Welcome to Borderlands Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Volt Thrower page. We hope you will continue to be a regular contributor, and will help us improve the wiki!

Please remember to categorize new images uploaded to the wiki. Uncategorized and or unpublished images will be deleted. Thank you.

Please leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything! I'll be happy to help. WarBlade (talk) 04:42, October 15, 2014 (UTC)

Re:garding the Fatale

See what I did there? I thought it was funny. Anyway:

Use case in a weapon is completely subjective. You can use an SMG in pretty much any situation that isn't point blank melee combat; as is for all high fire rate SMGs, so comparing it specifically to the Bitch would not entirely apply. A similar example to this situation came up a few weeks ago regarding the Hammer Buster II. After an hour or so of talking in the chat, User:Dr. Clayton Forrestor and I decided that, since most of the game is really in gun names (Prefixes affecting effects, names marking individuality, especially so in the ongoing case of whether there are "two Hyperions" in The Pre-Sequel or not), that if two guns have a different name, they're ruled to be different guns. They may be in reference to each other (As can be noted on the Hammer Buster II page, with the name alone being a reference to the Hammer Buster), but it is, altogether, a different gun. As should be categorized with most guns on the wiki, if it has a different name, it is a different gun. Similar effect withstanding.

Furthermore, please refrain from calling other users "a lowlife scummy prick". That can be considered rude. If there's anything you'd like to add, please expand upon it on my talk page. InfinitysCross (talk) 22:24, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far to say "Unlike any other weapon, since there are some lasers that definitely fit in that description. In any case, you're correct towards Sledge's Shotty; it will be changed as such ASAP. Nonetheless, different weapons.

And for the latter note, which isn't entirely unrelated, it's possible to point out immaturity without insulting a user. If I'm remembering correctly, it is a bannable offense (Cannot say for sure, honestly, as if I'm remembering correctly I've seen bans for that reason before). InfinitysCross (talk) 22:48, November 10, 2014 (UTC)


Your editing privilege has been revoked for a period of one week. When you return, if you still want to persist with the Fatale issue you must do so entirely on the Talk page. If you're outvoted, you will have to accept the majority decision. -- WarBlade (talk) 23:13, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you will see this, but I certainly hope that you do, because I was in the middle of a conversation with InfinitysCross, which to my knowledge is a form of communication, and it was my intent to be constructive. If you feel that you must intervene and "tie my hands," or whatever, I would still appreciate you not getting in the way of me having a discussion with another user. For whatever reason, you seem to have felt the need to prevent me from posting on user talk pages, but how else is it physically possible to have a discussion when no one has alternate means of contact listed. I did look, so I could ask you personally to not disrupt our conversation, but alas, I couldn't find your facebook or Steam or Twitter. If all else fails, I suppose I can just post my reply to IC here, but that seems a bit silly to me. Benzillah (talk) 00:09, November 11, 2014 (UTC) keep forgetting to sign, sad day :(

I don't mind. That said, War has a point; from the beginning we should've taken this to the Fatale's talk page, not each others. InfinitysCross (talk) 23:56, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

