphs. This is why I said already that if you want to correct the page, you need to properly correct it, not argue against it. -- Triacom (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
And as I have told you repeatedly, no one put an argument on the main page. It was a playful correction, and the only one who considers it an argument is you. So shaddup. --Auroch (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Also I'd have way more sympathy if you were rewriting the page to include the new information in a way you didn't consider arguing rather than, as you have actually been doing, deleting it. --Auroch (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't bullshit me, when you type "Wrong!" And follow it with the correction then you're arguing on the main page. It's also not my job to correct it for you, I'm not an elementary school teacher and if you want to correct info you should learn to do it properly. As I've said before, the wiki was a mess on many pages precisely because of that sort of bullshit "playful correction." -- Triacom (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Your notion of arguing seems to cover anything which expresses having changed its mind ever, which is a useless and stupid definition. Adding new information is good; emphasizing that it's new, when that would be a surprise to most readers, is better. If you don't like it, edit the page to express that information a different way. As long as you keep deleting, I will keep replacing it. If you want to enforce a rule, first make it a written rule. --Auroch (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
My notion of arguing is anything that argues on the main page. If you start using strikethroughs to debate info on the main page, you're arguing on the main page. Adding in new info is good, but not when you do it in an argument, that's why I've said to correct the info properly, or don't bother. If you are going to keep arguing on the main page, I'll be forced to ask for the mods to get involved. -- Triacom (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
So now you're defining "arguing" circularly. That's not an improvement. Hint: arguments require at least two sides. If there is only one 'side of the argument' actively editing, there isn't actually an argument because everyone is in agreement. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing, because it clearly isn't about making the page more informative or more entertaining; it's obviously both more informative and more entertaining with the addition of the 'surprise!' correction. It seems like you're just tunnel-visioning on your particular interpretation of an 'unwritten rule' which is unwritten for a good goddamn reason. Chill. The. Fuck. Down. --Auroch (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
It's not circular logic, and I'll give you your sides. Side A: While not shown up in person, there are rumours in the lore that he is still alive and he may have remade his brewery but these are just rumours, right? Side B: Wrong!! Across the various sky ports of the Kharadron Overlords, Bugman's Ale is a highly sought after product, in heavy competition with the coveted Barak Thryng dark ale. There's your two sides, which makes it an argument. It doesn't matter if two users are in agreement, the same user could've written the paragraph and it would not matter because you're still posting an argument on the main page. To break it down: who's doing it doesn't matter, all that matters is what's written. -- Triacom (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
If all that matters is what's written, then we're done here because an argument has a back and forth and this only has a back, no forth, so it's not arguing. Your PTSD is not a valid reason to keep an entertaining and informative edit off the page. --Auroch (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Posting an argument on the main page is posting an argument on the main page regardless of how many users it took to put it there. There's a clear back and forth which I even highlighted for you. -- Triacom (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
For the record if you don't think that an argument must have a third response, then you're shifting the goalposts that an argument must have at least two sides, and changing it to "an argument must have three sides." All that you need to do to argue against something is to contradict it. -- Triacom (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not moving the goalposts and you'd have to be an imbecile to think I was. Two sides in an argument are necessary; demonstrating those two sides exist requires at least one of them to make at least two statements, one before and one after the other side makes a statement. And at least I've defined my terms; you've just made empty assertions that it's an argument on the main page without justification, reason, or anything other than bluster. You consider it an argument; you are the only one who does. Stop repeating the same claim without evidence like it's supposed to be convincing, because we've been over it and until you present some actual reason why you think it is an argument you're just making yourself look stupid. It's not an argument; it's a written interruption in the same vein as 'Open the country. Stop having it be closed.'. Unless you want to argue that that is an argument, you don't have a leg to stand on. Also, "Second warning"? Very mature. Consider this your fifth? tenth? warning. --Auroch (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I just showed you the two sides, I even highlighted them for you. The first statement is While not shown up in person, there are rumours in the lore that he is still alive and he may have remade his brewery but these are just rumours, right? The second statement is: Wrong!! Across the various sky ports of the Kharadron Overlords, Bugman's Ale is a highly sought after product, in heavy competition with the coveted Barak Thryng dark ale. So even by your own logic that's an argument. -- Triacom (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it isn't. There is no side arguing for the old version of the page. There is nothing contesting the update. There is the old version, and the new comment pointing out that 'hooray! the rumors are no longer rumors!'. There is only one side; therefore it is not an argument. --Auroch (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There is no side arguing for the old version of the page. That has nothing to do with anything, striking out text and arguing against it is posting an argument, plain and simple. -- Triacom (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
We established that you believe that several days ago. We also established that said belief is not universal several days ago. --Auroch (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
We've established that an argument must have two sides, and that there were two sides posted to the main page, making it an argument. Even by your own rules it is an argument. -- Triacom (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I've established that there aren't two sides on this page, making it not an argument. You've insisted on your 'visibly changing your mind is an argument' definition, and I rejected it as ridiculous.--Auroch (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Where have you done that? When you said there weren't two sides to an argument even though I'd already shown them to you twice now? -- Triacom (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I've also never said that changing your mind is an argument, I've said all that matters is what's posted on the main page, and what you've posted is an argument. This is why just one person can post an argument to the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I regret that I started this nonsense!!

