User talk:Suki Brits

OH MY GOD YOU'RE REALLY NEALE DAVIDSON!!!! Hooper X 05:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pat Lee
But it IS factual! That's what he wrote on his webpage! --ItsWalky 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy friggin' crazy. --Suki Brits 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are now an Admin
Hi Suki Brits, I've made you and ItsWalky admins for this wiki. I'm glad you can help :) Let me know if there is anything you need help with or can't do.  Please have a look at Wikicities:Help:Administrators' how-to guide for the basics, and let me know if you want more admins added - two should start you off, but you may want more in time.  Thanks again -- sannse (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

...so 'sexy piece of autobot ass' goes, but 'masteurjailbate' stays? -Derik 06:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not. The captions aren't supposed to be serious, and mostly, I can't think of anything to put in there instead. --Suki Brits 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The image caption is also phrased in a way to not sound like it's endorsing pedophilia. Bonus points for that. --M Sipher 06:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ep Template comments
Hi. Thanks for your feedback. The bright colors had fit in better with the design of my personal TF website, which already had more color; thus it didn't stand out as much. But here I can see your point, as the style of this wiki is pretty plain to begin with, such bright colors do stand out, and I can sort of see how they might be distracting. I like the idea of having some color in the table to help as an extra visual identifier of the groups. I have therefore muted the colors. Please check it out and let me know if you find it less distracting now. Telet093 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: "vandalism"
I'm very sorry you consider that editing an entry to reflect a neutral point of view is considered to be vandalism.

My experience with Wikis so far has been that they are information resources, and while I don't object to humour being used in an entry, there is a certain amount of self-indulgent college-humour that diminishes potential of the resource.

That said, I respect that I am a newcomer to the community, and will do my best to insert a fart joke into a suitable entry at the first opportunity, in order to gain editorial approval. :)


 * Thanks for the reply. I think what concerned me with the Grapple article is that the caption that was there was expressing an opinion, *and* wasn't particularly funny.  That being the case, I figured boring but accurate beat lame and indulgent, though it seems we differ on this.


 * Like I say, I have no problem with things that are actually *funny*, but why leave something like this intact? It's restating something that's stated far better further down the page, and isn't actually funny, and has terrible grammar.  When I changed it to something more sensible, it got reverted.  Another example here - this caption could be interpreted as a homosexual slur.  To my mind, things like this *do* interfere with the quality of the articles.  It looks amateurish, and this reflects on how worthwhile the wiki is as a whole.


 * How could "Kneel before my epaulettes" possibly be taken as a homosexual slur? He's a self-important guy in a silly suit.  The 'kneel' part is clearly imperious, not sexual.  And why would kneeling inply homosexulity anyway?  Can't girls kneel before the socialist might of Abdul Fakkadi?  And even if it was- how is Abdul Fakkadi asking someone to serve him sexually a slur?  Do you think any any homosexual act is inherntly degrading, and thus a slur?
 * I mean, christ, get it right. Abdul Fakkadi is offensive to muslims, not gays.


 * Look, here si what we concluded. "The main wikipedia has Transformers articles.  If you can't figure out that orange guy is Grapple without a caption saying 'a picture of Grapple,' you belong there, not here.  Teletraan 1 inherently assumes that you already have a decent-enough familiarity with Transformers to keep up with the way the articles are written.  It's FOR FANS."  And that means it doesn't have to be dry, informative and joyless. -Derik 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "homosexual slur" comment was regarding this caption. Which was more making fun of people who WOULD make that joke, but since the joke had to be made in the process, it's easy to misinterpret. - Jackpot 20:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! I mean... ha.
 * Anyway, he's allowed to say that. -Derik 20:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * True, it doesn't have to be dry, informative and joyless. But neither does it have to be one huge puerile fanboy in-joke. --Sofaman 01:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that this stuff relating to use of humour is kind of spelled out in "Tone and Voice", but are we just giving licence to subjective standards of humour that detract from the quality of the information overall? How much is too much?  Is it only you and ItsWalky who decide?  Is this the best place to discuss this?  I really want to make a useful contribution to this wiki, and I'm happy to be advised on how to do that, but I need to feel that differences of interpretation and presentation are going to be respected, which is really about the only way that wikis can work. --Sofaman 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "He blowed up real good", I believe, is perfectly fine to have in the bio of a hi-then-die character, even if it restates it in the fiction section. Of course, that's largely my history in newspaper journalism talking, where all the important information is included in the first paragraph and then everything is elaborated in further paragraphs.  This way, someone can get an idea of the most important attributes of the character without having to read the entire page.  With this in mind, it's perfectly fine to mention that the character only shows up to die in his profile.  --ItsWalky 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding a broad topic
Hi there,

I was wondering if, as an admin, you could please advise me on something? How can I go about fielding a question/suggestion for general discussion in a more systemic way than just on individual talk pages? It's just that I have a differing perspective on the way that this wikia designates certain continuity issues, and it's something that effects many entries. Naturally I don't want to go around unilaterally changing things to reflect my point of view, but I can't see any more general forum to discuss this. On Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki, they have a page they call the Senate Hall where people can discuss general topics concerning the site. Is there any way we could do something similar here? Failing that, how would you advise me to go about raising my issues for borader discussion?

