User talk:Max Sinister

Permanently, too, for multiple violations of item 1 of our Terms of Service. We do hope you enjoyed your futile efforts to browbeat and insult an entire website into doing what you want, and trust that your failure to intimidate the usership and moderation staff to any significant degree did not prove too distressing. We wish you luck in finding another site which will not find your behavior as obnoxious and offensive as we did.

As noted below, per wiki policy, your single outstanding edit in the moderation queue has been rejected, sight unseen.

@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

Because of repeated violations of Term #1 of the Terms of Service, the user has been banned from this wiki, too.

So I might try again here, on two, maybe three conditions:

• I want to make a page for my Alternate History, "How many Sixes does Adolf Nazi have to Roll?"
• I'd like to rant a bit how I got banned. Just once. Doesn't have to be here.
• I'd also like to rant about German culture bureaucracy and the big troubles a good friend of mine had with them.

"Conditions"? (raises one eyebrow)

If your AU has been published (that includes being posted on the web), then it's good for a page here. One thing that we suggest (not require, just suggest) is that you put {{DOTA}} at the top of the page, after the {{work}} header, so that other people know that you wrote the first draft of the page that talks about your work. That tag is also an invitation for other people to read the work.

Rants... are off-topic for the mainspace, but I don't care what you put onto your own User page as long as you don't get us in any legal trouble... and it would take a lot for a rant to do that.

Oh, and here are a few links that you might want to read:

• All The Tropes:Style Guide - what we do differently from TVT when editing, and what we do the same way.
• All The Tropes:The Troper's Code - the core rules here.
• All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here - and what you cannot be banned for.

If you have any questions about ATT, feel free to ask either here or on the Forums.

--robkelk, admin

Oh, yes - if you made a Work page for your AU on TVT and they nuked it, then you can put [[Category:Banned On TV Tropes]] at the end of the Work page here.

Yes, we keep a list.

Hi Rob,

I have no problem with leaving "How Many Sixes..." in my User namespace. Currently, most of the story's still unwritten (it's about WW2, and the Germans haven't even taken Paris yet), and I only published about two chapters on the web, and those were login-only. OTOH I made >100 pages on the AltHistory Wikia which anyone can read. Don't know whether that counts.

Now my most important question is: If I have 13 edits (as the wiki software says), why does it still say that I "need at least 10 edits" if I want to edit my User page etc.?

Edits counted by the engine count ALL edits, including talk pages. Edits for the user page only count edits to main space (like actual content pages). Make enough content page edits to bust yourself over the edit count hump and you can edit your user page. This limit is in place to thwart spam generally, as they always try to make their user pages a spam hive.

Yes, I can imagine that. Minor edits also don't count?

I read your User Guides meanwhile, BTW.

Didn't you import all pages from TV Tropes? Because I'm missing some which I made there: Gerhard Seyfried, Illusive Tracks, JBO, Karl Valentin, Muttertag...

We imported some pages from TV Tropes. Pages created after June 2012 are off-limits because of license issues.

I don't know whether minor edits count. (Probably not... but don't quote me on that.)

OK, could be that I made them afterwards. But if they're mine, importing them should be A-OK, shouldn't it?

Should be, as long as they're just your work. Just tell us in the edit summary that they are 100% your own work.

No problem about that.

BTW: I could've chosen to join Tropedia instead, but didn't. Why? In your case, I believe you're idealists re: Free Speech. But if "works" like Boku no Pico are even featured on Tropedia... that's not the environment I want to stay.

I wouldn't blame them for the last part. That's an automatic feature of their wiki engine that goes by most viewed pages. Doesn't discriminate between bots, lurkers, or contributors.

Very probably. Well, I wouldn't be happy among rabid fans of... those animes.

I wouldn't be happy among rabid fans of... those animes

Making a lot of assumptions, I think. I don't remotely care for it either, but let's not leap to unkind conclusions.

As said, I believe you that you leave these pages here because you're pro-free speech, not for bad reasons. And you don't profit from it either.

Still somewhat uncomfortable. I would prefer if these pages weren't accessible by everyone and their five-year-old sister.

