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)

Hey again, Sol! Having read the discussions on the topic of the various Brotherhoods in question, I agree with keeping it separate until we have more lore on the matter. Because by the looks of it, we only have highly specific groups (Protectors of Peria and such) combined with major moments of what appears to be major splits/reforms that does imply there being more behind it that hat we can currently know, so drawing any hasty conclusions would in my view be original research based on assumptions of these distinctions given our lack of documentation between these groups and eras that can explain what and why they are separated or not.

On a separate issue entirely, I am still working on the Templar pages, I just do so on Notes on my MacBook between my free time and the responsibilities I currently have, and I have a lot of responsibilities that I have taken on me. So I can not promise when it is done, just that it will be eventually. ACsenior (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello ACSenior, sorry for not getting back to you in a little while. I was reviewing the whole discussion regarding the Assassin branches first, but since it sounds like you agree with the consensus, that wasn't necessary. And take your time with the Templar pages! Pretty much almost all of us are too swamped with adult responsibilities now to contribute as much as we would like. So we're all on the same boat. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:00, 4 October 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 a user was 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)

Please let me know when the investigation will be concluded so that I can post again.Fwiw if medievalvibes is the banned user in question,he told me on Community Central that Fandom are going to review his block again in September which is not so long left. Is there anything I can do to prove I'm not a sockpuppet besides geting discor? .WKR (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you joining Discord and passing the security roadblocks is the only means we can think of. Technically, it would not prove that you are not a sockpuppet 100%, but I would be satisfied with it. The problem is that there is already a lot of evidence stacked against your case already, which is why we have to undertake this measure.

At the very least, I advise you to stop interacting with MedievalVibes. Going out of your way to give especially friendly and supportive overtures to a random, permanently banned user in a way that is not reflective of your behaviour with the community elsewhere does not help to mitigate suspicion against you. As it is, MedievalVibes using two further sockpuppets to vandalize and vent his rage on our exchange here earlier—messages which we reverted—are repeat offences that already prove that he has not reformed his past behaviour. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately I still do not desire to get Discord. I can take my leave from the wiki if there's no other way I can prove I'm not a sock. For the record MedievalVibes is the one who messaged me first, and I personally don't see how my behaviour towards him is any different than with anyone else here. I was being friendly out of common courtesy. If I get Discord in the future Ill let you know. .WKR (talk) 06:21, 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)

Memory date citations

Since I am going through a lot of the memory pages to add proper citations rather than just the bulleted reference section do you want me to add {cite} to the infoboxes? Lacrossedeamon (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

External Links section

While you may say no, and may not be the only user who would agree, but can there be a section on pages for external links if the page has a real-world counterpart say to Wikipedia at least? Rgilbert27 (talk) 10:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Discord

After a break from the wiki and some thinking, I am willing to join the Discord server if you are still up for it. iF thats a yes, let me know and I will sign up. PS someone undid all my posts, can those be added back once I've proven I'm not a sockpuppet? .WKR (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello .WKR, yes I would still be happy to clear you if you joined Discord. And yes, your posts can be restored later. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Same handle as my Fandom username. What am I supposed to do now? .WKR (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey .WKR, thank you so much again for cooperating with us on this even though I know you weren't comfortable revisiting Discord. Since you encountered no roadblocks in participating in our server, this suffices for verification. I really apologize for giving you a hard time and appreciate how you were willing to put up with us when you didn't have to. I have restored your posts. You're free to just quit Discord right away as well although you're certainly also welcome to stick around our server. I promise it's actually a fun community. I'll answer the questions you asked me on Discord as well. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Conciseness

I don't understand, is it wrong to be concise then? How is "the infiltration of restricted government offices and theft of state secrets" better than "infiltrating restricted government offices and stealing state secrets", and likewise with "son of Grand Protector Yan Gaoqing of Changshan" compared to "son of Changshan's Grand Protector Yan Gaoqing"? I don't see how the former forms in both examples improve the rhetorical style any, I see them as too wordy. Do we really need so many "of"s everywhere when possessive nouns and inflected verbs are valid styles? Or, why not remove verb suffixes entirely with "[Youxia] were also known to [...] infiltrate restricted government offices and steal state secrets"? I wouldn't write "Ezio was caught in the act of theft" when "Ezio was caught stealing" works, nor would I have "Mayor Joe Smith of Cincinnati" when I see no issue with "Cincinnati's Mayor Joe Smith". You were fine with "prior to their rescue by Wei Yu" becoming "before Wei Yu rescued them", so why did you change all the others? – Darman (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to ask me about these.