To just give you an idea of what I'm talking about: I approve of the way that the site views the various different continuity families as taking place in alternative realities (obviously), however, I find the consistant use of phrasing which treats the Optimus Prime (and Megatron) character in different continuities as wholly different people poblematic. I view Optimus Prime in G1, RID and the Unicron Trilogy (for example) as being alternate reality versions of the same character, rather than wholly different characters with the same name and very similar personalities, which seems to be the way this site treats them. Although there is some argument to be made that this is the case in Japan where Convoy, Fire Convoy and Galaxy Convoy are not neccessarily alts of the same person (especially given the proliferation of Prime-lookalike convoys in the BWII & BWNeo), I think that American fictions consistently portray them as being different versions of the same individual, ala the common device of different versions of the same person in alternate universes as used in sundry sci-fi. Now granted most other instances of name-reuse (particularly in the Unicron Trilogy) give no indication of implying that, say, Armada Cyclonus is in any way and alternate version of G1 Cyclonus, but I think that with Prime and Megs this is clearly different.

On a similar note, I disagree with the inclusion of IDW's "neo-G1" continuity being included in the pages relating to other G1 characters. Although clearly very closely based on G1, the IDWverse is extremely different from any prior incarnation of G1, and is certainly far more different from any prior version than any of the orginal G1 fictions (or even Dreamwave for that matter) differed from each other, if you follow my drift. The entire war/premise/scenario is radically different and most characters have different altmodes and/or transformation schemes. If the forthcoming live-action movie is being considered adequately different from G1 to be considered outside of the G1 continuity family, then I would argue that the IDWverse should be as well.

...Anyway, that gives you an idea of what I want to discuss. ;-) Can you please advise me how I could most effectively air these issues to the wider usership?

Thanks, PacifistPrime.

Central Discussion Area

 * Thanks for that to you and Steve-o. We've got a small trickle of discussion on my topic happening over there now. I invite you to join in. Thanks, PacifistPrime.

Blackarachnia 'vandalism'
ENOUGH with the accusations of vandalism, alright? I'm a member of Ben Yee's Transformers board, and there was a discussion on BA's telekinesis in relation to her mind link with Tarantulas. Pretty much everyone on there agreed that the theory is viable (the thread has subsequently been deleted for a while, but I'm sure I can find it in the archives). I'm honestly shocked at how staunchly you guys are REFUSING to even consider it; all the evidence is right there clear as crystal in the cartoon. BA and Tarantulas shared a mind link with each other that lasted four episodes. The mind link went both ways and was forced on BA until it was terminated equally as forcefully in Tangled Web. BA retained, at the very least, a great deal of Tarantulas' memories after the link was severed. The link was so powerful, that Tarantulas felt the pain BA experienced from energon radiation when she threatened suicide, and would've destroyed them both through the link had she made good on her threat. The link was confirmed in dialogue to be psychic in nature, which is why Megatron didn't detect any communications transmissions when they used the link to communicate. And, miraculously, after she became TM2, BA gained telekinesis. Oh, and at no point is it stated that the TM2 process granted a Transformer new abilities besides enhancing their existing powers and granting them spark-powered healing abilities. Hence, BA's telekinesis must've come from somewhere, and her former mind link with Tarantulas makes the most sense. If you want to talk about 'wild rumors', there's a thread on Ben Yee's boards on how Tarantulas initiated the link, with the most common theory that he 'downloaded' himself into her mind, which coincidentally further establishes the "BA's telekinesis was her mind link with Tarantulas upgraded" theory.66.233.183.59 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * right, and all of the other theories and speculation remaining on the other wiki pages on this site are more substantiated. Please. Not only are many of them far fetched, but they don't even have one reference of evidence to support them. Watch Beast Wars again, and it's clear that this theory is implied in-show, if not stated directly. Seriously, I'm really starting to wonder if you guys even watch the shows, considering how little you seem to know about them.66.233.183.59 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

CSS change
Hello Suiki, I'm requesting a change to the sitewide CSS file. I've tested these changes locally and everything seems to be working fine. Additionally- these changes are fully namespaced (which is to say they cannot cause accidental problems with other layout elements.)

