User talk:CrashBash

I'm sorry for the delay on archiving - I get a chance to visit this wiki once a day if I'm lucky. Sorry to hear that you're moving on. You'll be greatly missed. '''R A 2 ; aka Resetti's Replicas. ( My Talk )''' 01:24, May 5, 2015 (UTC)


 * It's fine. I hate to sound rude to everyone, but regretably, circumstances and actions on the wikia itself just meant I wasn't feeling it anymore. I'll try and keep in touch through your RA2 series, though. CrashBash (talk) 05:58, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

==Ongoin

Sorry
I'm sorry for threatening you I didn't mean to sound like I was trying to get you in trouble or something I was just asking you to stop User: 73.203.14.95

Troubles
I am trying to create an account but there's a problem it keeps on saying it timed out witch is getting annoyingUser: 73.203.14.95


 * I'm afraid I can't help you there. I'm no expert with creating accounts, sorry. And besides, I'm barely active here anymore, so I'm not the best person to talk to about this anyway. My apologies once again. CrashBash (talk) 23:20, December 24, 2015 (UTC)

Well I was just telling you I can't create the account even thoe some people want me to User: 73.203.14.95

Glitchy problems
Yes, I'm experiencing glitchy problems involving the histories, every time I go to the Recent activity it goes to 21 hours yesterday where it's filled with RA2 talk page. I've also noticed two other problems. I've experienced a unusual problem that didn't happen before where if I right click on the "show me what has changed icon" to open it up on a new tab it sends me to a blank page. Secondly, I've also noticed that if I try to edit the House robot news page it shows me an old version of the page. Have you experienced other problems similar to those?

On a side note what is the table on the HR 2016 news meant to represent? Diotoir the  son  of  nemesis  (talk) 20:17, March 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have. As for the table, I was pondering if that could be used on the wikia itself. CrashBash (talk) 20:21, March 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * That be an interesting idea. Diotoir  the  son  of  nemesis  (talk) 20:23, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

Wild Willy
I noticed you removed Wild Willy's entry on the Self-inflicted immobilisation article. Would that incident therefore count as a Hazard immobilisation instead? Curious. SpaceManiac888 (talk) 19:28, March 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * Its drive had malfunctioned, but it had done so because of the arena spike. It's hard to tell between the two, but...I guess it might have been the HI option. CrashBash (talk) 19:39, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Hi CB

Please could you be a little more tactful with your edit summaries and advice to other users? I just think it can be a little intimidating to them see some of their first edits reverted or changed with a comment that they are unable to reply to. You may be annoyed by this, but please, try not to show it in your revert summaries, or talk page messages. RelicRaider (talk) 16:16, March 14, 2016 (UTC)


 * I do try, seriously, but I don't like feeling like my initially polite-as-I-possibly-can advice is ignored, or it feels like it is being ignored. CrashBash (talk) 17:15, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Change your active status?
You've been back for some time now, and I know this is a minor thing to bug about but shouldn't you change your "permanently inactive" on your user page by now? Diotoir the  son  of  nemesis  (talk) 20:19, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

Apollo
Hi there,

I've noticed you've created a page for our robot Apollo, just to let you know there is a lot on incorrect information, some of which could pose legal issues regarding our contracts with TV production companies. I've tried to alter this, but it appears it keeps getting changed back, for now I have just been deleting the incorrect info, for obvious reason I can't add anymore information until we are able to.

If you need any bits clarifying or need anymore information, then feel free to get in touch (You can email me from an address off the Robots Live website, or message through Facebook on the RL page).

Many Thanks

Alan Young

90.219.184.200 20:21, March 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. First of all, please create a seperate header for this sort of matter, since it isn't related to what Diotoir was talking about. Just a little heads-up for next time.


 * More importantly, the reason it was reverted was the fact that you claimed that Apollo applied for Robot Wars 2016. However, not only does this present a spoiler (which we are avoiding at all costs), but it also deletes information we know for a fact about the TV show, and here at the wikia, the aim is to have information about every robot that appeared or tried to appear in the Robot Wars TV show and anything connected to it, except for the live events. We can't make exceptions, I'm afraid.


 * Sorry if this is an inconvenience, but it's information we have and we strive to include it as part of an encyclopedia about Robot Wars. CrashBash (talk) 20:28, March 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * As you are part of the team I would say that you have full authority to change any incorrect info or info that could threaten you if need be, it's just a case of the others have any quires about it (though really they shouldn't!). I'm perfectly fine with it though. Diotoir  the  son  of  nemesis  (talk) 20:29, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry but this is the first time I've used this before, so have no idea what I'm doing! I've tried to create an account but the confirmation email still hasn't come through. Just a few comments to your reply; I only stated we had applied, not that we had been accepted or not to appear on the show. I'm not sure what information I deleted that you 'Know' to be fact apart from some that could create any legal problems. You also state that Apollo was in the pilot, this is incorrect. If you have any questions just ask. Thanks 90.219.184.200 20:54, March 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * In that case, then I'm afraid that we will have to delete Apollo's article, because at the moment we are not including any robot that may be competing in the 2016 series unless we know that they have, and the only robots that currently fit that marker are those that have failed to qualify. I hope you understand this situation, and if the circumstances change, we will quite happily readd Apollo's article. If it does in fact appear on the show, we will even change the photo. As of right now, however, it'll have to be deleted. CrashBash (talk) 21:12, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

