User talk:CBFan/Archive 2

Welcome to Robot Wars Wiki!
Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.


 * Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help.


 * Please sign in, if you haven't already, and create a user name! It's free, and it'll help you keep track of all your edits.


 * Questions? You can ask at the Help desk or on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page!


 * Need help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit.

I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you!


 * Christophee 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

More than willing
However, you must realise that making errors is human. If I make a mistake, please do not flame, just do what Christophee does and say General Corrections. I didn't think to check 13 Black, I just assumed because the section on Competitor Robots said 5-6. But that's not the point. I have figured out a way to prevent mistakes.

Hope to continue working together in peace.

 Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 

Wanted Articles
From now on, if you see a robot with a red link, don't change it so its blue. The red link adds it to the Wanted Articles list, and makes it easy to find what robots need articles. Also, once its written, we don't need to edit the wars and link to the article.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 

It says in Bold
On the policy, Bot-Hating does not cover anything on peoples pages or in forums. I have a right to say what I believe. SO do you.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Yes, but it is not an acceptable reason for liking or disliking another robot. There is a reason I left the official Panic Attack forum. There has to be a reason why you dislike a robot, and it can NOT be because it beat one of your favourites.


 * Also, I removed the comment about Cerberus because it doesn't make sense. It DID return when the weight-limit went up. TWICE. CBFan 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said anything like that. And concerning Cerberus, I meant the main competition. I knew that it came back for Extremes, but thats not what I meant.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * You did. The only reason you put for hating Rattus Rattus was that it beat S.M.I.D.S.Y., which is stupid because Atomic, who alo beat that robot, is in your top five. Granted, you changed it, but the point still stands.


 * Oh, and I seriously don't like that section anyway, because everything you've said mkaes me want to say "YOU build a better robot then". CBFan 23:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's your problem. You assume. How do you know that I haven't?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Well, unless you're one of the guys behind Terror Australis or Bondi-Titch...CBFan 08:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, TG, you liar.  Gutripper Speak if you are worthy 

Heat Finalists
I'm glad, so I'll make S.M.I.D.S.Y., The Steel Avenger, Kat 3, Diotoir and Robochicken.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 

ALso, we haven't finished the semi-finalists. You can have your choice at making any of the Seventh Wars finalists; I don't know much about them. I'll do RAging Knightmare and Gravity, along with Haardvark. Christophee says he'll do Mute, so you can pick any of the others.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Those five will be fine, although actually there are a few more significant ones than Robochicken. I'll see what I can pull off for the others. I'd just like to stress now, please make sure you take into account what Christophee and I have done with your previous edits, and learn from your mistakes. Thank you. CBFan 22:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Significance should have nothing to do with it. I can list robots that went out in the first round who are more significant than, say, Blade or Trident, yet they have articles already.


 * Regarding Robochicken, should it be called Robochicken or Robochicken Evo?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * No you can't. If a robot went out in Round 1 of the UK wars, then it can never be significant to that competition. Besides, I have my own plans for the robots that fared better in the side-competitions. CBFan 08:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say, I don't remember saying I was going to create the article for Mute. I said I'd be happy to do the Series 7 robots and you suggested Mute, but I never said I was going to create it. I'm only mentioning this because I'm quite happy for someone else to create that page if they want to, but if nobody else does, I'll do it eventually.

I think that the article should be called 'Robochicken' as Robochicken Evo only entered one series (using that name anyway) and lost in the first round, plus we might as well use a more general name. Christophee 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So,
We're having finalists, successful robots, and other robots? That sounds good to me.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 