Hmm. We have MediaWiki here, unlike TV Tropes, don't we? Couldn't we introduce a new namespace - let's call it "NSFW" or so - and restrict read access to logged-in users, or those in a new group (which we might call "adult users") even?

Now that'd be a feature our big competition doesn't have!

Not now, no, but that pretty much describes the TVT administration's response to the first Google incident -- put all the Google-unfriendly content behind a wall that only verified members could pass. So, really, we'd just be copying their first method of dealing with a problem we don't have for the sole reason of implementing a level of censorship we've made a point of promising we'd never impose, in order to "fix" something that isn't broken. Sounds like a whole lot of work for absolutely no gain to me.

Beyond that, well, Geth's already covered the reasoning behind our stance.

Now I see why you don't want it. Too bad. Do you want to stay absolutely strict about uncensored media, even if it may cost us many potential tropers who don't want pedoshit in their troping wiki?

Lovely, you are the not the first person we heard this argument from, you will NOT be the last.

As I said, we have rules in place to let people discuss media that is legal to view, no matter how glorious or depraved, so long as it is not formally banned by law. And, as I said, we will NOT ban the legal discussion of anything unless we are legally required.

As to the topic of your point, we already comply with the legal ban on child pornography (as in, involving real-world children or explicitly based on the same) because it's mere existence is a crime in and of itself, and on top of having a legal and moral revulsion of it, we cannot legally discuss any media with that in it without committing crimes ourselves.

Anything else that falls outside this definition, we will default to the LAW, not kneejerk emotion on. If any media we cover later becomes illegal to discuss by law, we will take appropriate action to comply if and when that becomes applicable, but being morally distasteful while still remaining legal alone is not grounds to cut something under law. As for our site policy, we agreed to no censorship otherwise unless it fails to have anything to do with our mission of troping works of media and discussing the tropes they use.

We are not going to be swayed by any arguments to ban anything based on religion, politics, or social pressure from any group simply because they do not like the mere legal discussion of it, they better give us an ironclad legal reason backed by appropriate law.

So, now that our cards are on the table, please decide whether you wish to understand and comply or not. If the latter, you are free to leave at any time without prejudice by us. If you can accept this, then that is fine by us as well.

We are like Wikipedia in that regard. We do not allow graphic imagery (we use the safest possible image need to illustrate NSFW media), and we have a rule of iron to keep all content as objective as possible, and we clamp down hard on people writing with one hand, if you get my drift.

Our goal is objective information. We do not censor beyond what is required by law, but we also do not include more detail than is absolutely necessary to describe the work. Besides, sexual media is part of the human condition, and thus we will trope it if is tropable, but we will not go into any more description about it than we absolutely have to.

It's like how textbooks and public museums have depictions of classical art showing human nudity and sexuality, like the works of the Renaissance. Our purpose is neither to endorse nor condemn, merely explain.

Come on! There's certainly a difference between vanilla sexuality, or gaysexuality (Inside Joke from AlternateHistory.com) on one hand, and pedoshit on the other!

Let me be even more blunt, and I speak with my mod hat on.

We are not here to make moral judgments, we are here to give objective fact, and whatever the morality of the works we discuss is, objective truth should make that plain without us having to let our bias leak into it. Again, we do not condemn or endorse anything as a conscious goal, at most our troping and discussion does is better understand the competence of the narratives discussed and their use of tropes, we reserve moral judgment for other venues.

If you edit here for any reason, you are under the same rules as the rest of us, and that is to keep your personal animus or desire to defend whatever media you may despise or adore from compromising objective discussion of the facts of works and the tropes they use. If you are here to be on any form of moral crusade, then go elsewhere.

For the record, I'm a devout Christian off this site. I write for ChristCenteredGamer, a gaming/general review site, where I AM allowed to make moral judgments in certain parts of my reviews, because that site DOES allow me to do so due to it's Christian oriented focus. All The Tropes strives, insofar as we can under legal obligation, to be neutral on politics, ethics, religions, and morality, if only so we can give fact about what we discuss without bias, we will leave that to other venues where such bias is allowed by their guidelines.