GoldDigger and Goldie
I see you reverted my edit about the two robots and you got there names mixed up it even has there names on the photos and here are the wiki links to prove my point so please can I change them back to normal?--Botomatic1000 (talk) 18:44, April 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's "their", not "there". Secondly, I changed them back immediately afterwards upon realising my mistake...I wasn't even trying to swap that, I was just trying to remove the part about Garm. Sorry, but this comment is pointless. Why did you wait until now to talk about it? Thirdly, you sign your name at the END of the posts, which means you put the links first, not your signature.CrashBash (talk) 19:05, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

It probably worth noting how bloomin stupid I am. Sorry I cant control my stupidity.--Botomatic1000 (talk) 20:47, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Mayhem & Tag Team Articles
Hi CrashBash. First of all, sorry for the muck-up created on those articles, I didn't know what the articles were going to look like until they were published. So all I can say is thank you for pointing out the mistake to me. Kind Regards. Liam Bryant (talk) 18:39, April 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would've been a quick fix. You just needed to put a underneath the last table, and then it'd be fine.  Toast  Ultimatum  18:05, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Craig's Intros
If we're going to put Craig's intros at the start of each Series 2, 3 and 4 episode, I'd be happy to help, as I have them all transcribed. Hogwild94 (talk) 19:11, May 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * That'd be much appriciated if you'd be willing to help. CrashBash (talk) 19:21, May 2, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about that. I was using the wiki as a test audience.


 * It's fine, but you don't need to create a new heading on my page just to reply, you can create one on the comment I left you. Also, I would advise you take note of what it says at the top of the page, namely..."This is a talk page. Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~ four times) or the signature button" CrashBash (talk) 16:32, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Reverts
Again, please don't just revert an edit just because it's in the wrong place. That seemed like a nice piece of information that was thankfully put in the right place. I'm not having a go, I just don't want any more roboteers to turn away from here. RelicRaider (talk) 14:42, August 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * That wasn't the only issue, though, or even the main issue. The other issue was I had absolutely no idea what they were talking about. CrashBash (talk) 14:47, August 8, 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone called Ade Sandercock took a picture of Sting 2 whilst at enginuity today and put the picture on facebook, that is why they said that "Sting 2 currently resides at enginuity (Telford)". Sam (BAZINGA) 14:58, August 8, 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair to CB, it didn't make a lot of sense to someone who wasn't aware of that. Christophee (talk) 15:06, August 8, 2016 (UTC)

Glitterbomb
I am from team GlitterBomb

We have tried changing some errors to your wiki. We do not understand why you inisit on putting the errors back in?

If you need more info, please us our facebook or twitter or email to message and we can work with you on getting your wiki perfect.


 * Your contributions are appriciated, but the problem is, at the moment, many of us, myself included, do not understand how or why these are being considered as errors. This is why I set up this link here so we could hopefully talk it over with you. If you could, it would be very handy for us here at the wikia if you went to this link and explained to us exactly what is wrong with what we have written, because at the moment, we are not entirely seeing it.


 * Also, a polite reminder that you need to sign your posts with four tildes (~ this thing) or the signature button. Your co-operation is much appriciated, and hopefully we can avoid any further of an edit war. CrashBash (talk) 11:19, August 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * As Crash says, the issue we are having is that we don't understand what the incorrect information is. Crash, I have contacted Glitterbomb via Facebook in case they don't respond here.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  11:20, August 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * All I can gather is that it has something to do with April's last name, which is something we've never had a problem with before, so obviously not sure how to handle it. It's true that a last name isn't mentioned on the website, but that doesn't answer why they also removed Rachel's last name, when hers is mentioned on the website...and if this is an error by the website, I have no way of knowing. Still, thanks TG, it's much appriciated. CrashBash (talk) 11:24, August 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * There may be an issue with it either being an incorrect surname, or they don't want the surnames released on the internet (especially given April's tender age). Unlike previous series, where the team members names were broadcast openly, we might be in an unprecedented situation. Guess we just have to wait and see what they say.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  11:26, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries
I feel like we're repeating history here, but once again - there's no need for snide, aggressive edit summaries. There's an awful lot of work that goes into merging two articles, and sometimes mistakes happen. No one is holding out the finished product saying "everything is done and perfect and no one should ever need to change it". You seem to take less than perfection as a personal affront, which is fine if you keep it to yourself.

