Talk: MatthewOne

Fallout demo[]

I'm afraid not. I downloaded the demo a while ago, but my PC really doesn't like it so I can't play and confirm the information. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 02:20, June 4, 2018 (UTC)

Probably the most likely cause of it tbh. I imagine they wanted to do a little more with the demo, then realised they had enough to demonstrate with and stopped work. Afterall, time spent working on a demo is time away from development. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 04:41, June 4, 2018 (UTC)

MSG and game sprites[]

I was actually taking a look at this earlier and for the text you need a working ".dat" reader which can decompress the dat files and make them readable. I wasn't able to find one for Fallout 1 or the demo, but there is a working one for Fallout 2 on No Mutants Allowed. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 04:13, June 4, 2018 (UTC)

Phil's partner[]

I was having a look through the Category:Fallout demo dialogue files and noticed her dialogue is in one of the peasant dialogue files (they also don't have a page, so we should look to make that. I'll have a look when I get home and see if she has any unique markers in game we can use. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 15:26, June 4, 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have a chance to go back through the game, however I did notice from other articles that she is called Lenore, which already has an article. I've done the basic clean up now, but you might want to give that one a look over. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 08:29, June 5, 2018 (UTC)

All restored and in the footer of the infobox. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 19:26, June 5, 2018 (UTC)

fallout porn[]

absolutely not! --Godzillafan4ever (talk) 08:14, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

Godzillafan4ever Why not? I've seen other wikis mention derived products based on the original products. MatthewOne (talk) 08:16, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

because it goes against the rules here!!! I don't claim to be an admin, but I do support them. Please. just trust me. those guys who mention that slop are just a bunch of class-a perverts!! --Godzillafan4ever (talk) 08:17, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

I'm just mentioning it for general information and facts. Anyway you may see porn as perverseness, but I see it as a form of pleasure. I am no pervert! MatthewOne (talk) 08:22, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

That's just your hormones talking. besides, you know who was pleasurable?! my american sweetheart. pregnant with my kid. he'd be a teenager right now if his mother hadn't died in a botched breast surgery! that reason alone is the reason why i always feel a sense of loss whenever I see something pornographic. AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO FEELS THAT WAY?! one more thing: I don't know what's going to happen to you for proposing this, but take my advice and remove your account--the admins don't seem as forgiving as I am! --Godzillafan4ever (talk) 08:38, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong in asking? I don't see anything wrong in mentioning derived porn works. If the admins don't want it, then I won't mention it again. MatthewOne (talk) 08:43, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

I would say it falls into the realms of Fan Fiction, as I highly doubt Bethesda would officially sanction a pornography, so we wouldn't cover it.

I also think if we were to start covering Fan Fictions, the top of the list would be Nuka-Break. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 11:58, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

Verify bugs[]

Are you talking about this one? Bugs should be verified by someone other than the person who added it. Until then, the bug will be "unconfirmed". There isn't anything you can do to verify the bug except for waiting until someone else has the same bug.
- FDekker ^talk 09:56, June 12, 2018 (UTC)

Save Trish[]

I'm not getting anything either, which is logical when you think about it, because you're not really doing anything to earn it. iIf you kill his two helpers though, you get 125 XP. We'll add that then I suppose. Jspoel 17:03, June 15, 2018 (UTC)

You can ask me. I'll see if I can confirm things. Jspoel 14:18, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

On what level is that med lab? Jspoel 15:07, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

You mean this area? Are you sure about that message? Jspoel 15:38, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not getting it either. Maybe it's a medlab from another vault? Jspoel 16:22, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. Try those two then. Jspoel 16:31, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

Guideline[]

Fallout Wiki:User conduct guideline

I also see you started the discussion on the talk page, hopefully, users reply soon as sometimes it takes awhile. Hope it helps. Xa3 (talk) 16:21, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

Ghoul[]

Sorry, but per the user conduct guideline I have had to put the message you removed back on your talkpage.