I understand your obsessive compulsive behaviour with having all the semi-finalists done first, but we're trying to attract more people here. The first new one comes along, and you delete their work. Why on earth would they stay? It really doesn't matter, in my opinion, because once the semi-finalists are done, Diotoir will merit its own article anyway. Quite frankly, what are you thinking?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * It's an IP, and that was their only piece of work. I could hardly contact them, explain my reasons for doing what I'd done, and apologise, which in all honesty, I would have done under the circumstances.
 * Besides, I'd really, for once, like for the articles to be their own thing, not a C'n'P of what they were on the Competitor robot page. CBFan 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Understandable. An might I add that I'm impressed with you lately. You are beginning to sound like a mature admin, and have hardly lost your temper in ages. Well done.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 

Successful robots
I think we should make a new template to put the robots that aren't semi-finalists but still performed well. I think the name succesful robots is inappropriate, but robots that won extreme competitions or awards should be seperate from robots that didn't. While the one on your page is a good indicator, I must disagree with Raizer Blade. They were never that great, and they made a heat final because they sustained less damage and because Terror Bull broke down. I might compile a list of robots who I think should be on the template, and you let me know what you think.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Raizer Blade competed in three wars, almost managed to overturn Hypno-Disc, and you're wrong...they only suffered in the Heat Final because of a seized up motor. You're just bot-worshipping again. A robot is not automatically bad just because it gets drawn against Hypno-Disc. By your logic, Bulldog Breed shouldn't have its own article. CBFan 09:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Its up. Tell me what you think.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * THere's a difference between almost and did. If it had competed in several wars, then yes, but it only appeared in two, losing in the second round against Suicidal Tendencies and in the heat final against Hypno-Disc. Just because Hypno-Disc is my favourite robot doesn't mean that I hate every robot its come up against. Raizer Blade did lose in the final after one blow from Hypno-Disc, because it had already sustained so much damage. That's fact, not Bot-Hatng.


 * Bulldog Breed has an article because its a semi finalist. I don't know why you even brought that up.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * And yet, you're insistant that Rick gets an article? That does not work on SO many levels. You have to be consistant. If anything, Rick performed worse than Raizer Blade. More to the point, how a robot loses means nothing. Raizer Blade still got further than Chromalot.


 * Oh, and get your facts right. Raizer Blade competed in THREE wars, not two. Obviously. CBFan 09:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. What other war was that? I've never heard that before. And I never said Rick deserves and article yet, I just made a redirect for Maverick. I'm not going to argue with you. I'm above that.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Yeah, that's the problem...you're saying Rick doesn't deserve an article yet, but you're saying that Raizer Blade doesn't deserve it at all. Do you really think that's fair?
 * Also, hello? Series 2? KillDozer? I rest my case. CBFan 09:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll forgive me, I hope, but I've never heard of KillDozer and Raizer Blade being related. I never said that Raizer Blade never deserved an article, just not yet.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 

Raizer Blade
Okay, now you are bot-worshipping. Every third or fourth robot on the list is "Raizer Blade is more deserving." It's not even that good. It almost lifted Hypno-Disc, but was immobilised in the first round. It got through against Terror Bull, granted, but losing one of its drive wheels in the process. Final battle, one blow from Hypno-Disc immobilised it. I'm not Bot-Hating, I don't mind Raizer Blade, but they're not fitting in this group. I've whittled it down some more.

The group is based around veterans, well-known robots, award winners and robots that did well in side competitions.\

There may be more, but these are some to go off and start with. Deal?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * No we are NOT. YOU'RE Bot-Worshipping and you know it. Derek never won a single battle in it's life, it's insignificant, nobody CARES about it. It. Won. NOTHING. Significant. An award is not significant. I mean, I don't care if Psychosprout won the Most Original Entry, it's still not significant. Raizer Blade scored enough points, that's why it's getting an article. Derek has no points at all. Don't contradict yourself.