There's absolutely no need for comments like No, the merge is NOT complete, like, AT ALL. My comment is just a summary of what I've done. Yours should be too, not a personal response to mine. If you find the mistakes, just fix them and say "mistakes fixed".

I know you use capitals for emphasis and don't intend to shout, but with imprudence like "like AT ALL" you can really offend people who just want to help.

I'll be more careful about my mergers. But that's a lot more work than being more careful about edit summaries, which you need to work on.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  09:34, August 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I feel your statement that I take "less than perfection as a personal affront" is a little hypocritical coming from you. That being said, I'll try. Although I assure you I wasn't trying to be rude, I genuinely couldn't tell what you were trying to say in the first place. If it came across as aggressive, which it evidently did, I can only apologise. CrashBash (talk) 09:42, August 13, 2016 (UTC)

Reminiscing
I often think back to those early days in 2009 when we were arguing about the pages to be created. Whilst I don't think your attitude or method was great, I have to say I'm glad you forced me to write the semi-finalists first. If I'd been allowed to diddle away and write about robots like Corkscrew and SMIDSY first, I'd have never done the hard yards. \ Just in case you think I never have good things to say about you.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  02:17, August 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course when I joined the wiki, every competitor was already written, including ones as obscure as Rosebud, so to read that a Heat Finalist like Corkscrew was listed for deletion back on the History page was completely baffling. I somewhat understand now. Not that I think SMIDSY would've been an easy one to write, their repeated heat finals provided much more content than a one-off semi-finalist. Of course when 2016 offered my opportunity to start writing, I didn't have the same luxury of picking the heat winners, I just had to start with ones I was familiar with! Toast  Ultimatum  05:19, August 16, 2016 (UTC)


 * To be fair, TG, your attitude/methods back then were hardly stellar either. The one plus side is that I will admit, you've matured a LOT better than I have. CrashBash (talk) 05:48, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

Here you go
Congratulations. SpaceManiac888  (Talk)  21:11, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

Worst Robots
I've been reading your top tens and was curious for which ten robots you consider the worst and why. Diotoir the  son  of  nemesis  (talk) 12:07, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

Undoing
You need to cool it with the undoing. Undoing edits is not for when you disagree. That is a classic example of when to take something to a talk page. Three times today you undid my edits when pausing to observe would have revealed there was nothing wrong with what I'd written. The fact that you then reverted your own undo is proof that once you've actually looked at what's written, you yourself realise that it shouldn't have been undone. You also undid Toast's good faith edits to the template, using your reversion summary as a comment when once again, you should use the talk page (especially where there is an ongoing conversation about the very issue). Take your hand off the trigger and study things properly before you undo. Thanks.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  10:14, September 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * No, TG, what happened was I thought you'd deleted the perfectly valid fact statement that Terror Turtle, Velocirippa and Joker all had the same poor performance and I was trying to reinsert it back into the article. Especially given the "who wrote this nonsense?" comment that you'd left in the previous post. That was an honest mistake on my part, and trust me, I would have said "I'm an idiot" (too bad rollback doesn't allow commenting)....but really, with all due respect, did you really need to drag this up? Especially considering the fact that I had reverted them in the first place? I don't see why you're blaming me for something I didn't intentionally do. CrashBash (talk) 13:08, September 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, if you'd looked, there wouldn't have been a need to delete it. The statement was removed and put in trivia where it belongs, because even if a robot is bad it doesn't need to be advertised in the opening paragraph. I do have to bring this up because like I said, you're too trigger happy with the undo feature.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  13:15, September 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that doesn't change the fact that I perceived it as unjust editing (especially, again, given the comment you left - which with all due respect I find rather hypocritical given you just told me not too long ago not to be rude in edit summaries), and it also doesn't change the fact that I realised my mistake and reverted it. I apologise for my mistake, but that's ALL it was. A mistake. Nothing to do with being "trigger-happy". CrashBash (talk) 13:19, September 2, 2016 (UTC)

Citing
If you're going to remove the cit template, would you mind putting a reference tag on it? I would but don't have access to a computer, I can only do basic stuff on my phone. Cheers.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  09:27, September 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * As much as I'd be able to love to, I don't know how to add reference tags, so, sorry. CrashBash (talk) 12:59, September 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, can you just comment on the talk page where the reference is until someone else can come to it? I fortunately had access to my work computer, but if I didn't, the information would have just gone on unreferenced because the answer is lost in an edit summary. Cheers.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  23:40, September 18, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's from the Robot Wars Extreme Official Guide. CrashBash (talk) 05:51, September 19, 2016 (UTC)

Rollback
This is not how rollback is intended to be used. I understand that Gutripper reverted your edits too, and I will mention it to him as well. But rollback is for reverting vandalism, and until the reference had been added there was no cause for removing the cit tag.

