User talk:Furore23

From 1d4chan

Stop cutting and pasting Template:skub everywhere. Look at other articles, see how they use the {{ }} template notation. --NotBrandX 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh. Sorry. I'm new to this. Thanks for going over my work, and any feedback is appreciated. --Furore23 13:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

'Sall good, no need to apologize, everybody has to start somewhere, and I thank the Emperor that new people show up with fresh new content instead of more jokes for the 'Emprah's To-Do List'. PROTIP: hit the 'edit' button on an article, and cut-and-paste what you see there, instead of using the HTML source. You'll see that wiki editing can be pretty fast since there's a lot of shortcuts to save you typing out all the HTML <tag> stuff. --NotBrandX 14:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just glad, not to mention astonished, to see a new article that isn't 40k.

I wish I wish the new stuff was easier to find, like maybe "search for all pages that aren't category:skubhammer." I can't get NewPages special page to go past 7 days. :( When you get tired of WarHamster Four-Tee-Kay, browse through Category:Homebrew_Settings and Category:Board_Games and see if there's anything there that is unfamiliar. Two new articles that popped up at the end of March 2011 are:

--NotBrandX 14:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, ain't you a cutie. Thanks for the recommendations, I will follow that up. --Furore23 17:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the site. --FlintTD 05:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks dude. I feel welcome.
    • I hope the site bosses like my skubs. I know they're not serious articles, I just did them to raise a smile and maybe encourage some action on some redlinks. If I need to be stopped, I will understand.

Protip: if you can't be bothered to write pages that are more than two sentences long, they're going to get the delete tag. Don't be lazy- make longer pages instead of making other users do all of the work for you.

  • A wiki is a collaboration. User A writes a thing, then B, then C... that's how they work. Unless someone scampers around torching everything that doesn't meet some arbitrary nonsensical byte-quota.
    • That's no excuse for writing shitty, half-assed articles that say nothing about their subjects, you lazy bum. Collaborations require you to do your part too. And guess what? You aren't. Get off your pasty ass and do some work every now and then.
      • Workers get paid. My standard rate is US$30/hour, minimum two hours. Do you pay by cheque or EFT?
        • You get paid to bitch about the wiki you barely edit? That's a laugh.
          • You... seem to have real trouble parsing sentences.
Rather hilarious. I've made close to a thousand edits in just under a year on this wiki, and if I could be paid for this you can bet your ass I would. But then if you were being paid for this, you can bet I'd be expecting you to pull the same amount of work I'm doing. Quit complaining scrub and get on my level.Evilexecutive (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I love my edits <3
  • There's that comprehension problem again. I really wish I could help you but your concept of what is happening is so at odds with reality, there's nothing for me to untangle.
Not the same person you are talking to, but really neither of you are Sigg'ing your posts with 4x~, so I have no freakin' clue who is who. Evilexecutive (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The guy with an overinflated opinion of himself is Furore23, I think. Big words from someone who spends more time editing talk pages than actual articles, I might note. --Newerfag (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay fair cop, I (and others) forgot to sign some edits here, sorry. Lemme see if I can correct some of the bizarre-ass dickhead nonsense that's been flung at me lately. 1. This is a WIKI. Individual users contribute individual contributions. That is all. If you have been blabbering nonsense like 'ur lazy' or 'get 2 werk', then you fundamentally misunderstand the nature and purpose of a wiki. Quantity of edits is irrelevant. Only quality matters. 2. An article stub is a placeholder. It exists until somebody has the time and inclination to expand it, AND as a reminder or suggestion to anyone idly searching for something to do. Establishing a stub is a proven strategy for getting further useful edits. 3. I am in no sense driven by ego here. I am not the Internet Tough Guy waggling "ovar 9000 edits!" around as if such numbers mattered. My only reaction during my visits in the last few days has been disappointment. This site has so much potential to be fun, interesting, educational... it's just sad to see some lunatic scampering around, scraping his anal glands on every page that doesn't meet his deranged standards of word-count or 'i don liek derfor no relatd'. Pick up your fucking game, 1d4chan. Quit vandalising. Add fun or lurk. --Furore23 (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I have. You so far have not. You've done nothing but pick fights, justify your lack of desire to contribute, and generally be a jackass. Your edits have lacked both quality and quantity, and they speak far more loudly than anything else you say here. And a stub that gives no indication what its subject is- that's outright worthless. You're the one that should pick up your game, not the scores of people who actually add to articles.--Newerfag (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If you could stop lying constantly things would go much smoother, thanks. --Furore23 (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    • What is there to lie about? I'm merely noting what I've seen on your contributions page, comparing it to other editors here, and finding it to be far less substantial than the work of most other users established as long as yourself. While I will acknowledge I was wrong about the Fantasy Heartbreaker page, the way it was written was so vague it could have easily applied to any failed author who tried to make it big and was outright wrong in claiming FATAL was an example of it. Additionally, making stubs is not enough- you have to add to other articles as well. --Newerfag (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You accused me of picking fights, 'justifying' myself, and being a jackass. Three lies in one sentence.

Let me try once more to explain the nature of volunteer organisations. Each individual contributes. Some do more, some less. All are valuable. If you're going to whine and sling phrases like 'get to work', you're not talking to a volunteer. --Furore23 (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

    • All are valuable. But some are more valuable than others, according to the amount of volunteering they do- and your attitude thus far suggests you see it as little more than a chore to you, rather than an opportunity to improve the site you claim to be so disappointed in. If the current editors are so terrible at what they do, why not improve the wiki instead of demanding that everyone else show their dedication first? It's hypocritical of you to do anything else beyond making more constructive edits, including replying to me on this talk page. --Newerfag (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No, calling out vandalism isn't hypocrisy. It's calling out vandalism. --Furore23 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's clear something up. After I looked up the Fantasy Heartbreaker thing, I saw it was in fact real, albeit very obscure. I will freely admit that I was mistaken there, and due to my interpretation of the way the article stub was written I honestly couldn't tell if it was /tg/ related or not. Again, that was my mistake. Can we simply agree that the situation could have been handled better on both sides and move on?--Newerfag (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

At least for practical purposes, why not. --Furore23 (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad we could come to an agreement. You go ahead and keep making articles, and if I know anything about their subjects I'll do what I can to expand them. --Newerfag (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)