For this sentence:

"While youxia at times found themselves on the side of the government, lending their aid to criminal investigations or partaking in wars against foreign invasions and rebels, they were also known to involve themselves in the robbery of merchants they deemed corrupt, in the infiltration of restricted government offices and theft of state secrets, in the liberation of political prisoners, in the sabotage of military forts, in the looting of tombs, and even in the assassination of state officials and military generals."

The best way to trim it down if you aimed to be concise would be:

"...they were also known to rob merchants they deemed corrupt, infiltrate restricted government offices and steal state secrets, liberate political prisoners, sabotage military forts, loot tombs, and even assassinate state officials and military generals."

But my sense while I was initially writing this was to convey that they did these as part of missions, or what they thought of as missions. Simply and directly saying that they "rob[bed] merchants" or "loot tombs" gives more of the sense that they are robbers or that they are looters, that these are professions they also took. These are the differences in connotations I was referring to. Apart from this, the revised phrasing here sounds rhythmically off to me for some inexplicable reason despite being more straightforward and concise and less long-winded. But it can very reasonably argued that, well, they are robbers and they are looters regardless of their perception of higher motives or goals for these activities. After all, my intent was to be objective.

However, your revision...

"they were also known to involve themselves in robbing merchants they deemed corrupt, infiltrating restricted government offices and stealing state secrets, liberating political prisoners, sabotaging military forts, looting tombs, and even assassinating state officials and military generals."

...preserves neither my intended connotation nor is it sufficiently concise if that were the intent. It is a middle ground that achieves neither and remains awkward. I do think some other professional editor would probably favour my revision above rather than keeping the original phrasing, but I was on the fence about it. For this particular revision, I therefore reverted partly to leave open a possible conversation about it and my thought process.

As for the appositive "son of Grand Protector Yan Gaoqing of Changshan" vs. "son of Changshan's Grand Protector Yan Gaoqing", I did think about this when writing it, but I believe Yan Gaoqing in your version is technically another appositive, meaning it needs to take a comma. Therefore, the choice is between:

(a) "...the young scholar Yan Jiming, son of Grand Protector Yan Gaoqing of Changshan"

(b) "...the young scholar Yan Jiming, son of Changshan's Grand Protector, Yan Gaoqing,"

I would rather an extra of than an extra comma because of an appositive within an appositive. "Grand Protector Yan Gaoqing of Changshan" is a full title like "King Richard I of England".

I have also caught onto your frequent edits to trim down unnecessary uses of of, and while I usually like how you spot those, I would caution against it becoming a rote correction. In some cases—like I would argue this one—one extra of isn't necessarily wrong nor does it utterly ruins the flow. In some cases, it's even unavoidable due to idiomatic phrases using of and English syntax, and so rote fixes for this can itself lead to mistakes.

Finally, regarding your example, "Ezio was caught in the act of theft" vs. "Ezio was caught stealing", this is more a question of rhetorical style and tone than a straightforward question of verbosity vs. conciseness. The latter is more colloquial while not being too informal for encyclopedia writing. The former is more formal while not being too verbose and in some cases would match the overall encyclopedic prose better. Both are equally valid (and it would be the impulse to see the former as erroneous that I caution against). I myself would be more likely to write it the former way depending on the overall flow, rhythm, and tone of the rest of the text. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Re:Consensus on Assassin & Templar branches

Hello Sol Pacificus, thank you for informing me about the consensus, although I was too busy to reply at the time. I pretty much agree with the conclusion, so that's nice. Sorry for not replying to you welcoming me back years ago, it's greatly appreciated. By the way, I've re-read the epilogue of Assassin's Creed: The Fall (TPB), which depicts the Great Purge, and there's a brief mention of the Templars sending military agents to Oslo and Belfast (as seen here), in order to eradicate the local Assassin camps there. Would this perhaps be enough to create Brotherhood pages about them? The Wikia Editor (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sol

I saw that message board thread you posted on FlamesOfChaos's page that you linked from Zod's thread. I can't help but point out the fact that you were scolding people for not giving you benefit of the doubt, when you did not give it to me when I repeatedly told you I am not a MedievalVibes sockpuppet. I understand you were suspicious and all, but even a Fandom staff member knew I wasn't Medi (and so the right thing to do would've been to give me benefit off the doubt and let me continue to post) but instead you literally still forced me to sign up for Discord in order to be "cleared" as a non sock. I'm not someone who likes to start arguments and it's not my intention to, but at this point I have to ask... is it even true that Medi has a history of creating socks to interact with each other, like you claimed on Discord?