Regarding the Ghoul article, although it would fall under the article layout guideline for creatures, which has no criteria for notable quotes, it also falls under the character article guideline as ghouls are both. The character guideline does have specification for this:

In this scenario I would say "the character" in question is ghouls, which is why I removed the quote from Bullet. That said, the quote from Bullet is a valid reference and should be included as a reference. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 17:46, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

Talk page messages[]

I did read it and I do understand your rationale for doing it. Unfortunately removing messages is covered by the User conduct guideline:

Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 18:05, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say anything done was grave. Removing the message from XA3 was done with good intentions, it was just an act that broke policy.

I'd say much the same about your revert on ghoul, you felt it should be there and reverted it back. I have a reason for it, so that should have been an indication that discussion should have been initiated at that stage, rather than another revert.

I wouldnt consider either to be a major issue, they're easily worked out. I'd always say discuss before further reverting if your edit got pulled. There is usually a reason for it and it will either be an error on the reverters part, a policy based reason or something the two parties need to work out between them and come to an agreement on. Otherwise we end up with people reverting back and forth and going no-where. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 18:28, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

Re:Do not edit war[]

I’m not the one undoing a revert of my edit without discussing it with the other party. So feel free to keep the snide little “double standard” comments to yourself and follow the wiki policies. Great Mara (talk) 18:48, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? It isn't my part to discuss your edit warring, when it's your edit that was being reverted. Furthermore, it is your repsonsibility to learn a wiki's guidelines before editing, not someone else's. No one else is reponsible for teaching you personal accountability. And now frankly, we're done here. I'm not getting involved in an extended discussion with someone who apparently wants to shift the blame instead of accepting accountability for their actions. I have enough of those to deal with offline. Great Mara (talk) 19:01, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

There was a problem with your edit. You were edit warring. And now you're only proving my point about accountability. Great Mara (talk) 19:28, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

I'm drawing a line under this as it is doing no-one any good. The discussion is completely semantic. Matthew, you were reverted for reverting rather than discussing, that is how edit wars begin. Mara reverted you because edit warring is poor ettiquite and as I said before, rarely anything comes of it. That lead to this discussion, I resolved the issue, drop it on both ends. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 19:47, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ At this point in time, I'm not sure what any continued discussion is going to do. The root issue is resolved and I personally feel it's best people just move on from the whole thing.

Clearly you don't agree, so the question I have to ask is what outcome are you seeking at this stage? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 20:25, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there was and remains no need to assign any blame to anyone for anything. Everyone could potentially have done something different, but they didn't and that cannot be changed. The only thing I see here is a difference of opinion between you and Mara and to a lesser degree, myself. You believe everything must be discussed before it is reverted, Mara believes the counter revert counts as edit warring. I just think counter reverting is poor ettiquite. They are all reasonable views to have.

your view that we should discuss before reverting anything is a nice ideal and would work in the real world much better than it does online. A lot of people are doing something else along side this, be it on a break at work or school, looking after kids or simply chilling out in the garden. Doing both just isn't practical in all cases.

Mara's view is equally valid as we follow the Wikipedia version of edit warring: "Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion." The "fight" is the counter reverting of the original revert. Yes, Mara's revert can be perceived as joining the fight and I understand that part of your arguement. We could say you're both guilty. Mara would respond with that he is upholding wiki policy, which if you follow the rule of "assume good faith", can be seen from his revert message.

My view is that unless the situation is particularly delicate, most people will revert with a reason, rather than just discuss things first. For most that reason is satisfies them if there is an enquiry and when you have 100+ edits a day to check it can slow you down. Not everyone is going to agree with that and ultimately I have to accept that and work with those who prefer other methods. It's no different to dealing with people in general.