No one is questioning that you saw the Dominator 2 information. But we are just trying to improve our Wiki's reputation for fact checking. I want people to look at pages and see where we got the information from, even if they can't find it themselves. I promise, I believe you. But the cit tag is to remain there until a reference is added. Its a reminder, not a question of your judgement. I don't want to see rollback used to remove it any more, please. Thank you.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  22:51, September 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * And I've already told you, I don't know how to add citations. CrashBash (talk) 05:48, September 30, 2016 (UTC)


 * Then leave the citation as a reminder for someone who does know.  Gutripper  Speak   06:22, September 30, 2016 (UTC)

Sportsmanship
The way you handled that discussion on Pussycat's talk page was really well done. Tactful and respectful but firm with the Wiki's principles and provided a detailed explanation. If you were in retail, I'd have bought whatever you were selling. Perhaps handing out such an award for only a single incident is a bit of an overreaction, but I think that it is warranted given how far you've come in the last few months. I just want you to know I have taken note and am really pleased with you.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  01:56, October 3, 2016 (UTC)

Snide comments on UK Finalists
I really don't appreciate the snide comments on UK Finalists. Sure the mistakes are glaring now, but why don't you spend all day coming up with a new format and implementing it after calculating the percentages and see how you feel when you finish it. This is getting on my nerves, because you haven't done a really big substantive edit since the end of July (I checked). That's fine if that's not your thing, but don't be so rude when people who do have to pull the really hard yards make silly mistakes. Just fix them and keep the commentary to yourself.  Gutripper  Speak   23:28, October 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * Dude, those comments were clearly not "snide" or "rude", I was just pointing out mistakes. I clearly said "no offense", meaning I was never trying to be rude, so therefore I couldn't be snide. I'm saying exactly the same thing other users would have said in your situation...if they had wrote them, you wouldn't have complained at all. Stop treating me differently. CrashBash (talk) 06:43, October 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * The words "no offence" are not magical. They do not prevent offence. I spent an entire day on that page and all you do is come waltzing up and say "be careful" of "glaring mistakes". You have this real air of superiority and it sticks in my craw. Yeah I make mistakes. If you actually did any work on that scale I'm sure you'd make mistakes too. Instead all you do is go to talk pages and say "this job needs to be done", but that's a different grievance. By all means fix my mistakes. But be politer about it.  Gutripper  Speak   12:41, October 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * "No offence" is my way of making it clear that I mean no harm in what I say. It shows I am not looking for a fight. And, again, if other users did the same thing, would you say that they have "this real air of superiority"? No, of course you wouldn't. All I ask is that I be treated like you would treat everyone else. Is that too much to ask for? Also, for the record, I HAVE done work on that scale, I've written and re-written nearly the entire fight reviews for Extreme Series 1...yes, I made mistakes, but I nonetheless corrected them and accepted the criticism. So there's no need for you to act like I don't know what you're talking about because I do. CrashBash (talk) 12:49, October 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * Show me where other users have done this, I'd be very interested.  Gutripper  Speak   12:51, October 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * I already told you, the Extreme 1 battle write-ups. As for the comments, that was more hypothetical than anything, but when they make an edit summary, people don't jump on them like they do with me. The point of the matter is, I wasn't trying to be malicious, and I certainly wasn't insulting you, intentionally at the very least. I apologise if you saw it that way but it was not my intention. CrashBash (talk) 13:01, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get involved too much, but Crash do just remember that the phrase "No Offense" isn't a get out of jail free card, people in general can still cause offense despite the use of the phrase. Same goes for when people finish with "It's just Banter"... J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 13:24, October 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * But the thing is, I'm not using it as a "get out of jail free card", I literally meant no offense and I wasn't even trying to be rude. I wish people on here wouldn't assume the worst about me...it doesn't feel fair. CrashBash (talk) 13:26, October 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * why is it you can't acknowledge that you insulted me and apologise? All you've done is complain about how people pick on you. I haven't been around since 2009 so I don't know or care what you're talking about. Just apologise, don't do it again, and we can put this to bed.  Gutripper  Speak   06:42, October 5, 2016 (UTC)


 * One, I didn't insult you, so please stop saying I did. Two, I already have apologised. You can see that in the previous reply to you..I clearly said "I apologise if you saw it that way but it was not my intention.". Three, I have already put this to bed, last night in fact. As of right now, you're the only one who keeps bringing this up. CrashBash (talk) 06:48, October 5, 2016 (UTC)


 * You actually might be the most stubborn person I have ever met, and if I have to explain one more time that you don't get to decide if you insulted me, I think my thumbs might seize up.  Gutripper  Speak   06:51, October 5, 2016 (UTC)


 * I have already apologised, you are the only person who refuses to put it to bed. Lets drop it and move on. At least I do try to apologise. Also, this "you don't get to decide" nonsense is clearly unfair and way too exploitable. CrashBash (talk) 06:53, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

Reverting the citation template
It appears that I once again have to explain to you not to remove the citation template when it is placed in articles. I have now tried to explain this to you four times and you have simply chosen to continue ignoring me, so I will be more direct.