Please edit the page at MediaWiki:Monobook.css, and replace everything after /* Teletran-1 specicic bits */ with the full contents of the CSS talk page.

This update consists of the new styles for the tobedeleted template (now merged with the old markup for the cleanup template) as well as some Wikimedia-standard table styles.-Derik 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Suki Brits 00:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll work on the actual template text to put it more in line with your wishes. -Derik 00:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

CSS change 2
Adding the the requested Template:Merge, the actual text of the template is subject tt change, but the CSS is finalized for the requested image.

Can you please replace everything in MediaWiki:Monobook.css between /* Teletran-1 specicic bits */ and /* wikitable/prettytable class for skinning normal tables */ with the contents of the discussion page: MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.css? (For the future, is it easier to do this in parts like this, or should I put the entire modified monobook css in the discussion page for a simple cut-and-paste?)

This also includes a general-purpose 'tt1_nowrap' class, since Steve-o was looking for a way to do that a month or so back. -Derik 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

CSS change 3
NN. Think this is the last of the requested templates. Could you please replace the parts between /* Teletran-1 specicic bits */ and .tt1_nowrap with the contents of the discussion page?

I'd put in links but- seriously, look up one paragraph. ;-) -Derik 01:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! --Suki Brits 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

CSS change 4
Replace between /* Teletran-1 specicic bits */ and .tt1_nowrap with the contents of the discussion page?

Spoiler template someone suggested aeons ago, tough less obtrusive than the others. (I really hope this is the last one.) -Derik 01:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Suki Brits 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Help please!
Hello there, I'm hoping you can help me out, please. For some reason which is quite beyond my understanding, It'sWalky has blocked me from Teletraan 1 (Re: Block ID is #49). The stated reason is "vandalism", which is patently absurd. Although I have strived to be polite at all times, he has made more thanone hostile comments towards me over recent months and I must protest that this current block is thoroughly unreasonable. If the action which he is referring to as so-called "vandalism" is the incident I THINK he means, then I respecfully suggest that he is grossly overstepping his authority and quite possibly just has something against me personally, although heaven knows why...

All I have done was post a very SHORT, admittedly somewhat gratuitous comment on TWO Movie-related pages regarding my opinion (which went against a consensus of a small number of users in a Community Portal discussion) of Teletraan 1's odd categorisation of the IDW comic continuity as part of the larger G1 continuity while contradictorily excluding the new G1-inspired film. My felt that they should either both be included under the G1 continuity umberella, or neither.

But regardless, I'm not here to argue my point; the comments were removed by another user and I'm happy to leave it there, so as far as I'm concerned that should have been the end of it. My remarks certainly were not in ANY way obscene, abusive, or in offensive by any possible standard. How this can be considered "vandalism" is very mysterious to me. Perhaps if we were on Wikipedia or Wookieepedia and dealing with their very strict rules about personal opinion, but this site is rife with sarcastic, POV, wry and humorous content. Jam-packed full, actually. I mean, for goodness sake; if anyone's concerned about potentially ojectionable material, then I'd hate to be a Japanese person reading this wiki given all the jibes made at their expense. One of the things I've come to LOVE about this wiki is its sense of humour and creative, organic style. To call my minor snarkiness "vandalism" seems totally at odds with the mood of Teletraan 1, in my honest opinion.

I reiterate that I feel that this block is thoroughly unreasonable and I believe is some kind of gross overraction and/or personal grudge on the part of It'sWalky, although I can't for the life of me understand how I could have managed to provoke such apparent emnity.

Can you please help me out?