I understand the drama between you and Medi isn't really my business, but it also is one of the core reasons you suspected me of being a sockpuppet. .WKR (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You weren't immediately banned so you actually were being given the benefit of the doubt. And yes he has even personally admitted to creating sockpuppets, https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Sol_Pacificus?threadId=4400000000003592528#4400000000013484683 Lacrossedeamon (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello WKR, yes it is true that MedievalVibes has a history of creating sockpuppets which interact with one another. Fandom has claimed that there is a troll involved in impersonating banned users, and they believe that MedievalVibes has been targeted, but the issue is that even if we disregard those specific accounts so suspected by Fandom of being another troll, that still leaves a number of other MedievalVibes sockpuppets.

The practice of assuming good faith does have reasonable limits, as spelled out in Wikipedia's guideline page for instance. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism)". MedievalVibes has a history of committing repeat offences and lying—a lot. That's just the factual truth. In addition, you asked for transparency about the evidence we had that you could have been a sockpuppet, and I honoured your request and shared them with you. We believed that on the basis of those evidence, a middle approach was the most prudent.

Between you and me, we've also actually considered in the past that we should write up a comprehensive case file on Medieval's problematic interactions with our community. This way, Fandom or third parties can examine the evidence for themselves and assess whether judgements about a pattern of behaviour have been fair. I had asked if Medieval would be open to this, but he declined. There is a complication that this history is mixed with interactions off-site, but I think at this point, even if off-site actions are not admissible as evidence of offence, it is important for all parties to at least get a full picture of the history to have a full understanding of the situation and how it developed. Since our earliest interactions with Medieval occurred off-site, I also think it's unclear to third party observers how much patience and kindness we showed him at the start. Without such a document, third party observers can only choose who or what to believe. You specifically inquiring about the veracity of Medieval's wrongdoings is further example of this to suggest that this is an important step for us to take after all.

Turning to the dispute on AdmiralZod1's thread, that situation and yours are two independent cases which deal with two different issues: civil conduct in discussions and sockpuppetry. The Wikipedia guideline page clearly states that "This policy also does not mean you should ignore clear evidence of disruptive behavior or violations of site guidelines". As I explained to Edwardkenwayfan31, I assess that he violated community guidelines by being immediately aggressive over a simple comment and every subsequent comment only served to escalate.

For the sake of transparency, I felt I was faced with a dilemma. I could delete inflammatory comments and/or lock the thread when it got out of hand, but this could (and did) invite accusations that I was merely censoring comments that disagree with me. I could commit myself fully with the debate and therefore risk becoming party to a heated and circular argument. I could leave it entirely unmoderated. Or I could try to disengage from the debate and only clarify my rhetorical comment ("Actually the earthquake was caused by Shay") that had incited so much anger, which is what I attempted in the comment where I directed FlamesOfChaos13 to four older debates on the same subject.

But Flames responded by escalating it further. I replied, realized that I needed to also check myself, so I removed this last exchange to my moderation comment and locked the thread. I then thought it better to keep it unlocked as a sign of good faith, but then Edwardkenwayfan31 used this to accuse me of censorship, so I restored the last exchange and addressed the allegations as best I could. In light of this, I think it is clear that these users were being belligerent and disruptive throughout the thread.

I am not going to deny that I need to improve my administrative practices. My indecisive action in that recent thread demonstrates this. Moving forward, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest between being a participant of discussions and being a moderator, I will be pinging other moderators for assistance if I find myself in the dilemma above again. The Wikipedia guideline page also notes that just as users should not "insist that trust in them should be immutable, per 'assume good faith'", administrators should also be "careful about citing this principle too aggressively". I acknowledge that this is something that I need to learn as well.

But I want you to know that me going out of the way to spend so much time and energy to address concerns like this, whether to you or Flames, and to be so open about my thought process each time is my way of showing good faith. At the end of the day, I did not just shut any of you down. You being willing to sign-up for Discord to validate yourself even though you weren't obligated to do so also showed us good faith. And I am immeasurably appreciative for that. The situation wasn't ideal, but no one wanted to hurt anyone. I know that as an individual who feels wronged, this may be little consolation, but our suspicions were never about you as a person but another user who already has an established pattern—and against whom we honestly feel like not enough has been done to protect our community. Personally, I felt relieved and really happy to have you join this community, so I hope that we can move forward from the initial hurdle, starting from a position of mutual understanding. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lacrossedeamon he admitted to making one sockpuppet, where did he admit to making a ton of socks to interact with each other?