The next time I see you revert or undo an edit that puts in a citation template without actually putting the citation in, I will take appropriate action. That may be a brief block, or it may be a consideration of whether your rollback powers need to be taken away for a while.

The citation template is vital for us to improve our fact checking, which our Wiki has not got the best reputation for. It stays until the citation is there. There is no acceptable alternative to those two outcomes. If you don't know how to cite, leave it for someone who does and take it to the talk page.

I personally believe that Bondi-Titch being a stock robot makes a lot of sense, but that doesn't mean I know where that information came from. As a reader who didn't share information via Robot Wars Wiki between 2012-2016 (which I assure you is most of our readers) I don't know how we know that. And that's the point of the template.

Bottom line, don't do it again. I'm not going to give this explanation again.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  21:12, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * And I will say this to you again...stop ignoring the facts and stop picking on me when you allow other people to do the exact same thing. All I'm asking is I'm treated exactly the same as everyone else. So far, I have not gotten any of that. I'm not even the one who added the fact...Jim was, and I don't hear you picking on him. He already established that long ago. So you should be dropping this onto him, not me. Just because you don't know it, doesn't mean it's false and doesn't give you an excuse to single me out. CrashBash (talk) 22:11, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * No one else needs four warnings to follow the rules. If anything you've been given preferential treatment. I don't care who added the fact, I care about the fact that you've ignored three of my previous explanations and warnings. This one is going to be more direct.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  22:13, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * And on all of those occasions, it was because you refused to believe other members and chose to single me out. This is a factual statement that has already been stated by other members, this has nothing to do with me, and it's not my fault you don't believe them. Do we really need to go into another "Disc-O-Inferno and The Steel Avenger are not the same robot" argument again? I thought we'd gone past that. The only reason I deleted the citation was because we had already established them as facts, and that has been true for all three previous occasions. CrashBash (talk) 22:18, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * The citation template is only to be removed when the information is cited. If you know who knows, send them a talk page message and ask them to cite it.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  22:21, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * Then I have a favour to ask - please stop threatening to delete factual statements you've put a citation template on. Trust me, you've done this before, which is exactly why I keep deleting them. CrashBash (talk) 22:23, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * If such a promise will stop your constant reverts, then I will promise. But that doesn't stop this being your final warning.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  22:24, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, fine. You've got your proof. And it was in the Bondi Titch history page the entire time. CrashBash (talk) 22:26, October 10, 2016 (UTC)

24 hour block
Right, what did I just finish explaining to you, Crash? I have now been over this four times with you and I have no intention to explaining it again. There is no reason why you should have removed that template. You found the source but instead of adding it, you reverted again. I am giving you a 24 hour ban to reconsider how you respond to warnings and policy.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  22:29, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, for god sake, you ARE doing this on purpose! I have already provided you the source, provided by John Heatlie and written into the wikia by RA2. And what do you do? You ignore it. Just like how you ignored the friend of Team Razer when he tried to explain to us how Razer really got its name, because, in your own words, "what a random IP says is not relevant". This is typical of you, deliberately trying to get your own way every single time. I've provided the source, and thus deleted the citation, but you ignored that because you refused to accept the truth. And, as I've clearly already explained to you, four times now, I don't know how to add citations beyond posting them in the edit description or talk page. It would have helped if you'd actually TOLD me. Anyone else, you would have given leeway. I thought you'd changed, TG, and yet you're STILL abusing your moderator powers and trying everything to get YOUR way. CrashBash (talk) 22:35, October 10, 2016 (UTC)

Citations are done the way you would do any other reference on the wiki. Next to the comment that requires a source, type. Then, at the bottom of the page, above External Links, add:

==References==

The ==References== only being necessary if it's not already there. I am surprised that TG would block you on such an important day, we knew the 2017 series announcement was coming, but it's not my place to undo the block of another user. Toast Ultimatum  09:20, October 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not my fault, I did exactly what he told me to do, I went and found the reference and made a deliberate attempt to point it out, and yet, knowing full well I didn't know how to post references (thanks for the explanation, FYI), he blocked me anyway. This only gives me the impression that he can't accept being wrong. CrashBash (talk) 09:29, October 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * I was subtly trying to imply that you should be unblocked, you're not going to make it happen by insulting the user who blocked you in the first place. Toast  Ultimatum  09:32, October 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but that is how I genuinely feel right now. CrashBash (talk) 10:21, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

I would consider unblocking you if not for the fact that you cannot seem to conceive why I felt I had to make this action. Your block is very short and I think you can survive.

When you return I want you to follow and understand then following points:
 * 1) Citation tag or reference. No other options.
 * 2) If you see one added, and you know the proof, make the reference as Toast explained above.
 * 3) If you do know the proof and don't want to, go to the talk page and say where the proof is. Provide as much information as you can. Someone else will hopefully get around to it but in the meantime the citation tag stays. Be conscious of the fact that users don't keep an eye on Recent Changes to get jobs you don't want to do, so it may not get done for a while.
 * 4) You are not trying to prove it to me. I believe you, I promise. But I'm not the only reader and unless you're going to personally explain to every single person who visits the Wiki, you saying "there's the proof you make the reference" is not sufficient.