Much like my personal morality is not allowed to compromise my objectivity, and I'm an admin (though that gives me no shield against the rules, I can be punished too), the same is expected of you as a troper here.

Either you will comply as we request or we politely request you leave. End of discussion.

I was never on TV Tropes, where I understand this term comes from. Please define "pedoshit".

"Something we want to delete regardless of the actual legality of its content, because we don't like it."

Using Fast Eddie's Abomination Accusation Attack neologism for content that Squicked him and/or threatened his profit margins isn't going to win you any friends here.

Ah.

Not a reason to delete anything, then. Unless we;re going to delete every single YMMV Trope.

None at all. "Pedoshit" was a word deliberately crafted to sound like a valid reason to delete anything they labeled with it, as well as inflaming supportive moral outrage in the hard-of-thinking who would simply accept their word on it and wouldn't bother looking to see if it was indeed illegal. For Maxie here to wander in off the street and assume that Fast Eddie and his bootlickers were actually telling the truth about our content and motives isn't too surprising -- it did take an entire regime change and an order from the new owners for the mods at TVT to stop spreading the story that we were plagiarists who focused on salacious material to the exclusion of anything else. (Hell, it still took years after that before Fighteer reluctantly admitted it in public, and even then he hedged as best he could.) "Pedoshit" is, like "RINO" and "counter-revolutionary", semantically null while emotionally overloaded, designed to evoke an mindless emotional response that serves the user's agenda.

Still, it makes me wonder about Maxie's actual motives in coming here. If he's so convinced we have child porn without bothering to actually look, why did he make an account in the first place?

I think it might be best to let Max at least explain himself in his own terms.

I disagree with what he's proposing much like you all do, though probably for slightly different reasons, and I can't tell you how to do your jobs nor will I - and this clearly treads familiar ground for you all, which I'm acquainted enough with even if I wasn't there for it firsthand (which is why I'm phrasing this so carefully) - but I still think we can all come to an accord of sorts with the temperature turned down just a bit.

Yes, Fighteer and Fast Eddie can be big assholes. Doesn't mean absolutely everything they ever said and did was wrong.

And at least some of the works they censored were bad enough to not just be called pedoshit but worse. It's not just what they depict, it's that they have the gall to claim that it was the kids who were seducing the pedos! Y'know, if such a lie isn't as bad as committing the actual crime, then it's certainly coming uncomfortably close.

There is a reason even hardened criminals look down on pedos.(Fun fact: The Italian mafia doesn't accept pedos in their rows. Source: John Dickie, "Cosa Nostra".) Because frankly, why shouldn't they look down on them? Pedos aren't just evil, they're also, as it seems, too cowardly/weak/dumb to overwhelm/trick adults. Yeah, not just evil, but bad (as in, incompetent) as well.

I'm not interested in rumors spread by QAnon and such, but unfortunately there are more than enough prominent artists (MZB comes to my mind) who were criminal pedos, and other authors who were way to lenient on pedosexuality, treating it as if it was a mild fetish on the level of having a thing for redheads.

And I've had it. If someone told me "But the nobel prize winners Andre G. and Roger P. were pedosexuals as well", that'd rather make me think that we should think twice whom we call "great authors" than conceding that pedos were A-OK.

Do you get now why I don't like it if you have the "Unholy Trinity" in plain view on your wiki?

Don't tell me it was oh so hard to solve this problem with wiki software. I've checked it, one extension would suffice.

Why do you make "free speech for pedos" a hill to die on, of all things?

Why do you even call it "censorship" if I'm asking to give users (not some government or so!) the choice whether they want to look at pedoshit or not?

I gave you the benefit of doubt when I came here. I never called any of you guys "rabid fans of pedoshit", I just said I wouldn't like it in general if I was among those. Did I make a mistake with that?

Let's be clear on something. Our position is one of moral neutrality, so long as it's not illegal by it's very nature to discuss the content due to the mere fact of it's existence.

For example, absent any moral position on the subject, live-action child pornography or even animated versions explicitly based on real children are completely off the table to discuss for obvious legal reasons.