I really question your motivation, WarBlade. If your intent was to ensure constructive communication, then why am I banned? After all, I was the only one who communicated anything at all to begin with. I responded to InfinitysCross and Lavisdragoon, and all I was met with was hostility and obstinance. Only later (pretty much just now) was I actually able to have a discussion with either of the two, and that's when the great WarBlade struck and interrupted an actual dialogue. I am interested in improving the wiki, I think it is a reasonable goal, but all I found was intolerence at having a different opinion. No explanation of why one way is better, just "tl;dr." Benzillah (talk) 00:09, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, I suppose in the interest of being candid, I should post the above anyway. I don't really see why it matters whether it is discussed on the item's page or yours, I just assumed you would be more likely to notice my replys if they were directly to you. And I suppose I am just still unfamiliar with this wiki's policy, I thought that outlining the differences that I wanted to note in the page itself would be easier to see. I did use comments, after all, and it shouldn't have disrupted the page flow. Also, the updates I posted were iterative, as I was trying to get a feel for what you wanted to see. He rather conspicuously reverted my most recent change wholesale, though it had actual elements that were outside the issue, such as my note on using the Fatale specificially for crits. You should still be able to see it if you look at the page history. Benzillah (talk) 00:09, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
> I don't really see why it matters whether it is discussed on the item's page or yours,
That's the thing. By leaving it on our talk pages rather than the weapon page, you no longer made the situation about the weapon and its aspects, but about how we were reverting your edit. If it were for the good of the wiki, then it would've stayed on the page. Instead you attacked another user over this and continued the edit war. InfinitysCross (talk) 01:46, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
If it were for the good of the wiki, the two of you would also be facing edit bans, as you both neatly contributed to the "edit war" every bit as much as myself. Truly, I did not feel the location of the discussion mattered so much as the content. If you feel differently, I will remember that for future discussions with you. But this certainly isn't about me, it is about the simple concept of communicating in a scope that includes and allows everyone to contribute to the discussion. As I said further down to Lavis, it was not clear to me that a change in standard formatting for equipment articles was to be made. All that was clear is that two indiviuals who have a history (from my perspective and to my knowledge) of being terse and abrasive were removing content that an individual (not myself!) had added in good faith, for no stated reason.
As someone who uses this wiki, it is alarming that information that is accurate, informative and well thought-out is being pruned in the name of some hidden agenda. That is not to say that your intent is malicious, but rather that it is yours, and yours alone. I feel this is not how a wiki should work, as the information is public domain. It would be somewhat akin to a librarian (which is merely a caretaker of pooled knowledge, not the owner) decided to go on a book burning spree, as they didn't feel that the library needed such a large reference section. That is completely ridiculous, the information isn't just for the librarian, it is for the public at large. I would have no issue if this theoretical librarian rearranged the library, as a nice and well-kept library is essential for efficient research, but you have made no mention of making this information available elsewhere, leaving it incumbent upon the end user to stumble upon the connection. Rather than flexing your admin muscles, I feel your responsibility should be to actually improve the wiki, or at least facilitate that. I hope I have made it abundantly clear that I could not care less about whether I added the information or not. I simply care that it is there. Benzillah (talk) 03:19, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Enough of this holier-than-thou attitude. You outright told Crack he was full of "bs", then responded to my revert by asking "who the **** I think I am", and essentially stating that neither of our opinions matter in the least, and frankly I didn't feel like keeping a conversation open with someone so self-important.
The wiki is not a place for you to state your opinions, and it's not a guide. It's a place to catalog information. Your opinion doesn't matter on such articles; nobody's opinion does. New editors are always welcome, but if your edits are rejected by multiple people who have been on this wiki infinitely longer than you, you need to figure out what you did wrong, not tell everyone else that THEY'RE wrong. - Lavisdragoon (talk) 00:32, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