It's easy to place blame, but much more difficult to stop and consider why someone has made the decision they have. As I can see a good faith reason for all peoples actions, I do not believe that there is any blame to place anywhere. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 21:05, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

Vault 13 medic[]

There must be certain circumstances then to get the chems, maybe when saying that the Vault is in jeopardy. Jspoel 15:35, June 18, 2018 (UTC)

See line 121 in the dialogue file MEDIC.MSG. Maybe you'll get the option once the water chip is installed. User:Ghouly89 added the note [1]. Try asking him, he may see it. Jspoel 17:35, June 18, 2018 (UTC)

No. But there may be circumstances he may offer it. I know Ghouly89 from the past, he is especially knowledgable about Fallout and Fallout 2, he must have gotten that line somehow. It may prove difficult in other cases as well to get, there are a lot of variables you may encounter and terms that have to be met to get a certain dialogue. Jspoel 20:46, June 18, 2018 (UTC)

They're in a separate category: Category:Fallout scenery dialogue files and Category:Fallout 2 scenery dialogue files. Jspoel 21:30, June 18, 2018 (UTC)

I know about the DAT file, I have it extracted on my PC already. But MEDIC.MSG is found in the map with all the other dialogue files. I'm not sure what you mean with "are shown as "Yes" under packaged". Jspoel 08:54, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

(←)  You can add it. Jspoel 17:11, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

This is taking way too much time to figure out. Maybe tomorrow. Jspoel 20:39, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the first two bugs. There third bug I do get. When she answers like a Khan raider, there's no voice dialogue though in these cases. This has cost me an hour. I don't have a decent save game playable and had to cheat. Jspoel 19:14, June 22, 2018 (UTC)

Has Vs have[]

Hi Matthew, just a quick one regarding the revert on Yellow trench coat. In that case it would be has rather than have due to the third person writing perspective, with a singular pronoun. [2] Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 01:04, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no-one spotted thens at the end of coats at the time of my last message. We're not entirely sure if it should be coat or coats. Of it is the latter, it would be better to write out the has/have completely. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 02:35, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that fact, my understanding of the situation has changed since my first message. The question at present is are we refering to multiple types of faded coat or is there only one type of faded coat we are refering to? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 03:09, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

According to the infobox, the stats for the yellow and dirty trench coat are the same, however the faded trench coat's stats are different to the others. I believe they were merged together as a single article for trenchcoats. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 03:18, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

Reply[]

Unfortunately, no, I don't have the game with me at the moment. You could try contacting other sites, like the one on Gamepedia, about that, if you wish to. ☢ Energy X ☣ 20:42, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

Huh, so things went stale there, huh? Well, you could also try email some of the old users, but I don't know if that will work, even. ☢ Energy X ☣ 21:30, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

Try to be careful[]

So your idea of being careful is apparently reprisal edits and breaking the proper format of the tables yet again? Great Mara (talk) 00:58, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

The spaces are supposed to be there for easy legibility while editing. Now are you going to fix the format, or will I have to? Great Mara (talk) 01:01, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that as I have to fix the table... 9_9 Great Mara (talk) 01:05, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

User Conduct[]

Hi Matthew,

I don't want to discourage you from editing, because you're dong some good stuff.

But, we need to have a serious chat about how you interact with some of the other users. Its really becoming a problem, and I don't want to have to take action.

I need you to leave Mara alone. If you have a problem with something Mara's done please let me or another admin know rather than deal with it directly, particularly over the next few days. I've told Mara to equally have someone else deal with any problematic issues they have with an edit you've made. Agent c (talk) 21:02, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

Banfield[]

Maybe you should've looked at the dialogue file harder. And I reverted the edit because you can't have more than one infobox on a weapon page. There's no opinion to be had about it. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 23:58, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

So, him admitting that he's prejudiced and has never even seen a ghoul has zero connection to his theory on ghouls going feral? That wouldn't affect his hypothesis at all? Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 00:06, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

He talks about feral ghouls having a disease that will turn them all feral, and admits that maybe he's wrong about them being diseased. I don't see how you're failing to find the connection. Also, try turning in an English paper where you use the word 'however' three times every two sentences and see how well you are graded. Paladin117^{>>iff bored;} 00:21, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring[]

Hello there! You and Paladin are involved in an edit war. The page has been locked and restored to a pre-edit war state. Please discuss the changes on each other's talk pages rather than reverting each other's edits. Once you have reached an agreement the page can be unlocked. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 00:35, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

