User talk:Dreadnok Twins

Welcome!

Hi Dreadnok Twins! I noticed your contributions to Zandar and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Suonii180 (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hi Dreadnok Twins! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Zartan several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Zartan, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is trying to reconcile conflicting, self-contained continuities. Why is this a thing, and why is it so difficult to establish this? Even their references don't come from the continuities they're being used in. 2600:6C58:4E7F:E4DC:344D:BB96:9079:FC40 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your intent is to remove all references to ‘twins’ ‘shirt and scarf’ ‘secret language’ etc, as ‘fan fiction’. Now you’ve Your intent is to remove all references to ‘twins’ ‘shirt and scarf’ ‘secret language’ etc, as ‘fan fiction’. Now you’ve moved to another tactic to accomplish the same thing. It is not fan fiction or mis-placed information. Stop it. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you act as if you own the dreadnok pages and play the victim when your sources are placed where they belong. Sssscapegoat (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information needs to be placed in the general section for cohesiveness, not splintered because that's the way you think it needs to be. Further, references to "canon" are not neutral. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

going to report your edit warring. unverified sources and "canon" that is not present in all forms of media does not belong in a general description of the characters. you know this to be true. every other g.i. joe character page is formatted like this. why are these pages the exception to the rule? this is unreasonable. anyway. filling out the report now. eventually someone is going to realize that your "sources" aren't verified or appropriate in the places you're trying to insert them. Sssscapegoat (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone realize my sources aren't verified, when every single one of them is cited to an official media source? Dreadnok Twins (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

because the sources you're attempting to insert do not apply to media that was created decades before your sources existed, and a single line a freelancer's book hardly constitutes an "official" continuity. you also have zero sources to substantiate the other things you repeatedly try to work into these articles: shared language, torn shirt, all this business that you have devoted your internet presence to establishing and have tried to impose on these characters for years now.

it all falls apart under scrutiny, and you know it does. that's why you can't respond to the fact that these pages are the *only joe character pages* that have conflated the Sunbow/Marvel/DDP/IDW continuities. all to say that two characters were twins when the man who designed them to begin with has concretely said was not on the agenda. your unsourced quote from larry hama comes after a year-long campaign to incorporate your obscure and inaccurate plot detail into his title. i am more than prepared to show evidence of this as well. and, again, the quote itself is unsourced. Sssscapegoat (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing is trying to be a "canon cop", and such behaviour is not a neutral viewpoint, and is unsuitable for Wikipedia. In a fandom? By all means, be a canon cop all you want. On Wikipedia? No. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nope. organizing specific canons isn't being a canon cop. its maintaining consistency.

why are does cobra commander's page clearly and concisely organizing the different versions of that character? destro's page does this. the baroness's page does this.

you use terms like "vandalism," "malicious," and now "canon cop" because your argument falls apart, and you are unable to answer the above question.

inaccuracy is not neutrality. stop. Sssscapegoat (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining consistency isn't splitting hairs over "continuity"/"canon". It's allowing for things to be fairly represented under the general section where it belongs. You certainly seem to be acting the part of a gatekeeper yourself. What made you come out of nowhere, to police these three very specific articles? Dreadnok Twins (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you're also saying is that you're not truly interested in seeing the information placed in different segments of the article, but in its removal from the general section, which is malicious and vandalism. I proposed a solution to this problem: Include the information in both the general section and other sections, which should please both of us. But what you really want is to see it removed from the general section, NOT to have it in individual sections, otherwise my solution would be acceptable to you. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you have again ignored the fact that each and every profile for every prolific joe character is organized in this fashion only to move more goal posts and misuse accusatory words.

i made an anonymous edit to remove information that wasn't featured in the original media. when it was established to exist in one modern iteration of the media, i moved the references to their appropriate section. you have refused to accept that perfectly reasonable solution. why did i show up to edit these specific articles? accuracy. why did you? agenda.

a general information section is just that. general information. not overly long plot details that doesn't even appear prominently in the media and wasn't incorporated until recently.

you refuse to accept that. you refuse to acknowledge that you are incorrect, and you insist on treating this page (and the others) as your personal websites to spread an agenda that you have trumpeted for years.

this was never malicious. this was never vandalism. this has always been you refusing to accept that the twins business isn't prominent or important enough to be in the general section. Sssscapegoat (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the beginning back in August, you kept changing your motive until you found something that finally worked. Good job! Dreadnok Twins (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

since the beginning of august, you have refused to admit that your references don't support your claims on these characters, and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you expect zandar and zarana's pages to be treated differently from pages of far more prominent characters in the lore.