Those are the rules. Abide by them and there will be no need for us to have this clash again. Repeat the above behaviour and we will end up here again.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  12:33, October 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * I did follow them. You seem intent on keep saying that I ignored your final warning, but I did not. You clearly said that I was not to remove the citation template until I'd pointed out the source. I found the source, posted it on the talk page and then deleted the citation template, as you stated and wanted. I took deliberate actions to follow the rules as to the best of my abilities - you can keep saying to make the reference Toast said above, but at the time, I did not know this. But I did everything else exactly as you wanted...or what it looked like you wanted, or what I thought you wanted.


 * The important thing here is - one, I went and found the source as you wanted, and two, I did not know how to add the source, so I made do with what I could. But I did not ignore your warning as you keep insisting. CrashBash (talk) 13:35, October 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me refer again to points 1 and 3 listed above. You did 90% of the work, but you still removed the cit template. That is the part that I keep trying to get across to you. Don't remove the cit template unless you're adding the reference. If you don't know how, put it on the talk page and wait (possibly a while) for someone else to do it. The reason you ignored me was because you removed the template and did not add the reference. Next time we have this situation, I want you to read point 1 and think "will my edit leave the page without the cit template and the reference?" If it will, then don't do it. That is literally as clear as I can be in this matter.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  21:08, October 11, 2016 (UTC)


 * Still feel it's a little bit harsh to punish someone for only doing 90% of the work considering you knew I didn't know how to, but yeah, I getcha. CrashBash (talk) 21:37, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if this is wrong...
...but are you, by any chance, christophermason/KillDozer from YouTube many years ago? Hogwild94 (talk) 18:08, October 28, 2016 (UTC)


 * If I wasn't, there'd be no need for apologies anyway, I assure you. But, yes, that's me. CrashBash (talk) 18:13, October 28, 2016 (UTC)

Debate
Debates do not work as "what Crash says goes until proven otherwise". Shockwave had no business being on the rambots page to begin with ever. Growler had no business being on the rambots page ever. Infinity had no business being on the rambots page ever. I removed them because they should never have been on the page or they should have been removed three years ago when RA2 raised the point. If you want to make a case for them to go back on the page, let's discuss that once this current issue is over, but for now they stay off.

If you want to take part in the discussion about the other robots who are debatable (namely 101, Mr Nasty, etc) or about my suggested guidelines for the page, you are more than welcome to. But we aren't keeping prima facie wrong information on the page just because you aren't convinced (and why you voiced no opinion three years ago I don't know).

When there are two bureaucrats who openly believe those robots shouldn't be there, plus a third who has indicated he agrees that the robots already removed, and has engaged in the debate, you are not to undo the edits just because you don't agree.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  08:37, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * No TG, you're missing the point. If there's an article for debate, and there clearly is, then it needs to go back to the last neutral state, which is what I was doing. This has nothing to do with me trying to get my way, otherwise I could say the same about you, and that you're putting it as a "what TG says goes until proven otherwise". More to the point, I feel this is you jumping the gun, which you have a habit and history of doing. You've been told before, by several people, that you should wait and see what other people think first, and if they agree with you. Besides, VulcanHowl was the one who made the list, not me and not you, so it's clearly not what I want. CrashBash (talk) 08:43, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * This is blatantly wrong information by all accounts until proven otherwise. Until the definition is solved, it stays off, as it should never have been there in the first place because no argument for it has ever been made. Discussion comes before change, so the last neutral state is actually before that information went on the page. We are just late to the party.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  08:45, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * Then by your logic, NONE of the robots we have on the list are rambots. You are once again jumping the gun...and besides, the discussion was which robots don't count as rambots, so technically, you're in the wrong too. CrashBash (talk) 08:49, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * Now we are in the discussion mode, which is good. Take it to the talk page. All I am saying here is do not remove my edits just because you don't agree. I have told you how the "last neutral page" works in this instance and that should be sufficient.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  08:51, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * I still don't see how your last claim was anywhere near "neutral", though. But I'll bite. CrashBash (talk) 08:55, December 17, 2016 (UTC)
 * TG, I think you need to slightly reconsider your way with this kind of thing, removing a lot of robots from a category is always going to cause debate, so the best thing to do is make the talk page and detail every change you plan to make, rather than making the edit and then defending it while getting into revert wars with people who want to keep the information. I see you did this, but you then made the edits before anyone had a chance to reply. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 09:37, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This is not the first time you've been cautioned about jumping the gun, TG. That is why I continually reverted your edits. CrashBash (talk) 09:39, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