Thanks, PacifistPrime
 * "All I have done is post a... gratuitous comment on TWO Movie-related pages regarding my opinion (which went against a consensus... of users in a Community Portal discussion)." I think that pretty much covers it. There was a consensus. You blatantly defied the consensus on the grounds that you disagreed with the ruling. That's vandalism. End of story. Right? Awa64 00:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There was consensus to leave it be. But not consensus on the issue itself. I think the movie belongs in the Generation 1 continuity family.  IIRC so does Steve-o, and he's the most logical guy on the wiki.  However- there's really not enough to say for sure one way or the other.
 * Now, I think as sequels and more tie-ins pileup, the movieverse will become more and more G1-like to the point the argument will resolve itself in our favor. Less a consensus than dente, "hold waiting further evidence."
 * Of course, PacifistPrime wasn't around last time we went five rounds on the issue, so the subtlties of the 'both sides give up without having convinced the other' situation may have escaped him.
 * That said Paci, it's bad form to go running to the other site admin before Walky even has a chance to reply. You don't even knwo what Walky banned you for, how is Suki supposed to pass judgement on whether or nto to override his fellow admin?  Wait until Walky replies to clarify his reasoning, then disagree with him.
 * It's polite to assume Walky's acting from a reasoned standpoint at least until you can prove it's his uterus making him crazy. -Derik 00:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Derik, I DID wait a few days for Walky to reply, and he's just ignored my email. PacifistPrime
 * Mistake #1. Derik does not have due respect. -Derik 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reposted the content of the email on his talk page in the hopes that will get a response, but it hasn't so far. Given that I've now been blocked for something on the order of a week or possibly more, I think it's hardly unreasonable for me to take this up with another admin, surely? And if you want to talk about what's "polite", I think it would hardly have been too much to ask for Walky to have at least put some kind of short note on my talk page explaining his overzealous block, don't you think?


 * Oh, and Awa, are you seriously telling me that "defying" the consensus of a small group of users with two SMALL comments (that I obviously knew would just get deleted straight away anyway) constitutes "vandalism"? Worthy of getting blocked over? For real?
 * PacifistPrime
 * I received no such email from you. And yell all you want on the talk pages.  That's what they're for.  Evidence may eventually shift your way!  But, in the meantime, dumping your vitrolic grievances on the articles themselves is unacceptable.  --ItsWalky 01:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paci... Paci... Paci... I gave you a perfectly good excuse of not having been part of the discussion last time and misunderstanding the consensus to hide behind... and you throw it all away.
 * And for the rest- don't post something in the main article you know is going to be deleted without logging out first, post something that encourages your opponents, however grudgingly, to include that perspective in the article even if they rewrite your words. That's part of carrying on a conversation, creating truth through consensus.  Anything else... is just throwing feces.
 * Also, if you really want to get Walky's attention, hit him on his blog, not via e-mail. He allows anonymous posting! -Derik 01:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

...! I'm baffled.

So now I'm being accused of "vitriolic grievances", "throwing feces" and "yelling".

What utter rubbish.

I have been polite at every turn, and the very WORST I can reasonably be accused of is sarcasm (in one isolated indicent, on the aforementioned two comments on movie pages, ONLY), something which hardly seems a foreign concept to this wiki.

Walky, I sent you an email the only way I knew how: I used the "email this user" button and clicked send. I got the sender's carbon copy just fine, so I can't explain why you didn't recieve it too. If I used the system incorrectly then I apologise, but I had no reason to believe that it hadn't worked. Oh, and Derik, if your comment "if you really want to get Walky's attention, hit him on his blog, not via e-mail.  He allows anonymous posting" is intentded to be some kind of oblique suggestion that I have an interest in harassing Walky; pleeease! I have much better things to do with my time, for goodness sakes. And as I've explained to Walky in the past; I have zero interest whatsoever in blogs.

I am still amazed that any of this is considered reasonable grounds to actually BLOCK me. Do you guys have a "0.5 Strikes & yer out!" policy or something? Considering all the casual rudeness that goes around on the talk pages here, I find it hard to believe that my treatment reflects standard policy. Or do you treat everyone like this?

Could someone PLEASE do me the simple courtesy of giving me a reasonable explanation why I deserve to be blocked? And its that it? As far as I can tell my block is permanent. Is this so?

I am NOT a troublemaker, even though you seem to have already tried and convicted me as such. All I want to do is be a part of this wiki, make small contributions, start the occasional article and have polite, rational discussions. Am I really to be banned for using a little sarcasm...?

PacifistPrime.

P.S. Given that I addressed all of this to SukiBrits in the first place, I'd really appreciate it if Suki would weigh in at some point too, please. I'd really like to resolve this tiresome matter ASAP.


 * Could someone PLEASE do me the simple courtesy of giving me a reasonable explanation why I deserve to be blocked? You were blocked for intentionally, blatantly defying the consensus of a protracted discussion which you instigated and in which you were the only person advocating your position.  It was extremely un-gentlemanly, and moderately pissy.  Based on what you've written in the last couple days, I can accept that you were just "lashing out" and didn't really expect your comments to stay in the articles, but personally I still consider that to be disrespectful.  You shouldn't make an edit which you know/expect will be reverted.  I thought the 3-month duration on your block was excessive (and it's now been reduced), but I don't think being blocked in the first place, temporarily, is beyond reason for something like that.  --Steve-o 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Other users, including the admin who banned you in the first place, have already weighed in on why you were banned. I was not responsible for doing it, so frankly, anything further I have to say on the subject would just be repeating the same. I think it's perfectly clear as it is.

