User talk:Sol Pacificus

Reversion on George W Bush

Just wondering why my expansive edits on Bush's page got reverted? I gave some early life while keeping it to a minimum but everything i added was AC-sourced. VilkaIsBack (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You added too much information drawn from external sources. Our practice is to permit that when it comes to articles directly dealing with historical events, when necessary to provide basic information about that subject, and when necessary to plug in gaps in the writing that appear when using only Assassin's Creed sources. Paragraphs about George Bush's early life and political career do not qualify for any of those criteria, and you were sourcing them to Wikipedia, not an Assassin's Creed source. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

His early life can be deleted then. but my external sources were giving exposition on the images. the photo of him on the USS Abraham Lincoln i used external sources to explain the story behind it, same with his picture on the magazine asking if was gonna run as governor again, AC sourced (The Fall 1) and external source to give exposition. Plus I also added the stuff in 2012 about the Rifts, AC sourced. VilkaIsBack (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Let me take another closer look at it tomorrow. Happy New Years! Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey Vilka, I have double-checked your edit, and you were right. Some of your additions are pertinent to Assassin's Creed. My bad for not looking over it more clearly the first time. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Jing Ke

Hello Sol,
I've noticed you seem to have your own big project page/sandbox, where you use Sima Qian's Record to elaborate on Jing Ke's life and legacy. Looking at Jing Ke's page, though, it is effectively a stub, as he is only mentioned in passing in Dynasty. Isn't your extensive biography on him—which I will say is great work on your part—beyond the scope of the "no original research" clause? I realize I may sound like I am trying to "gotcha!" you, but I am simply confused why so much information is coming outside his Wikipedia page. I believe you had said WP is to be used in passing for minor supplementary refs, right? – Darman (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in multiple places in the past on both the wiki and on our Discord server. Based on feedback and consultations with one another, we decided to make an exception for the Five Great Assassins based on the following justifications:

1. The legends of the Assassins have been directly referenced in Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian in Assassin's Creed: Dynasty, so we can safely assume that the work in the Assassin's Creed universe is the same. As long as we are being clear that we are merely sharing the fuller accounts of these figures according to Sima Qian, we are not engaging in fan fiction.
2. Information on the Five Assassins are rather difficult to find in English apart from Jing Ke. English Wikipedia does not have articles on all five, and while you might be able to find biographies of a few of the others elsewhere, they are almost always informal and imprecise translations or summaries by other non-profit groups. (For example, the top search result for Nie Zheng on Google, which an editor did briefly use to supply info on him on our wiki, mixes details from his story and that of Yu Rang using details from another source apart from Sima Qian.) Other times, you might find an account of Yu Rang or Nie Zheng buried in books about ninja or samurai or The Art of War as supplementary information, but in general, there is no place as far as I could find that spells out all five Assassins' stories together for an English audience and as direct translations of all five tales as written in Records of the Grand Historian.
3. The information would be helpful to Assassin's Creed fans. An argument was made to me that these articles would be a good service for English fans of Assassin's Creed to better understand the background of these characters alluded to in Dynasty. Since it would be challenging if not impossible for them to find complete information on all five figures anywhere, it really doesn't hurt for us to just give it to them.

I need to emphasize that this was a major exception decided upon by consensus by our community using a looser interpretation of "original research" by basing on the fact that the stories as told in Sima Qian's work were cited in an Assassin's Creed source. Note that I have therefore been very strict to permit only Records of the Grand Historian and Assassin's Creed as sources for the biographies of these individuals. I never use re-tellings by later authors. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It makes sense now that you explain it, since not all figures in Chinese history have WP pages nor are they always so detailed, so your efforts will definitely be a benefit here. I do recall the internal talks about using external sources, but I either missed the parts on the Five Assassins or else it happened in Discord. Keep up the work, your draft so far is a captivating read, and I look forward to seeing it and its companion biography expansions when they're it's complete! (My mistake, this is the final Assassin to profile, the others are already done) Thanks for letting me pick your brain. – Darman (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, since I apologized to Vilka for my sternness regarding no original research (and btw it was Vilka who originally requested that the Five Great Assassins' bios be expanded like this :P), I have been considering that we should have a formal community-wide discussion to establish the official parameters regarding original research and the use of external sources for our wiki. Although we have been developing such standards organically by conventional practice, and I laid out such parameters recently to Vilka, we haven't formally codified them, and it may only be fair to permit editors to argue for either further loosening of the parameters or greater restrictions as they believe is proper. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm from Fandom and have sent you a Discord DM