That involving completely fictional children, well, I won't lie, I share your moral revulsion to such like I would the IRL version. That said, discussing it is not, formally speaking, illegal under the law, though viewing may be depending on location. And fact of the matter is, it exists.

Edit: This wiki defaults to the law in force based on our current server hosting, so all comments should be taken to be based on that, insofar as I am aware as a legal layman.

Just to use your given example, Boku no Pico, it would definitely be IRL child porn if it was live action and/or depicted children known to exist in the real world. It's mere existence is vile enough from a moral standpoint (and I speak based on my own personal knowledge of the media in question only), but we strive to keep our moral opinions in check and simply give objective information, and as stated before, that includes strict rules against bashing something and being overly defensive, we simply want to state what the work is, without losing our objectivity.

I don't know if you are aware of the works of the Marquis de Sade (the man who gave his name to Sadism), but they are morally vile in every sense and that was the point, by his own admission. However, I'm not going to shutter discussion of his work because, much like your example, academic discussion of it's content does not break the law, and so long as it's legal, we will NOT ban discussion of such content until such time as it is illegal.

As for using a technological solution to gate certain content, we have no interest nor desire to do so. Our position has always been transparency of our discussions and aside from certain administrative actions that must remain secret for the legal protection of others (such as reporting certain legal offenses in cooperation with proper laws regarding confidentially of certain information related to various crimes), we believe our content should be public access as it is our desire to entertain and inform.

If you find certain content morally repugnant, then you can do as we do, and simply not concern yourself with it and work on less offensive material that you find more palatable to your interests. Besides, if something is truly vile, the objective truth will make that plain without us playing intellectual and moral hall monitor.

Again, on this topic, we are not budging. We as individuals have our own likes and dislikes and you are entitled to retain them. That said, just because you may not like some of the content we cover, well, we are like a public library, you are not allowed to deface any of the books you don't approve of no matter how indignant you may feel. If you can edit our content, on whatever topic, with a cool head and a willingness to tolerate or at least ignore discussion of what offends you, we welcome further contributions. If not, we ask you politely depart with all due haste, we will not hold that against you should you do so.

MOD: I agree with @GethN7 here. Although I'll point out that depictions of child pornography are exactly as illegal in Canada as are photographs of child pornography.

One of the fundamental points of free speech is that if it's free, then people get to say things you don't like. Once you put limits (above and beyond those required by law) on what is acceptable speech, then it is no longer free speech -- it becomes "speech of which I approve -- and only speech of which I approve". Which is what happened at TV Tropes, to the point that the mods routinely deleted any user comments they didn't want to hear -- or have other users see.

It's a strange and worrisome preoccupation you have, that you think our stand on free speech and intellectual freedom is made exclusively for the benefit of pedophiles. One would think you have an ulterior motive for coming here and then fixating unwaveringly on the topic.

Free Speech? OK, let's talk about Free Speech.

I want as much of it, as is possible while avoiding making info about the Unholy Trinity publicly available. That's why I suggested some measure which allows users to get this info - *if they have agreed to it, and only then*. Because I don't think it's censorship if you decide for yourself which stuff you want to look at. And Trigger Warnings are a clumsy measure at best, I hope we agree on that.

Keep in mind: The freedom of your fist ends where the freedom of my nose begins. Shouldn't that apply to texts as well?

In the past (damn, at least ten years ago), I used to trope without even being aware that such shit existed. you know it, TV Tropes is a very big wiki.

But now I can't ignore it anymore.

You can tell me as much as you want that (allegedly) no real kids were hurt making these hentai - it's still pedo-apologist, and if that's not just as bad, it's getting uncomfortably close.

I don't like to admit that FEddie and Fighteer did something right, and they handled it in a clumsy way too (Nabokov's Lolita?!), but getting rid of *these* pages wasn't actually wrong, all in all.

Note: I've never said you were rabid fans of pedoshit, just that I wouldn't like being in a wiki community with them. That applies especially so to a small wiki like your one. And I can believe that's it's about the Free Speech, not something very bad.

Now it's your turn again. Don't disappoint me.