I agree he should not have been the one to lock the page, but he just did exactly what any other admin would have done. He didn't revert back to his edit, he reverted back to the stage the article was in before any of you edited it, which is also what any other admin would have done. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 00:48, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to unlock the page just to lock it again. It is locked just the way I would have done it. I don't decide which revision to restore, you two do together. I restore to the version from before the edit war started. That is what Paladin did, I will not do it again for no reason. An admin will make a decision on the edit war soon. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 00:59, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but the thing is that I would have done the exact same thing as he did. I do not agree nor do I disagree with what he did, it is simply the exact same thing as I would have done. I will not undo what he did just so my name can show up instead, there is no point. DisgustingWastelander (talk) 01:09, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Paladin117[]

User:Agent c User:Sakaratte User:Jspoel User:DistustingWastelander User:Aya42 I'd like to file a complaint. While I have tried to follow what the admins have said and advised against faithfully, one of the admins Paladin117 is abusing his powers. If it was just edit-warring, I wouldn't be complaining.

This guy has been continuously making false claims against me. After that proved unfruitful he protected the article and misused his powers to restore a previous version. There was no dispute over this as it is merely people theorizing their own theories. However Paladin117 has tried to game the policy by restoring it to that version. I wouldn't mind if any uninvolved admin did the exact same thing, but please restrain involved users from using their powers on pages they are involved in.

Earlier he said "And proper policy is to revert it to how it was before all of the edits". But he used the policy to restore his version instead of the one before I came on the article for the first time. He also used excuses of "poor grammar" as a front to restore his version here and here.

This person has misused his powers and made false excuses to restore his edits. Such a person shouldn't allowed to be admin any longer. An uninvolved admin should have protected the page and decided whether to restore the previous content or not. This is plain conflict of interest as Paladin117 clealry doesn't want my edit to remain there. He has also needlessly wiped out a lot of Quandrico's edits. Please take away these powers from him. MatthewOne (talk) 00:56, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

I need you to do something before I even begin to look at all this. I need you to please read all of our editing policies, user conduct policies and admin policies again. Before I discuss anything with you I need to be 100% certain you have a full and complete understanding of all the germane policies. Please contact me on my talk page when you have done so. And I'm serious. Re-read them. All of them. Again. The Gunny   01:10, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

I did read your "complaint". It was while reading this it became obvious to me you did not have a full understanding of our policies. Specifically, our admin conduct policy. I have also now checked your talk page history and today's revision history of the feral ghoul page and have also come to the conclusion that you do not have a full grasp of our editing and user conduct policies. Are you saying that you are completely aware of all those policies? We you fully conversant of them prior to today's edit war? The Gunny   01:27, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Judging by your talk page here, may I assume you were at least aware of our user conduct edit war policy? That you may not revert a revert? The Gunny   01:34, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

What I'm doing is my job, which I take quite seriously. I'm going to find out answers to all my questions. You'll find that I don't beat around the bush. ever. What I need from you is an answer to my question. The Gunny   01:38, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

{od}Please stop redirecting every question I ask. I'm looking at all the behavior in the dispute. The relevant policy for your behavior is from the user conduct policy, which has been related to you up above on this very talk page:

Your revisions of Paladin's revert violated this policy, a policy that you are expected to be aware of BEFORE you edit. What you are not aware of is that Paladin asked for other admins in the discord, with an all admin ping that no one answered. No one was immediately available to revert and lock the page. Paladin was left no choice but to make the revert himself and lock the page. He DID revert the page to it's prior state. ALL edits from today were reverted. That action was in accordance with policy. As for him doing the revert and the lock:

This is also in policy. The problem here is that no other admin was immediately available. Paladin decided the best course of action was to remove both your and his edits and protect the page so the edit war stopped and policy could be followed on the talk page.