Same handle as the one I have here :) Itsjieyang (talk) 15:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent sock attempt

Hi, I am on the Customer Support Team. I see that User:Medievalvibes 2 was recently blocked as a suspected sock of Medievalvibes. I've done an IP check and I do not see anything between Medievalvibes and Medievalvibes 2 to suggest they are connected, just an FYI.Kimberton Kimberton 16:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean beyond the name, right? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If someone created an account called Lacrossedeamon2, that name alone wouldn't be evidence that you created it. (Note: we're not suggesting the block be changed.) -- Kirkburn (talk) <staff/> 17:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No, but being the same was never the question, just being connected. Any person reusing my name still would most likely be connected to me somehow. Otherwise why reuse a handle with a deliberate misspelling? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The only connection in my hypothetical case would be "knows that the original username exists". -- Kirkburn (talk) <staff/> 13:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, everyone.
This Medievalvibes2 previously commented in a Benedict Arnold post, their messages were really obnoxious and were clearly targeting Sol Pacificus, so there's definitely a connection. Whatever being him or one of his friends. These have been deleted but I think FANDOM staff can still read them, right? I prefer not to write what they said here 'cause... no.Cristophorus35 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

What you're describing is circumstantial evidence. While we certainly can't rule out a connection, pleas be cautious in making conclusions about who is behind a new account based on their name and knowledge. There are certainly people other than MedievalVibes who know about the previous issues, and who may wish to stir up trouble. -- Kirkburn (talk) <staff/> 14:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Since I did not see the comments, I cannot verify how bad they were, but based on how you're describing them, I thought I had encountered Medieval2 via their equally-crude reply regarding both myself and Sol when they edited François-Thomas Germain's page. However, looking again at the page history and the user's block log, it actually was a sock of this site's persistent thorn BatAlex, who so far as I know is unrelated to Medieval. – Darman (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I wanted to add a few comments of my own here - I've spoken to Sol about this situation in private, but wanted to share some points for clarification on this issue, as I'm aware aspects of this have been a source of stress for people for a long while. So:

1) MedievalVibes is blocked from this wiki, which is something that hasn't changed. He has made ban appeals - as any blocked users at any wiki can, and are encouraged to do - but my understanding is that the wiki would prefer for the block to stand (for the same reasons leading to the original block). That is fine by me, and something that isn't being disputed, as ultimately it's up to you to decide how to proceed with blocks and appeals. As long as blocks are fair to begin with, they shouldn't be questioned, and as I've expressed to Sol long ago, the original block reasons were completely understandable to me.

2) "Medievalvibes 2" did not come up as being MedievalVibes based on our checks. This means that we cannot say for 100% certainty that both accounts are the same, and have to entertain the possibility that it could be somebody else taking advantage of the situation, which is something we've seen happen in other wikis before. However, whether an account comes up as being someone else or not, none of that is going to change the circumstances of the original block (what I said above stands no matter who the troll was). I'd also add that I don't see it as wrong for anybody to be suspicious, given the history of this situation. Trolls and sockpuppets are, unfortunately, a reality that many big wikis have to deal with at one point or another, so I think your suspicions are very much valid and only show that you're all caring for the wiki. My only advice would be for some general caution to be had, as not every potential sock account in future will be a match for other users (which isn't to say they're also not - it can be very tricky, but we should be able to navigate that together).