@Sol Pacificus, thanks for your detailed reply, I'll read over it later. .WKR (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, after reading what you said, I appreciate your clarification and I agree to move on from this as per your suggestion. Though, I'll probably still link MV to this on CC to hear his side. Nothing against you, and I still acknowledge this isn't really my business, but I just like to hear to hear both sides of the story. —unsigned comment by .WKR (talk · contr)

While it's good to understand different perspectives and consider various viewpoints, I’d like to propose that you maintain a respectful distance from our ongoing issues with MV. By stepping back a bit in a contentious matter we can avoid escalating tensions, making disagreements last longer, etc. Since you understand that you shouldn't immerse yourself in this topic, I hope you can stand by what you are saying.
It’s best for us to focus on moving forward positively.Cristophorus35 (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

To add to this .WKR, we can't stop you from hearing your friend's account, but please keep that as a private matter between you two. You know just as well any of us that involving yourself in a banned user's problems in your capacity as another user contradicts your acknowledgement that it isn't your business, as well as your agreement to move on from your own situation. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Sol, I already read and acknowledged Cris' message, and I won't get involved further. Your last message was not necessary and only served to provoke. Angrily accusing me, a neutral party, of being friends with MV just because I wanted to hear both sides of the story honestly just shows that you may not be in the right after all - I already previously told you I am not friends with MV. And to be frank, a case file written by someone who was mainly involved in the drama would have little credibility anyway.

Anyways, I'll be recusing myself from this topic now. .WKR (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me

Are you going to address why you took down the entire thread? Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I might know why, Edward. A banned user pointed out that Sol had gotten into conflict with 4 different users recently, and the thread happened to be taken down around the same time, so I think that is why. I could be wrong, but the circumstancial evidence is pretty strong (I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just trying to be helpful and these are my observations). the original poll topic was interesting so I would've liked to see it stay up. As someone who saw and participated in the thread, I would also like Sol to explain why he took it down. .WKR (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm what WKR is saying is true. Sol is a massive hypocrite, he tries to silently delete any evidence of his bad behavior while he digs and restores deleted messages from other users to use as evidence against them. WKR was even blocked under completely false circumstances just for asking why Sol unilaterally deleted the thread.

When in conflict, Sol will often resort to strawmanning and/or ad hominem attacks, usually by accusing his "opponent" of harassing him, raging, venting, lashing out, etc. in an attempt to discredit and ignore the argument at hand. He will also usually make disingenuous arguments like accusing MV of not just stalking the wiki, but also accusing him of being a danger to community safety just for lurking the wiki. Everything posted is intended to be publicly viewable, and this is a wiki, not social media.. so trying to brand it as stalking and using it as ammo like Sol did is being wilfully stupid at best. If that's not bad enough, he even once went as far as to accuse Fandom staff of enabling MV's harassment of him and his friends just for asking about the ban, once again showing his egocentrism.

In the most recent CC argument, you can once again see Sol strawmanning by purposely misrepresenting what MV said as well as cherry-picking things he said and only responding to things that enable his strawmanning. We see more familiar signs like assigning all the blame to the other party i.e calling the feud one sided when both sides were throwing accusations at one another (and Sol's being worse and having little to no evidence to back it up, as well as most of them being disproven), as well as the animosity between both sides being clear therefore making the situation by definition a feud and to say otherwise is just another dishonest attempt to try evade accountability. In addition, it's also disingenuous for Sol to have accused Medi of pushing him back in to the orbit when he showed up to the thread univited. If anything, Sol pulled himself back into the orbit by accusing WKR of being MV.

MedievalVibes clearly already apologized for the sockpuppetry - he showed me the message where he did. And I have to agree with him that Sol clearly wants him to accept the false accusations in order for the apology to be sincere in his eyes. Btw, on the topic of "no personal grudges", I have a couple of examples that very much do point towards personal grudges. The first instance being this user, Guyfawkes61722, who made two sock accounts after being blocked for a week, both socks were blocked and yet his block wasn't even extended. MedievalVibes made one sockpuppet account, and his ban was not just extended but also made permanent. Another example, he literally mentioned in the thread right above this one that he had suspicions against MedievalVibes, proving that those suspicions fueled the bans to some extent. An innocent user also still remains banned under false suspicion of being MV despite clarification from Fandom staff. The vandalism edit was reverted almost two hours later - more than enough time for an unrelated individual to see it and revert it.