So here's my conclusion: You were both involved in an edit are that went too many revisions. You both were well aware of the policy. The state of the article is in the state I would have left it post war. What is gonna happen is that, with the help of other editors hopefully, everyone will come to consensus on the article talk page and make any subsequent edits after the lock is lifted. You will both be reminded that reverting a revert is against policy. Do not do that again. I will say this plainly: If ANYONE reverts an edit of your, DO NOT replace the edit with another revert. You WILL immediately go to the article talk page, per policy, and work it out. If you edit war again, you will be blocked. The only reason I'm not blocking you now is that you both were involved in the reverts. The Gunny   01:57, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It was me who first reverted Paladin117 and he reverted me. But somehow I'm violating policy even though it actually says you shouldn't undo a revert of your edits. Paladin117 is justified because admins didn't immediately come and lock the article, even though an admin did come barely seconds after he locked it. He also earlier said a version before all edits should be restored, but restored his version instead of the one before I came on the article for the first time. This was before the article was locked and is a clear violation and misdirection. He also uses false reasons of grammar to misdirect and revert me. Of course I'm the one violating. But the guy who actually is doing the violation has done nothing. MatthewOne (talk) 02:23, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Feral Ghouls, Banfield, Theories, Edit Warring and You![]

The edit war between yourself and Paladin117 regarding the biology of ghouls should be settled on the article talk page. The theories regarding ghoul biology present on that page are also just that, theories, and to extrapolate anything more past what is present in the games past what is said is speculative. Part of those theories, of course should also be mentions regarding any present bias or lack of evidence (both present in the case of Banfield's theory, one explicitly by his own admission, the other more implicit based on his voice acting directions and dialogue). Regardless, the discussion needs to be moved to the talk page for the article if a solution is to be reached. Richie9999 (talk) 01:55, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Don't tell me about it. Discuss it on the talk page for the article. Richie9999 (talk) 02:01, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

User Conduct 2 - final warning[]

Hi Matthew,

We need to have a serious chat about how you interact with others.

This isn't just about Mara, although I notice you've ignored my warning to stay away from Mara. Its also about how you've interacted with others, including Gunny, Paladin, Sakaratte and even Jspoelstra.

We see a lot of potential in you. Your work is good, but your attitude is in desperate need of the repair skill. Its only because of the good work you've done you're not banned already., but We can't keep giving you special treatment.

But you're not giving us much of another choice here. This is your final chance. Please be respectiful, and if you have an issue with an edit use the revert skill.

If you can't hold your tongue please jump into our discord and send me a direct message. I'll likely not be able to reply quickly but I will do what I can to help.

Agent c (talk) 22:40, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Maude[]

That's fine, I was looking at it and in the article itself it had no context without a source.

I've just had to go back over the article and fix the reference though, the article was broken because the <ref> tag was poorly formatted, which removed the rest of the article content. It's always best to use the preview function before submitting, in general you will spot problems like that and make calhanges in less edits. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 10:39, June 22, 2018 (UTC)

Power armor[]

Hi Matthew, I know you asked a more personal question earlier (I promise I will respond, I just haven't had enough sleep to form a reasonable answer at present,) however, there is an editorial issue I need to raise.

On the Power armor article, you changed the information regarding the enclaves possition of the ability to produce more to past tense. I see the logic in it and wouldn't consider it a bad edit. Our editing guideline does state that all events from Fallout 1 onwards should generally be written in present tense.

The policy does allow for a bit of wiggle room, however as it is going to be one of a few exceptions and has already been questioned it would be best to take this to discuss this on the talkpage so the community is on the level and there is a record for the future of why it has been made an exception.

I'm going to revert it back pending discussion and we shall see how things fall from there. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 02:22, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

RE: Theories[]

No. I'm not mistaken. The conversation regards the theory as a whole. If the theory should not be included, Paladin's edit is irrelevant. The talk page for the article isn't a place to settle a grudge, or try to play the "I'm right, you're wrong" game. The discussion to unlock this page is to reach a consensus regarding that section, the argument that it should not be included is a valid assertion in that context, so no it does not need to be discussed in a separate section.

Additionally, do not assume that I did not read the talk page post. I read it. I understand what you typed out, and I replied in a manner that I deemed appropriate.