3) In future, if we see any similar situations, these are the actions I'm going to be taking: if somebody is suspected of being a sock of anybody else, I can do checks and confirm whether or not they are a sock. If it comes up that they are, and are bypassing an existing block, I will let you know, and we can deal with that as necessary. If they do not come up as being a sock, but their activity has been troll-ish and demands a block, they should be blocked, so a non-match should make no real difference since any accounts would be blocked anyway. And if any other accounts use the names of other editors, those accounts will be banned for impersonation regardless of any checks, as using somebody's exact same name isn't something that I'd consider acceptable in any online community (checks can still happen, of course, to determine if it's an offense based on a prior block - but a ban would be in place no matter what).

Other than the above, I have also just enabled the Discussions AbuseFilter for the wiki, and as a protective measure, will be adding a common filter for Discussions + comments that should prevent very nasty words from being part of a message, which I think would've helped with those nasty messages some of you saw and reported to me (it won't stop every troll, but should definitely be of assistance here and there).

I hope this alleviates some concerns people have had with all of this, and I do apologize if aspects of this have felt too prolonged to some of you. Situations like these are the least fun part of wiki editing, and Fandom has some interesting things in the pipeline (some feature experiments + other surprises) which I would hate to see overshadowed by this specific issue remaining a big thing. If anyone has extra questions or something else to raise, I'm happy to assist. (I'd only ask that maybe you reach out to me via my talk page or Discord rather than here, so that Sol doesn't have to get all these notifications if the message is actually directed to me.) --–ReverieCode <staff/> 09:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Absence again

Given my second absence, I think it you should known at least it is at least related to struggle with employment and how draining it is without a stable income. Anyway I´ll try to restart my work and, that while having been updates is something id still say is neglected compared to the Assassin pages, in general.

ACsenior (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello ACSenior and welcome back. You don't have to worry about explaining your hiatus from the wiki. Contributing to it is volunteer work at the end of the day, and we all wish we could commit more time to it than our adult responsibilities allow. But hey if you're here, would you like to offer some feedback to an ongoing discussion about how to approach our articles on Assassin and Templar branches moving forward? You were the one who originally created the pages on Templar rites, so I bet you would have some valuable thoughts about this. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Almogavars-Varangian mix up

I'm going through the AC Rev section of the Animus archetypes. Did we ever decide what we wanted to do with this weird swap. Wondering if I should put a footnote about it on the page. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you remind me what this mix-up is about? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

In game Almogavars are more like historical Varangians and in game Varangians are more like historical Almogavars. Side note, look up the Catalan Company led by a former actual Knight Templar who was later assassinated. I assume that was the reason Almogavars were included in the game but find it odd they don't seem to mention it at all. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain more how the game's Almogavars are more like historical Varangians and vice versa—for example, in their outfitting and equipment? I'm not very familiar with Byzantine history, but I read the relevant Wikipedia articles, and I see that Almogavars are supposed to be light infantry which would contradict them being brutes in Revelations. But that also doesn't automatically mean the game's Varangians would match their description more or that the game's Almogavars would fit the historical Varangians better. This sounds to be similar to the previous case with the hypaspists and ekdromoi, where even though the game's portrayal of the hypaspists and ekdromoi are inaccurate, I wasn't convinced that flipping them around makes it any more accurate. Since you're supervising this project, however, I want to hear your preferred solution first. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not advocating flipping them just noting that how they are portrayed fits better with the as historically Varangians were heavy infantry noted for using axes or great swords while Almogavars are as you noted lighter infantry equipped with spears. Even if you did flip them it wouldn't be totally correct given that the "Brutes" are shown with labryes instead of Dane axes for the most part and the "Seekers" are wearing hussar helmets and still probably not light enough armored. Not to mention neither of these infantry types were still in use. But my idea was for the archetypes page since it is from the context of how the animus portrays stuff we depict it at face value and just add a footnote about the irl discrepancy. And then in articles from a historical context like the soldiers page etc we describe them in more irl accurate terms with a behind the scenes section detailing the issues. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds perfect! Those were my exact ideas as well. :) Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Great minds think alike... and idiots rarely differ. But I'll add the footnote to the archetypes page and feel free to tweak any wording as you see fit. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