you've claimed vandalism. you've insisted you were victimized. you even sought out support and asked others to help you keep this page the way you want it.

now you're genuinely trying to make this out to be my problem when you are the one who has egged this on and drawn this out for as long as you have.

as for "finding something that worked": more baseless and increasingly bitter paranoia on your part. your edits are still on the page. I'm not edit warring you. but I am going to continue to report your unsubstantiated and biased edit reversions until someone with objective eyes finally sees it. Sssscapegoat (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one that showed up and demanded one piece of info be changed at any cost. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

actually you are. your info got mitigated to the section it belonged in, and you refused to accept that and have gone above and beyond to claim that organization is malicious vandalism just cause you don't like it. Sssscapegoat (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're refusing the solution I offered to best satisfy both of us. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be organized into sections the way you would like, and in the general section the way I would like, that way, we're both happy. Let's shake virtual hands and put this to rest. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's not a compromise. that's you keeping it in the general section when the issue is that it doesn't belong there. Sssscapegoat (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's about keeping the info out of the general section. If it was only about keeping the information in individual sections, you wouldn't have a problem with it, but as it involves a compromise to an outcome you don't want, you refuse consensus. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see you try to reach concensus on this issue. You are not even trying. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i have been. I've organized the article and put your sources that are legitimate where they should be. then you undo the edits because you don't like them. i'm only treating these articles the same way other fictional character articles are. there's no consensus to be had. there's the fact that you want the zandar and the zarana pages to be treated differently from any other fictional character page. Sssscapegoat (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see you post something like: "Let's meet each other halfway and work out a compromise that will make us both happy." You want to see the information mitigated, I want it to be represented fairly in the general section. Having the information in both places is a compromise that should, in theory, make us both happy, but your goal is, rather than seeing it placed in individual sections, to see it removed from the general section. That is your real goal here. You are not making neutral edits. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how is putting information where it belongs not neutral? an obscure plot detail is not general information. Sssscapegoat (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't obscure. It made its way into mainstream GI Joe media when it was confirmed by Larry Hama. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IDW comics is media that existed decades after the characters were created. it's retroactive and exclusive to those books. there are multiple takes on joe, many of which do not feature zandar at all. this is the purpose of mitigating your information. it's not general info. Sssscapegoat (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has made its way into mainstream media, like it or not. It remains in the general section. How long are you going to edit war over this? Months? Years? Decades? Dreadnok Twins (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IDW isn't mainstream media, and you're the one edit warring. this isn't an argument, and this isn't a forum for arguments. i will continue to clean the page up and make sure the sources actually support the given information. Sssscapegoat (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is prominent enough to warrant a place in the general sections of those articles. It stays. I'm still waiting for you to come up with a compromise we can both agree upon. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my compromise is that your refs go with the information they pertain to. what makes something "prominent enough"? this twins business did not exist until 2017ish. g.i. joe's era of prominence was the 80s. Sssscapegoat (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, we agree to your compromise or...? What is the alternative if I disagree? The twins business existed in official form as far back as 1986 and has documented references. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there are no documented references, and there's nothing you can point to establish this relationship as prominent and relevant enough to be in the general section.

it's really not your page, you know. if your references don't match the information you're presenting, it's a black and white decision. Sssscapegoat (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is also not the place for fandom arguments over which canon supersedes another. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but this is what you're doing. no one said anything supercedes anything. all of the information, including Hama's, is mitigated to it's appropriate section on every other character page. Sssscapegoat (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stop trying to make this what it isn't. nobody said anything supercedes anything else.

general info is not a biographical breakdown. it's general info. which is why your IDW-based plotlines should be represented in the IDW section, not the general section.

we aren't going to argue all day long today. i will continue to report your edit warring and revert your inaccurate edits. these pages are not your personal property or part of your "awareness" campaign in the fandom. Sssscapegoat (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadnok Twins, I am absolutely not getting involved in whatever content dispute ↑this↑ is, but you absolutely must stop throwing around the term "malicious vandalism" because another editors disagrees with you regarding content. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read their reasons for editing from the beginning in August 2022 across three articles? It evolved from "ITS NOT CANON!" A malicious intent. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not malicious intent. They do not agree with the current state of the article or your proposed compromise, and they are under no obligation to agree with you. You've been here for months, solely focused on this single article. Perhaps it's time to step away and edit something else.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have also been here for months, focused on this single article. They have been banned for edit warring and vandalism of these very articles in recent months as well. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not banned and have never been banned. that's another thing you refuse to acknowledge. it's very clear that there have been a number of editors - both anonymous and not - since this started. your attempt to rally support via forums and social media brought many editors here.