Let's make one last thing clear. Your ideological and moral position is noted. If you wanted to be the slightest bit civil about it, then we'd be happy to continue entertaining you. Thing is, you made it clear you are not here to be constructive, you simply want to make demands, insult our morals and decency, and generally just be disruptive. We do have official channels for changing policy, which you made clear you don't wish to do, instead you prefer demands and insults. Any possible block we might implement will be put in place merely to give you time to chill and possibly come back later, if you wish, to either contribute in a constructive manner or continue this discussion in a manner that is less disruptive.

Since I do not unilaterally make policy, though, keep in mind the above is my position only, I'm going to step back and allow the other admins to consider this and take action as they deem appropriate.

Insults? I've been brash admittedly, because I don't want to have to be polite if talking about pedos and pedoshit, but I didn't call you names - unless someone of you identified as a pedo, of course. (I hope not!) Say what you want, but don't lie.

Fair point. At the same time, you've made a lot of demands we change fundamental rules we agreed on since day one simply because you object to the mere discussion of content you find offensive.

Resistance to such censorship outside ironclad legal reason to do so is a sine qua non of our site policy, and simply on the grounds of being morally vile we do not believe in engaging in damnatio memoriae.

And I speak for myself here only, but the implication our refusal to do is somehow condoning content you cannot abide does strike me as personally offensive. Further, both in my official role and on personal grounds I have always opposed censorship, a feeling which my fellow admins share for their own reasons, so I ask your forgiveness if I've taken it overly personal and lashed out, for that you do have my apologies.

I never said explicitly I don't want to use your official channels, I just don't see the point in a wiki where most edits, let alone decisions are done by a handful of people. No bureaucracy fan here.

Edit: Now if your forum worked... maybe later.

Most edits aren't actually - only the more major changes necessitate a consensus, and that's of editors rather than just the adminship, though of course administrator input is gonna be hard-required for something like changing or adding rules.

Finally for now: I'd like to have some troping wiki now that I'm banned over there. And for that, I'd be willing to add good content (I have many ideas for pages which I didn' realize at TV Tropes), brainstorm with people about the purpose of troping, and offer my experiences from being an admin at a big wiki community.

Unless of course, y'know, the pedoshit thing.

And as I've told Fighteer: Don't treat me like a fricking n00b.

As I post this, you've been participating here for three weeks. Any admin at any big wiki community would tell you that that's nowhere near long enough to establish your credentials, unless you go out of your way to call attention to yourself.

Also, you haven't been posting anything except in this thread. If while you were complaining that our policies aren't up to your moral standards you were actually, you know, contributing to the wiki, we might have more than those complaints to evaluate you with.

I may not have done many edits here, directly, but in the past I created some dozen pages there, which you imported. Somewhere on this page is a link to my archived troper page, in case you want to check what I've done and what I'm thinking about doing, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Because I'd be willing to edit more... if we could find an agreement about the pedoshit.

But as it seems, you aren't interested in what I've troped, you just don't like that I'm bashing the pedos, and that's why anything else coming from me seems to count for jack. I don't like that.

Finally: It's somehow suspicious that even after about ten years, there's just a handful of people working actively on your wiki. Despite the fact of you having the better technology and being nicer than FEddie and Fighteer. This smells, even if nothing else, of incompetence re: community building.

I've given you a chance. You've failed it. And as for ATT, I don't see a future for it. Bye.

you just don't like that I'm bashing

This is the part that has been causing most of the problems here, because it's a direct violation of one of the core policies of this site.

Your refusal to stop calling people who you disagree with "pedos" has earned you a place on the On Notice list. Do it again (I'm not convinced that you won't come back) and you'll get a tempban.

We've given you a chance. You've failed it.

@Max Sinister @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

I hope very much that you just confused the grammar of your sentence, because I didn't "call people who you disagree with pedos". Prove me wrong, and stop hearing what you want to hear. If you start to lie - well, then I have no reason to trust you about anything.

Not even about the fact that you just want to talk about pedoshit in public because of "free speech".

Prove me wrong

The proof is in this very thread, here, here, here, here, and here.

Not even about the fact that you just want to talk about pedoshit in public because of "free speech".

That is an actionable statement under UK libel law. For the safety of the wiki, please retract it.