 * And besides, how is it "bot-worshipping" when you're purely using maths? I calculated the scores of all the Robots in Robot Wars history. It's not MY fault that Raizer Blade scored within the top 20 of all non-semi-finalists, and thus deserving of an article.CBFan 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At the moment, I think a robot that participated in at least three wars and made at least one heat final is significant enough for now. As long as it has enough content to make the page long enough is fine by me. Also, a strong performance in the Extreme or a World Series is good too.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * All very well, but there's a problem with that....there were several significant robots from Series 6 and 7. CBFan 08:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on how well they did. If they made a heat final or did a significant act, then we would decide on it. We should discuss it first and decide.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Well I would, but how can I when you keep reverting EVERY single suggestion I make on your page (not to mention correction, as I've told you quite clearly, it's MEGA Morg, not Mini Morg) purely because you won't drop an argument that happened a long time ago? CBFan 08:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because you are removing things from my page. Tell me your thoughts and I'll add it to the list. Do not take it upon yourself.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * OK then, I will. CBFan 08:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Oh, and by the way, I think the Morgue article should be called The Morgue, since it was the most succesul, the other two going out in the first and second round.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Another thing. Are Velocrippa and Mighty Mouse sharing or seperate? Likewise, do you think that Widow's Revenge should be a part of the Razer article? They were the spouses and girlfriends, they did only enter to annoy the Razer team, and it was a one off battle. Tell me your thoughts.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 

Point 1: No, actually, Mega Morg won the most battles out of any of the robots (it won 2, The Morgue and Mini Morg only won 1). Plus it's probably the most well known of the three. I think it should be Mega Morg.

Point 2: Velocirippa and Mighty Mouse are part of the same team, but are completely different robots. Not only that, but they competed together. You might want to check that with Christophee, but I think you'll find that they go seperately because of this. It's simply not like, say, Mousetrap and Black & Blue, or 101 & Anarchy, who competed seperatly from each other. Also, Razer and Widow's Revenge had completely different teams. Enough said. CBFan 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A little note
When you are correcting mistakes that people make on articles, could you please do it without making comments that could be seen as rude or insulting the person's intelligence. By all means, say why you're correcting it, but do it in a polite way without questioning the person that made the mistake. For example, when you corrected something on The Seventh Wars - Heat C, you said "Would you care to explain the gash?". Whether you meant it to or not, that comment makes it seem that you're questioning my intelligence, or at the very least it could be seen as confrontational. In these cases, the person likely just didn't notice something or made an honest mistake so there's no need to question the person like that, just correct it and state that you made a correction. You probably don't mean to be rude, but it could be interpreted that way, so it's best to just avoid it. Thank you. Christophee 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I wasn't intending to be rude...and in fairnessy, they did make a point of showing the gash. I never intend to be rude. It's more or less the way I am. CBFan 08:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I admit I made a mistake on that and I'll pay closer attention to the battles when I do future write-ups, but you could have easily just corrected it without questioning me about it. It would be more constructive to use the edit summary section to put a summary of what you actually edited, rather than making unnecessary comments about other people's contributions. Christophee 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Sorry if it came out the wrong way. CBFan 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Iron Awe
Non-official honours are important as well. We have Cassius listed as first robot to self right, Chaos 2 as the first to flip another robot out, Firestorm as most battles won and several others. I think it should remain.

As for the Robot History, if you help me write them, I would be happy to put histories in other robots. But I am not going to permit you to delete it from one article just because others don't.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * It's not even an honour. Thereby, not relevant. CBFan 09:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, that can be removed. You're probably right.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * There is no point in protecting 259. I am I sysop too, so I can still edit it. That was just a waste of time.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * In that case, forget about 259 and create an article for another robot, like Disc-O-Inferno for example. That robot was not only about as destructive as 259, but it got further, AND won a competition. CBFan 09:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How about, instead of telling me what to do, do something yourself. I chose to do 259, and I stick by it. I half to go to sleep, but in the morning, I shall wake up, and undelete your 259 if you choose to keep trying. As I recall, you made a huge deal about Raizer Blade having an article. Why don't you do them?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * It IS morning, and you will do no such thing. And do you know why? Because it will get BOTH of us demoted...or worse, banned. You're refusing to accept your own rules. 259 is not significant. End of ruddy story. CBFan 09:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Moron . I live in Australia, and it is 8:55 PM. I am tired, two of my friends are in hospital, I have six twelve hour days in a row starting tomorrow, and our country is being destroyed by bushfires. Do not push me about a stupid petty arguement. I have had enough. Goodnight.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Congratulations, you've made possibily the biggest mistake you could ever make. CBFan 09:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I am just stressed lately, for the reasons listed above. I didn't mean to be rude.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 