but i have yet to try to do anything to this article other than organize the information and put your references and information in the sections they belong in.

please stop acting like you are being victimized by this. Sssscapegoat (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not banned and have never been banned. that's another thing you refuse to acknowledge. it's very clear that there have been a number of editors - both anonymous and not - since this started. your attempt to rally support via forums and social media brought many editors here.

but i have yet to try to do anything to this article other than organize the information and put your references and information in the sections they belong in.

please stop acting like you are being victimized by this. Sssscapegoat (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been posting from multiple IP addresses from either Atlanta, Georgia or Selma, Alabama. An IP lookup proves that. Only recently did you start posting under a username. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wow now you're resorting to trying to dox someone? baseless. those are also two different cities and states. Sssscapegoat (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used Wikipedia's own Geolocate tool. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is insane. it also confirms what i said initially: multiple accounts have edited this page. Sssscapegoat (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are one person pretending to be different editors under multiple IP addresses. This username is new. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IPs have no control over which IP will be assigned to them by their ISP and change often regardless of the IP editor's location or intent. Regardless, this dispute needs to stop now. Both of you should follow WP:DR and use the suggestions there to bring in additional opinions regarding the dispute so that you can determine consensus. Two editors going back and forth for months on the same disputed ephemera does not benefit our readers' experience, which is ultimately why we're here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo just wanted to quickly thank you for the comments as i feel you're being pretty objective which is a bit refreshing. either way though, i'm going to let this one go. all i can do is report the user and hope that eventually their behavior and lacking references are addressed. continuing with the back and forth will clearly never lead to anything constructive. Sssscapegoat (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin, it's part of the job description to remain impartial in editing disputes. The two options that I think would work best giving the nature of the dispute would be either 1) see a third opinion and/or involve a relevant Wiki project (perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Toys) by posting on the project's talk page requesting input from project members.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to give a third opinion. I think the twin stuff should remain in the general information section, but the twinspeak stuff should be moved to the IDW section and removed from the general information section. The scarf/shirt thing should probably be edited to just say that Zandar and Zarana dress similarly in blues and pinks. You can always make a bigger connection with the scarf and shirt in the toy section and bring up the artwork notes from Ron Rudat. That should be enough to break any ties between you two, unless either of you wishes to bring in more editors. DarkLordMordred (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkLordMordred ultimately the page is going to look the way dreadnok twins wants it bc they will only revert it to their preferred version anyway. it is not worth the effort and i have no further desire to continue this after seeing the user's most recent dramatics and thinly veiled self harm threats after i reported their hypocritical behavior to wiki admins who rightfully shut down the absurd vandalism accusations and insistence that i've been banned and an working around it. Sssscapegoat (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What self-harm threats? I take an accusation like that very seriously. I've made no such threats, veiled or otherwise. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any self-harm threats, nor did I say you were banned and working around it. You were banned under another IP, didn't post for a month, and now you're back under a username. Anyway, this is wearisome. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you're the one who is engaging. i hope everything is okay. Sssscapegoat (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is fine. I never have, not now, nor am I ever, going to harm myself. People have bad days. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine by me. Thank you! Dreadnok Twins (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering when I'll receive official word about Sssscapegoat's edit warring report and the consequences I'll be facing. Thanks. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you received it. i'm not taking it further or trying to reach a consensus with you. this has been done for over a week now, and you're still posting about it here.

the page gets edited. you go to your fan circles and make posts about how awful your life is and how you can't believe the objects of your obsession aren't being portrayed the way you want them to be. you recently caused a lot of concern amongst your fan community the second the a mod told you to stop using words like malicious and vandalism and confirmed that i'm not circumventing bans.

this situation goes beyond the scope of wikipedia. it is ultimately about a defensive, obsessive, and highly hypocritical user who is determined to insert their preferred canon in places where it's either not relevant or not featured.

there will be a time when someone with more determination than i sits this out and goes through the drawn out process of proving the invalidity of your sources and digs their heels about the ordination of these three pages. they'll have to combat your lies, your paranoia, and your dramatics to do so, but at the end of the day, your info isn't accurate, and it's only here because you're willing to edit war and get the page locked to keep it here.

maybe the zandar page should be nominated for deletion straight out. makes sense. he has less appearances and less lines than numerous joe players who don't have their own pages. but that's not a conversation worth having with you.

so yes. you have made very thinly veiled self harm threats to the fandom. you have attempted to manipulate your medical situation to stir up sympathy and to seemingly justify why this and the other pages should look the way you want them to. you are manipulating this situation and you have since the beginning.

i look forward to the day that this is finally remedied. Sssscapegoat (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]