You missed one

https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/User:Irishcarbomb61722 obviously not IP checked but has the same 61722, commits the same report abuse, and likes his own comments similar to guyfawkes and americanidiot. Oh and first comment is attacking the guyfawkes account which americanidiot did as well. Interestingly guyfawkes recently used the same verbiage as Ambitious Mentor but I think that was just picking up a turn of phrase rather than indicating another sockpuppet. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeated Image Vio

I don't know if you've seen this yet, but Andy5362430 persists in uploading improperly-named files without sourcing them. With the sole exception of the Mawei Station mutiny's article image and the AC2 Templar paintings, I've renamed every other picture they've intermittently posted since 2021, and have twice used {{ImgVio}} on their talk page, but they seem unable or unwilling to listen or even acknowledge the messages. Could something be done or should I leave this be? I admittedly thought they were a sock of Andy19965362, another user who was also a repeat offender in the exact same way, but I cannot be certain. – Darman (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The Roshan/Desmond issue

https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Desmond_Miles?curid=1921&diff=1091409&oldid=1091390 This is the specific edit that is in contention. I feel the note is necessary to our audience because I think a lot of them would look at the citation and interpret it as a coy yes that Altair is descended from Roshan even though Altair isn't even mentioned by the devs in their answer. And I have already seen fans using this AMA as proof that the relation is direct. I think your write up for the BTS on Roshan's page is good but I worked it into Desmond's article's main body which I then feel needs the note for that extra context. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 Talk Pages

Admittedly, it's missing anything on talk pages from Jan–Apr, but here's what I found over this month. Arranged by last edit date.

• Talk:Avaldsnes 26 Apr
• Talk:Deorlaf
• Talk:Bragi Boddason 3 May
• Talk:Yu Dayong (you started this one)
• Talk:Levantine Rite of the Templar Order
• Talk:Ímair 4 May
• Talk:Discovery Tour
• Talk:Heavy weapon 10 May
• Talk:Mercellus
• Talk:Assassin's Creed: Valhalla (webcomic) 12 May
• Talk:Animus host 13 May
• Talk:Jerboa Greaves 15 May
• Talk:Persian Brotherhood of Assassins 17 May
• Talk:Cards (Memories) 18 May
• Talk:Shao Jun (non-canon) 22 May
• Talk:Assassin's Creed (series) 24 May
• Talk:17 Walpole Lane
• Talk:Blunt weapon 25 May
• Talk:Kara (weapon)
• Talk:Apache revolver
• User talk:Andy5362430 (See my earlier message above)
• Talk:Eustace the Monk 26 May
• Talk:Animus data fragment
• Talk:Helix Credit
• Talk:Angaur 28 May
• Template talk:Location Infobox 29 May

I'm sure there's overlap here with Lacrosse. – Darman (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Since {{OpenTalk}} exists and adds a page to the category "Open discussion", do you still want Lacrosse and I to keep tabs on talk page activity here/on Discord? – Darman (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Naoe's kunai

Just wanted to drop by and mention that on the cosplay guide (page 13), they refer to the kunai as throwing knives, hence why I linked that in Naoe's page. - Soranin (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I had checked the cosplay guide but still missed that. I added the link back. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 04:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Bro

How come all my polls keep getting wiped out, was it the necroposting. I already told Lacrossedeamon it wasn't done purposely. One of you keep removing my polls. I politely ask you to stop —unsigned comment by .WKR (talk · contr)

Hello .WKR, would you mind joining our Discord server? We can elaborate more on the issue there. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 00:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't use Discord. Is there a particular reason you don't want to discuss it here? —unsigned comment by .WKR (talk · contr)