And in fact, I did not call InfinitysCross bs, anywhere, at all. His justification, yes. Stating that 2 weapons are different because of their names, when there is a whole world of potential differences for one to differentiate is foolish, to the nth degree. I believe this firmly. This makes me self-important? What do you call repeatedly responding to attempts to add clarity to the page with "nope?" Is it possible that the way you present yourself can cause others to percieve you differently? You've just said that you believe as much, so perhaps we should both introspect. I will grant my approach was unnecessarily aggressive; I responded to a percieved aloofness and self-importance with irritation, when I certainly could have been lighter. I have seen the two of you (and WarBlade) leave terse, uncooperative replies to genuine requests/additions several times since joining this wiki. As a result of this, my response to you was catered in much the same way. Maybe you felt your explanations have simply been succinct, but it doesn't read that way to me.
Yes, who do you think you are? In your idealistic world, all the information would be cataloged accurately, yes, but in the way you wish it to be. This is called bias. It is inescapable. If you wish to claim that your ideas are the best thing for everyone, then the best of luck to you, but I certainly don't have to accept your outlook. I find it relevant to point out that thispage has an edit by WarBlade, made merely 10 days previous, that modifies the format of the section noting the relation between the 2 weapons, but leaves the "returning legendary" element intact, even though the 2 weapons have far greater differences than the Bitch and the Fatale. This tells me that your agenda has not been longstanding or well documented/apparent to the rest of the wiki, because you only just today changed it, and 10 days ago WarBlade didn't even care. I know he is a stickler for article format, so I hardly think he would have left it like that if he cared to change it. So claiming that you have the needed experience to see things clearly and that I should just defer to you definitely makes me scratch my head.
In this case there is no precedent, you just decided you wanted it changed. InfinitysCross told me that a few days ago he made the decision to change this format, but he only told me that after you refused to have any part of a constructive dialog with me that would have told me that there will be a precedent now, it is just new. Like I said, Sledge's Shotgun was a great example for me of why it shouldn't be changed, as it has 3 games of precedent for article format. In my most recent edit to the Fatale page, I pointed out that the Bitch even does the same thing between its pages for Borderlands 1 & 2. And finally, if a wiki is exclusively for cataloguing information, why shouldn't we catalog information? No opinions, the Bitch and the Fatale are extremely similar. So are Sledge's Shotgun and Sledge's Shotty. So are both Ogres (jk). If they are so similar, what is wrong with noting that?
Tl;dr: Just read the darn thing, please. Benzillah (talk) 01:15, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
First off, you've never met me and I'd appreciate it if you'd quit telling me how I think.
Second: We've had this issue before with the Hammer Buster II. Eventually, we came to the understanding that name is what's important, and this has been our stance since. This was maybe three weeks ago, so don't expect the entire wiki to be fixed yet. And before you argue that three weeks is ample time, do note that we all have lives that are not entirely devoted to the Borderlands franchise.
In any case, I never said you should defer to anyone. I said you should consider that you're the one in the wrong if a majority has rejected what you're trying to do. Let me put this in terms you can understand: Let it go. - Lavisdragoon (talk) 01:50, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
I've just checked the talk pages for both the Hammer Buster 1 and 2, and there is not a lick of information on your so called "understanding." And I wouldn't say that 3 weeks is ample time, with only your little triumvirate scurrying about making your majority-rules changes. I perfectly understand, bud, these things take time. The issue I have is that there is NO WAY I COULD HAVE POSSIBLY KNOWN you were enacting your policy change, and rather than discussing that with me, you resorted to the silent treatment. I don't pretend to know how you think, I am merely extrapolating based on the responses (or lack therof) you have given me. If you looked back to my first post to you, I did in fact ask you what your justification was for changing it, as accountability is a good thing, for you and me. You...didn't respond. Instead you left a smart-ass one word reply for the sake of irritating me. I can only assume it was as a show of good faith.
tl;dr: Right back at ya ;) Benzillah (talk) 03:19, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
This was discussed in chat, not the talk pages, as there was no edit warring going on. The extent of that was a page created, a page deleted, and a settlement, all in the chat. InfinitysCross (talk) 03:42, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Right, again, meaning there was no record of the decision made, and no central point for me to have gleaned this information. If it isn't too much trouble, though, I would prefer if you replied to my messages to you, and not to the ones to Lavis, as we have our own special connection and I wouldn't want to damage that. Did you see my post left for you farther up? Benzillah (talk) 17:26, November 11, 2014 (UTC)  EDIT - Lavis and I, if that was unclear. Just wanted to make sure. Yep. Benzillah (talk) 17:54, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
You know what, just enjoy your block. - Lavisdragoon (talk) 03:50, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Alright, well thanks for at least proving your lack of maturity. Even if it means nothing to everyone else here, it means all the world to me. <3
tl;dr: yur hot *wink* Benzillah (talk) 17:26, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.