Another signature tactic of Sol when he's in conflict is to go through someone's contributions and dig up a few select instances from ages and ages ago where they broke some rule and then retroactively take problem with it for ammo. We see this very clearly in the MV case - it's so obvious it doesn't need to be pointed out. Sol has been doing this since at least 2019 with another former moderator. His main argument there essentially boils down to edit warring and uncivil conduct. However, when you look at Jasca's edits, you don't see a single case of him breaking the 3RR rule, or him being uncivil. This means either A: Sol fabricated all the evidence like he did in the MV case or B: Used a few outdated incidents from ages and ages ago due to lack of evidence, in addition to the fact that he criticized Jasca for not unchecking the "mark edit as minor" box when it makes no real difference whatsoever. The mere fact Sol decided to use that as ammo only shows that he knew his case against Jasca was weak. Another one of the things Sol tried to criticize Jasca for was "refusing to address arguments made." Keep in mind that Sol regularly criticizes people for that to this day, and yet it's something he's been doing throughout the entire MV situation- constantly either cherry-picking points to use, grossly misrepresenting what MV said, or outright ignoring him.

And yet, a whole year later, Sol retroactively permabanned Jasca and admitted to having spent an entire year discussing it. Sol claimed MV was being obsessive, but is spending an entire year discussing someone's fate on the wiki not obsessive? You can even clearly see that Jasca was only rarely editing when his 3-month ban ended and clearly wasn't going to get into any arguments with anyone, proving that it was an unjust emotional ban fueled by old grudges.

It's no coincidence that MV's claims about Sol's character line up perfectly with Jasca's. You can very well tell that Sol's pride was wounded by Jasca fighting back at his abuses of power. Don't get me wrong, I don't normally like bringing up old disputes as evidence, however since this seems to be a recurring pattern of Sol's, I think it's only fair (that's essentially the entire reason I brought it up.) Were both former mods wrong about Sol, or is Sol perhaps wrong here?

FYI, I'm not MV but rather a acquaintance of his from another platform. He filled me in on everything that has happened here and I'm here on my own volition as a favor and not because he asked me to vouch for him. I'm not one of his puppets either, he's given me all the evidence and I studied said evidence and came to this conclusion I'm giving my sincere thoughts; If I thought he was in the wrong here I would have said so. I sincerly hope Sol will take this to heart and reflect, but this message will more than likely just be removed alongside me being banned in which case so be it - I've said what I wanted to say and banning me would just further reinforce my points. PyrrhicVictory27 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

FYI, Jasca was already permanently banned on Wookieepedia for behavioral issues and edit warring prior to joining this Wiki. He had also received several warnings and bans from other admins here, including Sima and Amnestyyy. His final ban was conducted after internal deliberation between admins.

To be honest, I find your entire message very disingenuous as well as cynical, especially the "this is a wiki, not a social media" part. This wiki may not be standard social media like the others, but it does feature several other ways for fans to interact (like the discussion forums, for example). This is not just a wiki but also a meeting place, and in order to keep things cool we need to set some boundaries because sockpuppets and trolls are everywhere; this is just what is right. If we are still in an impasse with MV it's because not only has he refused to listen to advice but he continues to show no signs of remorse whatsoever.

Now, if the staff is considered to be at fault in any way, it'd be in accepting MV as a mod in a way it isn't usually done. And despite some misgivings about his intents in joining, the staff accepted him. Now, you as an acquaintance of his only strengthens the view that MV is not really reflecting on the situation. Complains like this has been publicly addressed by Sol before but somehow these always end up being totally missed.
Cristophorus35 (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

chill pyrrhic, my reply to Edward wasn't supposed to escalate things to this level, it was only meant to be helpful. Right or wrong, Sol obviously doesn't intend on replying so just leave him be. Randomly reviving this nearly 2 months later doesn't help .WKR (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

New Wiki Order project

While my proposal for a Hermetics nav template passed even without taking part aside from a message to you after seeing the debates, until I am done with my project as a whole, there's one thing that would very much help organising the Templar pages and that is to include an Abstergo nav template within the already existing Templar nav template. Because Templar pages in general does currently not correspond to any Abstergo positions in the modern day in general, these corporate positions are just mention in passing mostly. Less of an issue on individual Templar pages-Alan Rikkin-but more on pages like of Templar ranks.ACsenior (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a fair proposal. I actually have not been so involved in the structuring of navigation boxes even though once in a while editors have asked me about it. I guess it is about time I stop neglecting this, but we will have to ask some of the other editors who have talked more about how navboxes should be organized to get a sense of where our wiki is at about it right now. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 20:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, I`d rather focus on the articles than solving this myself. So the feedback is appreciated. ACsenior (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