It's not that I'm unwilling to discuss the matter here. It's that Discord provides us a way to verify your user. Also, please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) going forward. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 04:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's plenty of people that don't use Discord, and I'm sure there's other people here too that don't use it. I don't like Discord and I don't have any interest in joining at this time. I'd just like to enquire about my polls getting wiped out, it's very off-putting. Again, I only found Medieval's posts because I was looking up those specific topics, not because I'm a "griefer". I hope I don't sound exasperated or anything, I just have a hard time understanding what you mean. .WKR (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have found multiple reasons to highly suspect that your account may be a sockpuppet of a banned user, and we have to undertake measures to investigate this. The banned user was never able to satisfy the basic security measures for our Discord server, an issue that was unique to them as no other user have reported experiencing that issue. This conveniently provides a simple and easy way to verify that you are a separate individual. Provided that you can access our Discord server and demonstrate the ability to message on it, we will grant you confidence that your account is not a sockpuppet.

I understand if you dislike Discord, but we are not asking you to actually join our server as an active participant, merely to validate that you do not run into the same security roadblocks. You can cease using Discord as soon as you have been validated.

I also do apologize if our suspicions are in error, but please also understand that this banned user in question has been stalking us for a year now, so this is a serious matter for us that concerns the perception of safety in our community. Momentarily joining our Discord server is a simple step, and I hope that we can meet halfway between our comfort levels. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Who is the banned user in question? .WKR (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not information that is important for you to know. However, bear in mind that prevarication was a signature behaviour of that user. So please confirm as soon as possible that you are willing to cooperate with our investigation. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

No. I already said I'm not interested in singing up for any reason. I don't know fandom very well but they definitely have ways to check for alts. That can prove I'm not a banned user .WKR (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Fandom normally checks the IP addresses of accounts, but users using sockpuppets to evade bans often bypass this check with VPNs, so we have to rely on patterns of behaviour instead. What are the reasons you are averse to Discord? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't waste money on that stuff and I don't see why someone would pay for a VPN just to ban evade. As for your question i simply find the place to clunky and I actually used Discord back in middle school and the things that happened makes me not want to touch the place again. I would appreciate if you could now answer my original question .WKR (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There are in fact obsessive users who do go to the length of using a VPN to repeatedly try to evade their ban. Apart from the user in question, we also have another banned user who has created at least 100 sockpuppets over the course of several years using VPN and throwaway e-mails, albeit it got to the point where his intent has become less ban evasion but more just trying to annoy us on his grudge. It's also not like a user who does this necessarily bought VPN just to create a sockpuppet; there are plenty of people out there who already have VPN on hand for a variety of purposes.

What is the original question you're referring to? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The question was why my polls kept getting deleted. Even my apology post for the necroposting got deleted too. .WKR (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Your ability to post is being temporarily restricted until our investigation has been concluded. You were never in trouble for necroposting. Our moderator Lacrossedeamon only informed MedievalVibes that his threads were deleted because users were necro-ing them, which we realized could cause trouble because MedievalVibes is a banned user. He never said that you were being penalized for necro-ing. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Gu Dayong

As I know you saw, I edited the applicable templates with Yu Dayong's name and changed them to Gu Dayong. How do you want his name elsewhere? For location, character, etc. pages, I was going to spell it exactly and was thinking to do [Gu Dayong|Yu Dayong] in memory pages to reflect their erroneous subtitles. Unless you'd prefer his proper name everywhere? – Darman (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

His name should be corrected everywhere in our own writing, but not where "Yu Dayong" appears in transcriptions. So for example, we should keep "Database: Yu Dayong" as is. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 04:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, just wanted to check in case. I hadn't even considered the idea of moving his database, since it's how the game names him as opposed to wiki writing. – Darman (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

A thought that came to me before I fix the links: are any of the other Eight Tigers' names misspelled or was it only Dayong? – Darman (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It was only Gu Dayong. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)