--Bear Eater (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This would've happened sooner or later, so it might as well happen now. -- Triacom (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not fix it?[edit]

I'm going to reiterate that if you want to resolve this, make a fix forward change. Add the same information from the edit you consider an argument, in a different style which you don't consider an argument. I like the current text but if you change it to be less amusing but have all the same new information I will not fight you over that. I take a hard-line stance against letting people impose rules which have lost the thread of why the rule existed, and I care about that more than I do about making this page better. But your stated motivation is to make the page better, so I am providing you an out to achieve that goal without continuing this fight. --Auroch (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I already said why I don't do that. Not only is it not my job to fix it for you, but fixing other people's problems does not stop them from doing it again, whereas asking them works the vast majority of the time and prevents future problems. -- Triacom (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
When was it ever established a user can blank out their talk page whenever they want to? I remember it being quite the opposite. -- Triacom (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
That you are repeatedly reverting my edits to my talk page is just making you look childish. So if you want to ensure mods take my side, by all means, continue. It would be a slightly hollow victory but I'll take it. --Auroch (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm keeping them where I can, what you're doing, trying to hide the argument, is childish. -- Triacom (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
By the way, repeatedly trying to delete an opposing side's argument is not a good idea, but if you want, I'm willing to move this whole thing to the Josef Bugman discussion page. -- Triacom (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe I could delete your argument as I don't believe you've made one yet. I kept the last iteration when I deleted the rest, in which you made the same points as you'd said a dozen times before, so nothing important from your side is missing. A fair amount from my side is, but that's my call to make. It's not gone and isn't meant to be; it's just moved off the page so that the debate, such as it is, can be conducted in an orderly way. If you at some point demonstrate a bare minimum of good faith and actually continue the debate, you are free to reference anything you said in the previous revisions, as am I. --Auroch (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
My argument has always been that the main page is a side and that you're arguing against it when you present your side against it. You've yet to state why you think the main page isn't a side despite the fact that I've asked why several times, and you'd know this if you read what I wrote instead of deleting it. -- Triacom (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You don't care whether or not the page looks cluttered, if you did you'd have taken up my offer to move the discussion. -- Triacom (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
You deleting the newer paragraphs I add and pretending I never said them shows me you're not arguing in good faith. -- Triacom (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
How about this, you correct the paragraph properly, replace it entirely if you want, just do not argue against it, do not use a strikethrough, and in return I'll move all of this conversation to Josef Bugman's talk page and collapse it so that it doesn't "clutter" up that page, but still exists. I'll also move your reply to savagereaper to their talk page since you're deleting that too for some reason, and I've yet to see them say they've noticed your answer. After that we can all move on and forget this happened, while not setting a precedent for the strikethrough blight that covered our tactics pages to return. -- Triacom (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I repeat that if you want me to engage with anything you say, you will have to do it on the cleaned-up page. Everything you add to the messy version will be reverted unread (as will anything anyone else adds to it). I've already added the link at the top of the page to make it more obvious that it's there to be viewed; it's insulting to reader's intelligence but you wouldn't shut up about it so that's the concession you get. You will not get any more. Show some goddamn maturity. --Auroch (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Auroch if you want to be treated as an adult you need to stop accusing other people of acting like children while throwing a tantrum yourself. Deleting what other people say and pretending they never said them is not something adults do. Seriously, you might as well be plugging your ears and claiming you can't hear anyone else. -- Triacom (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
If you want to continue this argument continue it on the cleaned-up page. It is well-established that a user may blank their talk page whenever. Nothing you or I said in the old version is gone; you are free to link to the archived revision. --Auroch (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Repeatedly deleting what somebody else said so that you can pretend they didn't say them is not cleaning up a page. If you wanted to clean this page up you would've taken up my offer to move everything to the Josef Bugman page, and you've refused to do that. -- Triacom (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a cite?[edit]

Just as an observer, and somebody not interested in sorting through the endless arguments, can you provide a citation for the contested point in Josef Bugman? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure they can, that doesn't mean they should use a strikethrough to argue against old information. Can you imagine what the tactics pages would look like if that was the norm? Crossing out everything old and putting in new paragraphs that argued against them? If you want to see what that was like, look at the old versions 6th edition 40k tactics and 8th edition Fantasy tactics pages, they're horrible to read, and allowing this kind of edit back in would set a bad precedent that would allow that sort of thing to return. -- Triacom (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to point out to Auroch: The above is not an answer to my question, which is what I'm looking for here. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Given how they've just answered, I've also looked for it and there's only a reference to a beer named Bugman's Beer being sold. There is no evidence that he's survived and is still alive, there's no evidence that he's remade his brewery, for all we know this could just be an imposter using his name. As such, the argumentative edit Auroch's trying to add to the Josef Bugman page is wrong. -- Triacom (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's try this again, hopefully without Triacom butting in[edit]

(Triacom, please don't get into this, I'd like Auroch to respond on his own.) I know dealing with Triacom can be highly exasperating, which is why I'm asking you:

Can you point to a specific book, post, or other official source for Josef Bugman being either alive, or Bugman's beer being sold in AoS? I'm offering to help if you actually do. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I wasn't the one who added it in the first place. --Auroch (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Ask Bear Eater if you want a source. --Auroch (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

About Sockpuppets[edit]

I'm not the anon you're accusing of being a sockpuppet, if you want to verify this just ask Root. I don't use a VPN and it'll be easy to see that with the IP logs. What this does mean however is that even the anons know it's wrong to put an argument on the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

[WP: BLANKING][edit]

Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their user page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters.

That's Wikipedia's policy, where's the standard policy you claim every wiki adheres to? -- Triacom (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
By the way, you should look up Wikipedia's stance on using strikethroughs to edit the main page. Turns out they don't allow arguments like that either, so why are you trying to use them as an example when they're clearly against what you were doing? -- Triacom (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)