User talk:Flufflion

From 1d4chan

RE: Our recent debates[edit]

I know you're angry with GW over their favoritism, but so is virtually everyone else here (even the Imperium players). Preaching to the choir is a waste of time, so maybe it would be better to expand on the xenos articles we have now instead? The Tyranid units still need pages for several of their units done, so how about we bury the hatchet and focus on adding to the wiki instead of continuing to argue like we have so far. It's better than simply talking at each other, because neither of us is going to budge on this issue and it'll just keep spilling into other articles if we keep it up. --Newerfag (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: re: Our recent debates[edit]

If bears worth mentioning that out of the wreckage of clusterfuckery that comes out of the bitchfights of various editors, a gem of comedic explanation can be made that explains the different opinions represented. Instead of simply clicking the 'undo' button to make it go away, incorporating things into the article can be far more constructive. If the debate is big enough, which this is in fact, then a whole new article on it should be made with the bulk of the discussions being transcribed to that new page with a minor summary remaining on it's parent page along with a link. Also, games other than Warhammer 40k are far more in need of help. Warhammer Fantasy, the Dungeons and Dragons settings, and so forth. --Thannak (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

True, but I think we could go without making another skubtastic page that exists solely as a place for people to bicker and argue. It would be better to focus on improving what we have now and let the issue drop entirely.--Newerfag (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Recent Debates (Burying the Hatchet)[edit]

Thank you for explaining. It was not my intention to debate or complain, I just wanted to get information from other people in the Warhammer fanbase and enlighten those who may not know (You make good points, though I disagree with your assessment that everybody on 1d4chan knows about the full history of GW favouring the Imperium and [most, but not all, of the time] screwing the rest of the fanbase over). But since I didn't mean to start a debate, so long story short I am sorry about this misunderstanding between us. To be honest, it's my understanding that the discussion page was a place to express opinions and views as well, not just discuss facts and figures.

I understand. Its just that things were getting a little bit too heated and I wanted to keep things from boiling over. I've been told I can be excessively opinionated and didn't want our bickering to spill any further. Thanks for understanding.--Newerfag (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Improval and Information[edit]

When you said "improve what we have now?" What did you mean by that in particular? Do you mean adding character pages and discussing lore? You sound like someone who's very knowledgable about the fanbase, the game and the setting.

Pretty much, yes. And be sure to sign your comments in the future.--Newerfag (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A good idea, though, how do you add a new page to this site and establish the link? User: Flufflion
If you click on the "Help" button, you should be able to learn everything you need to know about making pages, linking, and so on. Happy editing!--Newerfag (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Orville[edit]

I created a new page for The Orville and shifted a looonnng conversation over there, too.--Zimriel (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) It gets better. There's a talk over there about whether this should be deleted as non-/tg/. -- 18:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for casting your vote. I invoked you since you were involved in the earlier discussions, on how to clean up the Star Trek page. I can't win 'em all. I guess we'll revisit the issue when(if) there is ever an Orville game, which there currently is not (directly). --Zimriel (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding SJW[edit]

The tl;dr section feels a little bloated. Is there any way that we can come to some sort of compromise to keep it short enough that it doesn't sound like a ranty piece? I don't think we want to try and be a proper scholastic wiki here, just give a simple rundown. Going in depth into SJW feelings towards Christianity seems like unnecessary bloat, but I agree with keeping the "fringe" label for "The Mary Sue".--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think adding SJW feelings towards Christianity isn't unnecessary bloat and I prefer that it stays. That statement is not even one sentence long so it's hardly in-depth and it's pointing out ironic aspects of SJWs (how they're on the opposite side of the Christians behind the Satanic Panic plus how they're so prone to anti-Christian prejudice despite their claims to champion diversity and oppose discrimination; some SJWs treat Christians the way /pol/luters treat Jews). --Flufflion (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree, I'm just concerned about bloat. The way it reads feels a little rambly for a tl;dr. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)\
You have a point, I'll try to make it more concise. Check out my newest version and let me know what you think. --Flufflion (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I like your latest edit. No complaints here. I know it's not the one you did way back a week ago or so, but still. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, it's not what I originally intended. I thought about all the points raised in the discussion thread along with my views and amended it. On that note, since it's relevant to /v/, related to SJWs and there's a Satanic Panic page, do you think we could make a Gamergate page for 1d4chan? --Flufflion (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)