States

For centuries we've focused our attentions on the trappings of power: the titles of nobility, the offices of Church and State. So obsessed with clinging to the trappings of power we abandoned our purpose. Caught in the very lie we crafted to shepherd the masses. For the simplicity of our discussion, lets simply get ahead of the expected edit war and discuss how we understand this quote. ACsenior (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I missed that you had already messaged me on the talk page about this beforehand. As I explained in my edit summaries, Germain is describing how the Templars prior to him had always operated by using the nobility and clergy classes as puppets to control state governments and therefore the world. Germain's innovation was to finally overturn this millennia-old practice by abandoning the nobility and clergy for a new class which would serve as the Templars' disguise from then on. This new class is the middle class, or what the socialists would come to call the bourgeoisie. Germain is laying the foundation for Abstergo Industries.

The thing is that nowhere in this line does he mention the Templars inventing states for humanity, only using religion and states as sources of power. As well, he also doesn't give a time frame for how long the Templars have been doing that, besides noting it has been "centuries". Especially with the retcon in the RPG trilogy, we technically can't even be sure he was referring all the way back to Order of the Ancient times, or even further before Smenkhkare to the time of Cain. (We do know that the Order of the Ancients also controlled countries through nobles and religious figures, but I just mean we don't know the time frame Germain himself is talking about.)

I mentioned also that states are natural developments that arise from human association. The state is a basic unit of political organization. Anytime there is a population who forms an organized society with a sense of territoriality (borders do not have to be precisely defined), some form of structure (can be as simple as "tribal"), and an authority that determines inappropriate forms of violence within the community (i.e. when fighting or killing each other is wrong), that is a state. A state is also defined scientifically and objectively, regardless of its status in the wider world or whether other countries perceive it as a country and even regardless of whether or not they call themselves a country.

Your claim is that Templars invented states (for humanity), and that doesn't make much sense to me by the political science definition of the state. It is not impossible if you attribute this to Cain, as the son of Eve and Adam, so that he immediately created the first human state after the rebellion, but no Assassin's Creed source supports this, and it would be even more dubious now with the RPG retcon. Germain doesn't mention state formation or Cain at all.

Regarding edit warring, I like your initiative in contacting me right away about it. I generally don't count it as edit warring if editors are working towards a compromise via their edits as opposed to flat-out reverts. This involves communication through edit summaries and trying one's best to make room for the other party's edit in some way. There are also a certain number (more than 3) reverts before it officially constitutes a count of edit warring. I tend to be fine with editing one after another while talking it out through edit summaries, which is why I write longer edit summaries, but it's always good to take it to a talk page.

To restate my other reasons for my dispute though:

• You re-added the wording "the world's states" despite clarifying to me in your summary that you were excluding Isu states. Isu are part of the world though and predate Templars, so the sentence as worded is still false.
• The next line citing to Wikipedia only tells us when states were formed. It doesn't provide any support for the claim that Templars invented states, which would also require an actual Assassin's Creed source since real-world sources would contradict that claim. As well, although we now permit using external sources and are lenient with citing Wikipedia, I also am not comfortable with this usage because state formation is a complex topic that requires more than a Wikipedia reading to understand (e.g. the idea states arose c. 5000 BCE is also debatable), and I have access to scholarly sources on the subject if you would like help with it.
• Your third line says that the Templars established the church in the period (of 5000 BCE to 3300 BCE). When Germain says "the Church", he is referring to the Catholic Church and then by metaphorical extension, to religious authority in general. But the Templars certainly didn't invent "the Church" between 5000 BCE and 3300 BCE because that is long before Christianity was founded.

For my last edit, I tried to move Germain's description into the early history rather than the prehistory section while fixing its meaning. But I wrote it hastily, so it may not be as succinct as I would like. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Discord

Hello, I've come back to Discord recently and just joined the server @.wkrghost. Just dropping this message to confirm that that is me and not an imposter. .WKR (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Why my post isn't showing in general?

Hi, I've been trying to post something about my ideas for next AC setting in general but my entire post is getting filtered without any reason? I thought maybe you can help me with this? Here's the link to my post: https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000137846.