 * Since there is a significant debate over what constitutes as a rambot and what doesn't, I have reverted back to VulcanHowl's last edit, whilst removing robots that multiple people have insisted are not rambots. Let me make this absolutely clear right now that this has nothing to do with getting my way, or spiting you. It's just for ease - once we are all agreed on what, and who, constitutes as a rambot or not, then they can be easily removed from the table without too much hassle. Like Jim said, we should detail changes in the talk page, not defend them. CrashBash (talk) 19:52, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Team 13 Featherweights
The person who added details of those feather/antweights was John Denny himself. He's brought several of them to live events, so citation isn't necessary. Toast Ultimatum  01:04, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

Heat B Lineup
Thanks for giving me proof, I did know the line up in advance so I knew who was fighting who, it's just that I was told to wait until official confirmation. Diotoir the  son  of  nemesis  (talk) 15:41, March 8, 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand, but since we have all the other line-ups, it felt a little silly to have all but one. It should really be we have all of them, or none of them except for the first heat. CrashBash (talk) 15:44, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

My Ragnabot Lineup
OK, I've posted the list in a blog page. Unfortunately, I cannot format the list properly, but have put up the best I can. If you prefer, I can email you the original spreadsheet to look over. Hogwild94 (talk) 23:14, March 24, 2017 (UTC)


 * That'd probably be easier for me to work with. Sorry I didn't look over it right away, I was feeling very tired. CrashBash (talk) 06:15, March 25, 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, how we gonna do this then? Hogwild94 (talk) 19:00, March 25, 2017 (UTC)


 * You're on Twitter, right? As am I...we can message from there. I just followed you. CrashBash (talk) 19:03, March 25, 2017 (UTC)

How are you getting on? Hogwild94 (talk) 18:28, May 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this, but I'm not. I've been so busy I completely forgot about it. Sorry. CrashBash (talk) 18:37, May 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * Nah, it's OK. I'll just get started, and I we spot any doubles, I'll just add in another qualifier. Hogwild94 (talk) 19:11, May 5, 2017 (UTC)

Producers and rivalries
Hi, so I reached out to Apollo and they confirmed that they had no involvement in the Heat E draw and that the producers have 100% control over the heats. I've changed it back to how I had it, but wanted to give you a heads up. Now that Apollo, Concussion, Ironside, Behemoth and Pulsar have all confirmed that the teams do not have any input into who they fight, we are going to go with "producers choose unless proven otherwise". That will prevent us having to source each and every time a rivalry is put together. Sound good?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  00:22, April 8, 2017 (UTC)


 * Not really, because there's still no confirmation that that one was done deliberately. It's a likelihood, but it isn't a certainty. It needs to be written more neutrally. I've rewritten it in a way that reflects this until we know better. I hope the way it's written at the moment is acceptable. CrashBash (talk) 04:31, April 8, 2017 (UTC)


 * The fact is was done deliberately is clear, because a) the producers put them together and b) the teams have confirmed that the show wanted rivalries and c) they marketed it. You are just being stubborn, and if you keep changing it in spite of evidence I'll just have to lock the pages.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  06:56, April 8, 2017 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm disappointed by what you just said. I'd hoped that what I wrote would be able to make a nice little compromise, and also because that's exactly how we've handled this sort of thing before. But, no, seemingly, that's simply not allowed. Why? Because what you say is always right 100% of the time? Who's the stubborn one here? It's certainly not me, because I'm trying to make a compromise. You are the one being stubborn here, not me, because you're flat-out threatening to lock the page if we don't accept your way of thinking. Oh, but wait, I guess I'm not allowed to call you stubborn even though you're allowed to call me that for some stupid reason.


 * But I digress, allow me to explain exactly why I don't agree entirely with what you say.


 * 1) The producers put them together - That is true, but we still don't know exactly why. It could be because they wanted to create a rivalry between them, or it could simply be they wanted some different robots in the final battle. We don't know, and whilst you're welcome to debate your claim as much as you like on a blog or a forum, this is an encyclopedia, where we need concrete facts.
 * 2) The teams have confirmed that the show wanted rivalries - I agree this is true for Pulsar and Ironside3, because that's who you asked. But that still doesn't prove what you said about Apollo and Carbide in particular to be true. It's a theory with a lot of credential to it, but at the end of the day, it's still just a theory.
 * 3) They marketed it - Yes, after the facts.


 * However, beyond that, the main reason why I reworded the pages as I did is because it is consistent with every other "theory" we've included on the wikia for whatever reason. Take, for example, the fact that Gemini's heat in Series 4 is in the first half of the series instead of the second half. Or the fact that Tornado's heat in Series 7 was swapped from the first heat to the fifth heat. In both cases, it's addressed as a speculation as to why these were the way they are, not as abject truth. The same is here.