New articles
Alright. I made the last four notables, as I'm sure you can see. I'm starting on Mega Morg, and I'd like to do Barber-Ous. That leaves Mighty Mouse and Raizer Blade. Do you want to do them?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c) 


 * Yes, I did notice. OK, I'll see what I can do. CBFan 11:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
Just a little suggestion about the robot history sections. If you think a section needs improving or re-writing, by all means improve or re-write it, but could you please leave it until you're ready to do the necessary improvements. I don't think its necessary to completely remove the section just because it needs to be improved or corrected, and if you leave it there maybe somebody else will improve it instead (the wiki is a joint effort after all). I like the sections that you write, but there is no need to completely remove somebody else's write-up just because it needs a few improvements, and if it needs re-writing at least leave it there until you're ready to re-write it. Thank you. Christophee 17:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll put this here, since it is following on from Christophee. Please stop removing content saying you will rewrite it later. Either leave it until you're ready or change it immediately.

Secondly, I have every right to write what I did. You were being overly rude to Jimi09. For all we know, he could have dyslexia. I am happy to fix up his edits, and I warn you not to be so rude again. I do not like the manner in which you are treating others. Please stop it. Thank you.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  03:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You did NOT have any right. I was clearly NOT being overly rude, I meerly offered some advice, which he didn't take. YOU'RE the one being rude by deliberately bashing me. You don't hear me going around telling people "Oh, don't listen to Toon Ganondorf, he's an obnoxious idiot who only wants to get his own way", do you? So show a little ruddy consideration. I have removed it, simply because you do NOT bash other members.
 * And BTW, no, I don't think that of you, believe it or not. CBFan 07:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I see it, you two cannot come to an agreement. Whether you mean to or not, CBFan, you come off as insulting, hurtful and short-tempered. Writing in ALL CAPS comes off as yelling, intentionally or not. Telling someone that they should stop contributing just because they don't meet your standards is pathetic, shallow and selfish. Removing someone's advice to another user with an edit summary of "shut up" is definitely ban worthy. Toon Ganondorf, you continue to pick fights with this guy, even though he is clearly not worth the effort. You two, from what I see, have been at each others throats for months. Drop it immediately.  Gutripper Speak  07:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You two are only hurting the wiki.  Gutripper Speak  07:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, I have not being writing in all caps, I did not tell him not to contribute altogether, and TG had no right to deliberately bash me, yet he did. And don't say I'm "not worth it". TG and I are clearly both Mods.
 * I'd write more, but you deleted my first comment. CBFan 07:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not an idiot, so do not lie to me. You appear to be clinging at straws. TG did not bash you. You told him not to contribute by writing (how else can he? not pictures). In the three minutes it took you to reply, I found three pages where you have written a word in all caps. I may regret saying this, but I am shocked that the two of you were promoted.  Gutripper Speak  07:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither am I, so don't lie to me either. TG did bash me. He told Jimi not to listen to me. One word does not make it shouting, and besides, I wasn't sounding, I was meerly emphasizing the word, obviously. And yes, he can contribute with pictures (I mean, he's found some pretty good ones before). CBFan 07:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not intentionally I'm sure. I think he meant for Jimi not to listen to you as in not to take offense. I have had enough of talking about this. If either of you snaps at the other, or if I read "shut up" one more time, I will report you to the wikia staff and request that they demote and ban both of you. You are acting like a pair of children.  Gutripper Speak  07:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)