@Max Sinister @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

I doubt Max Snowflake cares about the safety of the Wiki.

Since we and our legal level of discourse are so offensive to his moral standards, I propose that we protect his immortal soul from further contamination by erecting a protective barrier between him and the wiki -- entirely for his benefit, of course, so that he will no longer inadvertently find himself in the company of perverts who refuse to obey his perfectly reasonable demands.

@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

Agreed. Since he persists on refusing to respect other tropers who he disagrees with, as per ATT:1WAY, we should exercise freedom of association and end his association with us.

We have had enough. We pride ourselves on an incredibly high tolerance for dissent here at All The Tropes, but your relentless demands, insults, invective, and refusal to be constructive need to stop. I'm all in favor, and I say so with Mod hat on, of seeing you frogmarched off this site. I can only hope you find somewhere else that is more accepting of your unruly and antagonistic attitude.

Okay, preparing to drape Maxie here with a big ol' wiki condom to maintain the purity of his precious bodily fluids. In 3... 2... 1....

PS: I hope very much that you don't object to my changes on the Marion Zimmer Bradley page. Because if "free speech" guys don't even care about free speech anymore - then how can I even rely that you have any values left?

But in case you don't: Feel free to look at this link. Or this one.

I for one do mind. What you proposed adding is about Walter Breen, not about Marion Zimmer Bradley, and is thus off-topic for that page.

I will leave it up to other moderators whether to approve or reject the proposed edit.

QFT: https://archive.ph/UHPHs

Per wiki policy, any outstanding edits in the Moderation queue from a newly-banned user are rejected sight-unseen. Don't know what you wrote, don't care. It's been flushed.

We wish you the best in finding a community more palatable to your interests and more accepting of your professed standards.

If anything, the mistake was you bringing it up in the conversation completely unprompted: you're also presuming a lack of knowledge on the subject, which neither needs explaining nor remotely helps your case, and presuming "free speech for pedos" is anywhere near the goal absolutely isn't doing you any favors, either. LT and Geth've clearly stated the reasons for their views; the latter of them likely has an even stronger disdain for noncery, if anything (EDIT: and wouldn't you know it, there's an ancient-by-ATT-standards comment saying as much), so this is preaching to the choir on top of everything else.

As I said myself: we can make our distaste clear where needed without engaging in Shooting the Message, just because it isn't being denounced strongly enough for someone else's liking.

Assuming it was a mistake. Quoting myself from the very first reply in this thread:

"Conditions"? (raises one eyebrow)

It appears I was right to raise an eyebrow.

That particular Troper appears to think they can dictate the rules of this wiki. No single Troper, not even a single mod, is allowed to dictate the rules here. We have a process, linked at the top of every page (unless one clicks on the "dismiss" link to clear the messages), to change the rules here. The process does not involve making posts on a user talk page.

(I am aware that the forums are down at the moment. I believe the mod who noticed this is in the process of asking our hosting service to fix that. This simply means that we aren't changing any rules until the forums are back.)

At the beginning, I had been talking about adding some specific content only, just check my first post. Then I made an aside comment about pedoshit - and you didn't like it.

Well, of course I didn't like an insulting term being applied without basis or evidence to people I know in Real Life, even as an "aside comment".

This is why the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment exists.

Correct. A Phabricator ticket has been submitted to Miraheze about the forums issue, and hopefully it will be addressed quickly.

Yeah, I thought I'd made mention of that, it apparently slipped my mind but yes:

Even in a vacuum, requesting a massive shift in wiki presentation and structure within days of joining is the sort of thing that likely isn't going to fly, regardless of the subject matter it concerns. Consensus in wiki matters is considered pretty important here, and for good reason.

An update on the Forums situation: Apparently a security hole was found in the extension, and it has been pre-emptively turned off until the developer can fix it.

"There's certainly a difference", yes, and we recognize that difference - that doesn't obligate us to beat incoming readers over the head with a stick in order to convey distaste, even if we're not exactly Wikipedia (which also has an article on it for the record). We should assume most folks are able to figure out we don't approve of it without nearly that much effort.