Richie9999 (talk) 06:50, June 24, 2018 (UTC)

I read every edit in the edit war between you and Paladin. I've ready every post you've made to all the bureaucrats' talk pages, I've read every message you've left on the talk page for Feral ghoul. Focus on more than just the dispute you have into the content behind it. If the theory shouldn't be added this whole dispute is irrelevant. So move past the whole Paladin's edit was wrong thing to find out what will ultimately improve the article. Richie9999 (talk) 10:44, June 24, 2018 (UTC)

There is more than one way to skin a cat. To act as though the only way to solve this is for everyone to come together and agree that Paladin is wrong or that you are wrong is both ignorant and incorrect. Look at all options when attempting to solve a dispute, not just the one that solves the dispute the way you want it to be solved. Richie9999 (talk) 10:53, June 24, 2018 (UTC)

West Virginia[]

From what I've seen going up, we have a lot more information about West Virginia than Vault 76 is here and it's green and leafy. We have maps up on the wiki, an idea of further locations etc; a wealth of information we haven't been verbally told.

What I didn't say in my revert (as I have been up for longer than most would be) is what was written wasn't exactly encyclopedic. "It contains Vault 76 and is also home to some hilly and forest regions" could have been written far more professionally than it is.

Could I have done more? Maybe, however, there is a good chance it would have gone missed by others, I was checking a whole barrage of edits and had limited time. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 19:20, June 25, 2018 (UTC)

I've been through my reverts of the last 24 hours and most of them were policy based reasons regarding strategy, notable content, unnecessary information. There has been a couple of reverts where I could have done more, but honestly I'm only going to give so much time to making things fit because I only have so much free time and the level of importance of the content in question. In those cases I will revert and leave a note so others can see that the previous edit didn't quite make the cut and someone else, with a bit more time can look in and see if they make something of what was there before. To you it may be unnecessary, to me it is necessary for overall wiki quality, not just the one article's quality. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 06:33, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

Chat Ban[]

Howdy there, you've been chat banned for 3 days for breaking the following rules: Rule 1 (No Personal attacks, harassment, sexual harassment insults, bullying, or abusive language towards another user) and Rule 5 (Being a dick). You can read the chat rules here. Message an admin or chat moderator in three days to have your ban lifted, and feel free to cool off and read the rules in the meantime. Richie9999 (talk) 02:19, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

As an additional note, as it was brought to my attention: you also posted content relating to private conversations c. 24 hours ago. Considering the other party used their powers to remove the content from Discord and the Discord moderation logs, all I am going to say is we take privacy seriously and any future breeches will result in a ban. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 06:41, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Ban[]

Howdy there. Looks like you took what would have just been a chat issue and made it a wiki issue. You've been banned for 3 days for making personal attacks and slinging insults towards other users as well as for attempting to start up some user conflicts. Feel free to return in 3 days once your ban is up. In the meantime I would suggest reading up on the wiki policies and I mean ALL of the wiki policies cause you seem to be having some trouble following them. We'd hate to lose an editor with potential like you, but your attitude sucks. Richie9999 (talk) 02:22, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

User:Great Mara User:Paladin117 User:Richie9999 Howdy there. If you think the truth is insult. Probably cut down on the narcissism. Upset I "challenged" you? Shit happens. People disagree. Grow up out of wanting to be right and being in control if you can. It's not my attitude it's yours that needs improving. As does your tolerance. You may hate it, but you hate being wrong more. MatthewOne (talk) 02:29, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

Just lost talk page privileges for blanking your talk page. The Gunny   03:10, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

Chat ban[]

Originally you've been chatbanned for 3 days. I'm upping this ban to lifetime after you entered chat as a sockpuppet. ------Cassie I can see you.✿ 07:11, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

Block change[]

Matthew, considering that you were banned for a multitude of things, then returned to vandalise articles and blank your talkpage under the guise of ShimonShoreih, I see no alternative but to enforce the rules around using sock puppets to evade a ban and vandalism. Your 3 day block has now gone to permanent, with the right to appeal after a year. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 07:13, June 26, 2018 (UTC)

last night[]

Matthew,

Your discord private messages last night indicate you seem to hold me responsible for what happened.

I was asleep. I had nothing to do with it.

Until you realise all your problems have one thing in common - and it’s not me, paladin, Mara or anyone else you interacted with - you’re not going to get far.

Good luck in doing whatever comes next for you. Agent c (talk) 08:07, June 26, 2018 (UTC)