User talk:ReverieCode

"Playsonic2! It's good you've come. We need your help!" Welcome to the Assassin's Creed Wiki

Please enjoy your stay here and help us to improve this wiki. As starters, you can refer to this links: Help:Editing - Basic tutorial on how to edit the articles Help:New page - How to create new page Help:User page - How to improve your user page Help:Searching - How to navigate and find your way around Help:Forums Help:Images - Basic tutorial about images

The Community Portal * Assassin's Creed Wiki Administrators Should you have more questions, don't worry! Simply ask one of our prominent users by leaving a message on their talk page. Happy Editing! ^_^

Comic and gear images

Hello,
I mentioned this on SeichanGrey's talk page, but I am unsure if you saw my reply. I think ReverieBot may have been a bit too quick in changing all the image licenses. There are many files on here from the comics/mangas that are cropped and/or have their speech bubble text fully wiped out, while countless gear images are renders rather than screencaps. Wouldn't these all properly qualify as CC-BY-SA, since they were edited from the original online scans of the full page? Or would the comic images follow Wookieepedia's format, where they reformatted the {Screenshots} template into {Comicpanel}? – Darman (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up! I will respond on Seichan's talk page. –ReverieCode <staff/> 14:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, we can move continue this there, then. – Darman (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Shay

There's recently been a disagreement over the Shay article. Today it was infinitely protected with the NPOV template being outright deleted! Users are locking the page to keep their personal sentiments on the page, playing it off as fact! I re-added the NPOV template and explained why here and here, all fell on deaf ears. Multiple claims made in that subsection are factually wrong and reads like a personal essay ranting about Shay. That stuff belongs in a personal blog, not a wiki article that millions of fans worldwide are going to read. Some help making a decision here would be good. Joish~stone (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

As one of the parties involved in this, I would like to point out the following missing context: the site Administrator Sol Pacificus wrote Shay's "Personality and traits" section, the perspective of which Joish contests and has described on my talk page as being a "long, angry rant" and a "tirade". Sol has explained himself on Shay's talk page by noting that he does not portray Shay as an outright villain, as he does have positive traits which he also described. However, in response to this, Joish accused Sol of "clearly despis[ing] Shay's character" and said that he "[was] probably not the best person to be developing this article since [he] lack[s] the impartiality". Sol's fellow mod Soranin, seeing the accusations and unsubstantiated character attack as violating Article 1(d) of the Community Guidelines, "Conduct in debates and conflict resolution", decided to lock the page. – Darman (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

"Missing context"... both links I sent here clearly provide the full context. You also keep missing the point: Not all the "Personality and traits" section is biased, only the "Sense of culpability or lack thereof" subsection, mainly the repeated claims that he "always pinned the blame on the other assassins never acknowledged his own culpability". It doesn't matter that Sol squeezed in a few "positive traits" (heck, he was still describing Shay as "vindictive" in his so-called positive traits description). As long as the aformentioned false claims remain on the page, it's factual truth that there is bias on the page. I've explained this to you multiple times and you keep repeating the same argument, and by doing this it could certainly be argued that you're violating Article 1(d) of the Community guidelines, "Users are expected to do their best to advance the conversation and properly engage with the other parties' arguments." I've addressed everyone's points here. Furthermore, I did say that Sol was probably not the best person to be developing the article, I did not describe it as irrefutable fact. Also, telling someone they despise a video game character, especially when there's strong evidence in favour of it, is in no way an "unsubstantiated character attack".

Being disingenuous isn't helping your position here. In any case, let's just wait for Reverie to review the evidence and make his decision. For the record, I don't like Shay much myself and I do think he has his flaws, but if I see bias on his article I'm still going to point it out as I did here. Joish~stone (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for reaching out, Joish, and thank you Darman for the further context.

My first thoughts from looking into this are: I don't think it's fair to chalk the content there as just an "angry rant" or a one-sided attack on Shay. The section (and entire article) looks to be heavily researched, with exhaustive in-game references, so there's clearly a lot of effort put into making it thorough.

If there are specific parts that you genuinely feel could be discussed or addressed, I'd encourage a more collaborative approach rather than immediately adding the NPOV template or doing a broad dismissal the page as biased. Comments like "you clearly despise the character, you're not the best person to write this", in my opinion, are coming across as quite biased in themselves, and don't leave much room for discussion.

Shay is a complex character, one of the most layered in the franchise (part of what makes AC: Rogue such an interesting game and probably one of my favorites). There's definitely space for different interpretations and takes, and constructive discussions around those should be always welcome. However, as Sol pointed out on the talk page, a lot of effort went into crafting this section, so, I think a more open approach to discussion would have been more productive here than starting off in a direct, combative way.

As for making a decision on this, it's not generally part of my role (or Fandom's) to dictate how a page should be written. Wikis are built through community collaboration, and the content of pages is a direct result of that. So again, if there are specific concerns, I'd encourage focusing on constructive feedback. Since the repeated template additions escalated into edit warring, the admins stepped in to protect the page, and that seems to be what made this situation worse (the warring, I mean).

That said, I do appreciate neutrality being brought up - not something I see mentioned super regularly at the Fandom wikis I'm involved in, and it's always great to see people invested on reading and having a take in the content. I'd just suggest approaching it with less hostility in general. –ReverieCode <staff/> 10:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. To repeat what I said: Most of the article is well written and unbiased, besides that subsection. That's the only part of the article I'm disputing here. In regards to "collabrative discussion", are you proposing I create a proper vote discussion in the discussion board? Joish~stone (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)