 * Listen, TG, you've built up a very compelling reason as to why the producers paired up Apollo and Carbide, but at the end of the day, it is still just a theory, and you do not have evidence to prove it...you say you do, but the fact is, you don't. (and this should be second nature to you, you're a lawyer). I thought we could discuss this in a mature manner, but no, you resort to calling me "stubborn" (and threatening to block the pages if you don't get your way isn't stubborn?). Also, need I remind you, you banned me for posting something without providing a source, which is exactly what you're doing now. So not only are you being stubborn, you're being hypocritical. CrashBash (talk) 13:24, April 8, 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, according to Garfie, what you've written is in fact not true at all, so I have removed the statements. And if you're going to claim I'm being stubborn again, remember that I have a roboteer backing me up here. CrashBash (talk) 14:15, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

Ragnabattle
Hey I have three close battles in the Shunt region and I'd like to update this weekend, so I'm giving everyone a chance to vote in them. Would you mind stopping by?  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  04:35, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Created Robots Tournament
Hey Crash, I have a userpage tournament I was wondering if you could help me in. Here's a link: http://robotwars.wikia.com/wiki/User:CaliforniaKingsnake/The_Created_Robots_Tournament CaliforniaKingsnake (talk) 19:54, May 2, 2017 (UTC)
 * CK, your tournament would be better suited as one you judge solely, I saw it but as I have no reference for any of the robots, cannot vote, and will just go with your judgement. Have a look at User:Jimlaad43/Alternative Round One for an example of how users can run their own tournaments. J  im laa  d4   3 (talk) 22:01, May 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * Jim's right. I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to help provide an accurate assessment on what would happen, sorry. CrashBash (talk) 05:10, May 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * I too must agree.  Toon Ganondorf    (t    c)  10:29, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Extreme 3
We talked about this during the quiz, I'm happy to take over running it while you're on holiday. If at some point tomorrow we're online at the same time, join the Wiki Chat and we'll try and sort out any details there. J im laa  d4   3 (talk) 22:27, May 9, 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks Jim. I can start the next event, you'd just need to finish it. CrashBash (talk) 04:33, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

Opinions please
Hey, we're trying to work out how much of an OotA Clusterbots and Minibots count as, and we're pretty divided. Would you mind sharing your opinion please so we can come to a decision? Talk:Thrown_Out_of_the_Arena. J im laa  d4   3 (talk) 23:11, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

I can't log in!!
This is Tornado1927 & I can't log in or view images I was adviced to speak to you about do you suggest anything--176.251.119.26 16:44, August 29, 2017 (UTC)


 * Umm, sorry, but I really can't help you. CrashBash (talk) 17:00, August 29, 2017 (UTC)

Loser's Melee Format with Seeds
Liking your Battlebots style series. Thinking of maybe doing something similar with Series 5 once my current series is over. Do you think the format of having loser's melees a la the Dutch series rather than the Series 4 format would work with 32 seeds though? Hogwild94 (talk) 21:42, October 9, 2017 (UTC)


 * Possibly. Although of course you'd need to dish out eight extra seeds. CrashBash (talk) 21:47, October 9, 2017 (UTC)


 * That I can easily do; I'm more concerned about both seeds losing their first match and ending up in the losers melee, wouldn't really look very proper, would it? Hogwild94 (talk) 17:34, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

HEY
HEY MAN WHAT'S UP WITH YOU REVERTING MY EDIT, WHAT'S UP WITH THAT? 88.110.110.29 21:17, November 26, 2017 (UTC)
 * I've brought this up on your talk page, no need to lash out. T  OAS  T  21:21, November 26, 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't shout. That's really immature. CrashBash (talk) 21:24, November 26, 2017 (UTC)

Splinter
During its fight with Eric its axe got stuck in the arena wall.--Harry Stormer (talk) 07:30, December 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not Splinter damaging the arena, that's just it getting stuck. The quote even implies that it got stuck in a hole in the arena wall that was already there. CrashBash (talk) 07:31, December 17, 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry --Harry Stormer (talk) 07:32, December 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * Just watched the fight again to make sure, and I can confirm that the hole was indeed already there before Splinter got stuck in it. No worries. CrashBash (talk) 07:36, December 17, 2017 (UTC)

Designated Captain
Have you got a source for this, or is it just because a UK team and a ROTW team were used in a promotional shot without the other robots involved? I know Peter Redmond was also at the centre of the ROTW image, but I feel that's just because he's the most well-known roboteer there. T OAS  T  14:26, December 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned on BBC2's page for the second episode. Actually nothing to do with Diotoir's episode at all. CrashBash (talk) 14:30, December 28, 2017 (UTC)

F-One
The only information I know is the qualifier ( http://robotwars.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_known_qualifiers ).

The reason I thought it's name was F-One was because people theorized it was an early model of GBH, which I know is definitely wrong. Here's the image of "F-One" if you're wondering. ( http://robotwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:Gbh_possibly_and_unknown.jpg )


 * Just to remind you to use a new title, as well as to sign your posts. Either way, as Toast said, it can't have its own article, at least until we know its name. CrashBash (talk) 17:46, January 5, 2018 (UTC)