I was going to post something about how I'd stick up for you if you actually gave me good reason to, but as it is, the terms of your ban have been changed to something shorter. As it is, you're back in a week. If I were you, I'd sit back and ask myself if it's really worth fighting over that.

So there's your second chance. If you come back in a week and respect what your fellow editors have told you not to do, you'll be fine. And if there really is something unfair, I'll listen and advocate for you. But I would keep in mind that you're on thin ice as it is, and playing this victim crap isn't going to help you out much. --Suki Brits 23:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He was whiny about it too. It's not like his approach was "seriously guys, this seems excessive and can I talk about it and demonstrate that your impression of my maturity was incorrect," it was really more "Noo!  this is so unfair!  Why me?  You all suck and I shouldn't be held accountable for my actions b'cause I knew someone else was going to clean up my slop!"
 * It's probably fortunate that the original penalty was (accidentally?) excessive-- because opening the floor for a reassessment of penalties based on conduct you do not dispute and then acting like a whiny bitch practically begs for an admin to make it longer.
 * (Why yes, i was arguing in his favor earlier! I like to cause trouble like that.) -Derik 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, great: so now I'm a "whiny bitch" who's playing "victim crap", apparently.


 * Charming! My goodness me, you people really are a hostile bunch aren't you?


 * So, let me get this straight; FFN can rag on my ass every other week simply because he disagrees with me, but If I DARE to protest that I have been unreasonably treated over a sarcastic misdemeanor, then I'm a goddamn deviant leper, right? Unbelieveable...


 * Okay, YES, I did a bad thing. I admit it was uncalled for, defying the consensus of, oh, about five people? Given the wide, nay EXTENSIVE use of sarcasm and fecetious comments all over this wiki I honestly didn't think it would be such a damn big deal. But okay, whatever. It was wrong, fair enough. MY BAD. All I have done since is POLITELY protest my treatment over this matter and all I've got in return is mockery, name-calling and outright hostility. I mean, seriously...! Talk about disproportionate reactions at every turn.


 * PacifistPrime.


 * Sir, I would hardly call your behavior at this point "polite". I thought Suki's comment was a little much at this point because the matter had been resolved.  I asked her to say something because you'd asked, but I didn't know what all she had to say.


 * Regardless, though, please cease the hostilities? Play the better man and ignore what may be said to you at this point.  In only a week you'll be able to edit and work again, and then you can prove your worth that way. --Sntint 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, so now I'M the one being hostile? How do you figure? Have I called anyone names like "whiny bitch"? No, that would be YOU guys. Have I accused other people of being "pissy" and "throwing feces"? Nup, that'd be you lot too.


 * But of course, if I have the sheer audacity to stand up for myself, well that just can't possibly be polite, I take it...


 * What a terrible, terrible person I must be. Next time I'll know to just shut up and take the abuse gratefully, since that's obviously all you folks will tolerate. PacifistPrime.
 * "Mew mew mew mew mew mew mew!"
 * Not once have you apologized for or even acknowledged that you should be held culpable for defacing an article. You remand restitution while sneering that you should not have been punished in the first place.  You throw a tantrum when someone, such as myself, tells you "Gee, while it may be true your punishment was excessive, you're acting like a whiny brat which makes me have no sympathy for you."  I'm not calling for you to be re-banned- I'm pointing out a defect in your behavior I really wish you would fix in the future.
 * Are you sure you don't want to change your user name to PassiveAgressivePrime?
 * I don't really care what your original offense was, because you're being a colossal asshole right here, right now. It's a bad idea to go around pissing people off while appealing a punishment.  Just- in general.  I started out basically on your side and you have none-too-gradually dis-endeared yourself of me.
 * Please amend your stricken holier-than-thou attitude in the future. It's really annoying, and it's not at all conducive to an actual discussion of what you did or didn't do and what punishment is appropriate.  It makes me want to shut you up by squashing you.
 * And I'm the unhealthily detached one. I can't imagine what it makes someone who thinks with his woman-parts like Walky want to do. -Derik 05:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting how I'm apparently the "colossal asshole" when it's you guys who are actually doing all the insult-hurling and name-calling. I haven't made one personal comment in this whole affair. Funny, that...

Oh, and for ther record, I HAVE apologised. More than once, actually. Get your facts straight, please.

But "PassiveAgressivePrime" is GOLD, by the way. I'd definitely declare that a genius call if it weren't such a laughable assertion.

Anyway, I've got much better things to do that take this abuse any longer. Think what you will.

Later, PacifistPrime.