As a random example: I've had to deal with the usual anti-TVT bias and suggested to other editors we dial that back a few factors - far from disagreeing with the criticisms made, that antipathy towards the old site did a complete disservice to the articles and got in the way of the troping this place is supposed to be for.

You know, originally I had wanted to introduce myself proper, what kind of troper I am, what else I do, and what's the deal about my unpublished work. But then we got distracted...

One thing after another.

1. If you want to check out my nuked troper page, it's archived here.

Besides of that: I'm also active at various other sites, like the AltHistory wiki(s), RW, WikiIndex, and such. Not every day, of course.

2. My AltHist (or rather, its TV Tropes page, meanwhile nuked as well) is archived here. In the past, I already wrote a long AltHist - the Chaos Timeline - at least some people liked it too, and after thinking about it, I decided to do a timeline where "Team Evil" wins WW2, as a kind of challenge. (@Bob Schroeck: Aren't you also tackling a big challenge, with your multi-crossover "Drunkard's Walk"? Then you might understand what I mean.)

And since I'm not much into applause by old and new Nazis (because such a topic will attract those...), I decided to put a certain appellation into the title. Let's see how much they like that.

(Fighteer also claimed that I'm not allowed to state something along the line "Anti-nazis won't like this because the Nazis will win, and Nazis won't like it because..." What I said.

Think there's too much self-promotion?)

3. The "Edit War" at TV Tropes originally was based on a misunderstanding. I hadn't been on the site for years, didn't know they had randomly decided that Up to Eleven isn't a trope anymore, and since I wasn't logged in every day (or not even every week), I had simply forgotten that I had added it in the past. In other words: A honest mistake. Hope you believe me that much.

4. Since Fighteer decided to nuke one of my "Edit Banned" posts as well, fortunately I had that archived as well: Here. Share and enjoy.

(You really think I was a case of "Small Name, Big Ego"? Well, in that case I wish Fighteer to be called out by many more SNBEs.)

(My earlier posts in that thread are here, here, and here.)

5. Troping is just a hobby to me, even if it's sometimes Serious Business, and not even my only one.

Still, sometimes I think about why it is so fascinating - and what's the purpose of troping wikis. @Labster, you once wrote a good post on your blog that Fast Eddie didn't have a vision (true). Maybe a small group of dedicated tropers (preferably those who are writers themselves - of @Bob Schroeck I know, maybe others here are too?) could rather find an answer to this, than a big bloated wiki? Because having to accept mods like Fighteer for no other purpose than "adding even more examples, works and tropes to a heap that's already big enough, while missing the point to it" isn't worth it.

I have to agree with Fighteer (sometimes even he is right) that some of my examples weren't that great - but what's the point of it?

Also, let me make something a bit more clear on porting over your own edits. That means, even if other people just made changes in-between edits that were yours, only what was touched by you alone can be ported over. TV Tropes does have an edit revision history that allows picking out your own specific edits only, but you have to do so manually via copy-paste from their edit history for their pages.

Unfortunately, since they changed to a CC-BY-NC-SA license in July 2012, this is a hard requirement we insist on to avoid legal hassle, both for you and ourselves.

Got that. Hm, IANAL, so I don't know whether they changing their license was legal or not. And I'm not planning to sue them for it anyway.

And it's... not ironic, but certainly odd, if they have a wiki full of ads but still dare to use a "non-commercial" license, while you guys allow commercial uses while not making a dime.

You aren't the only person who thinks it might be illegal... but, so far, nobody's cared enough to spend the money to test the issue in court.

(And sure it's ironic. Situational irony, "like a free ride when you've already paid" to quote Alanis Morissette, not the usual verbal irony.)

so far, nobody's cared enough to spend the money to test the issue in court.

Sadly, nobody whose copyrights are being misused in this way has deep enough pockets to afford it.

As if we didn't have the right to!

Edits counted by the engine count ALL edits, including talk pages. Edits for the user page only count edits to main space (like actual content pages). Make enough content page edits to bust yourself over the edit count hump and you can edit your user page. This limit is in place to thwart spam generally, as they always try to make their user pages a spam hive.