TF Views

This just makes me further glad that I don't like and/or read the Hulk. It's kind of a bummer to hear that about Peter David, as a writer of the Star Trek novels he's actually pretty good. Also, it would probably help if you didn't actually read Willis' blog. Doing so only encourages an obnoxious fan to be even more obnoxious.

Shockwave
-Would be perfectly happy if Willis never came up again. Unfortunately, he's too obnoxious to allow that

But, what would I complain about?

Joking aside, I do read Willis' blog partly out of morbid curiosity, and also just to see what is out for toys. (The comic is just fucking obnoxious at this point. The first 2 years or so were actually really good. But, around the time he brings in the talking car, it goes bad.)

Dom

Lol, that's funny. I read the rules on the tfwiki and... got about as much as could tolerate of willis there.

What rule? The TFwiki has rules?

(Damned if anyone could make sense of them.)

Seriously, you just got a taste. Though, to be fair to Willis on that, the rules are not all his. Seriously, if you want to avoid idiot fan drama, avoid the wiki like the plague.


Dom
-cuz they is teh kewl kidz you see.

The Wiki isn't bad as a general resource. Hell, sometimes I just randomly browse it to learn about random obscure Japanese characters. Without the Wiki, I might never have learned that Metalhawk is awesome enough to live up to his name. 'Metalhawk.' He's even got a metal mohawk on his Pretender shell.

Yeah, I found my way to the rules page because... let's just say I get REALLY bored at work. I had changed a few of captions under the pics and apparently they have strict rules that whoever put the original captions there is the only one with any valid sense of humor because they are oh so clever and no one in the entire universe could ever possibly be funnier than said person. This just smacks of Willis because we all know he's oh so clever Half the "jokes" on the G1 Thundercracker page don't even make sense. One has a pick from the 86 movie captioned "NAZGHUUULL!!" Seriously, what the hell does that even mean? I think from here on out I'll stick to Wikipedia proper for basic info on things.

Shockwave wrote:This just makes me further glad that I don't like and/or read the Hulk. It's kind of a bummer to hear that about Peter David, as a writer of the Star Trek novels he's actually pretty good.

I used to like his Trek novels, and admittedly I haven't read any in years so he may have changed, but his writing just got too 'fanwanky' for me. For instance, he would take the various different characters played by Majel Barrett and try to link them somehow within the Trek fiction, or turn the Doomsday Machine from TOS into a Borg-fighting weapon. In other words, making connections that aren't there or don't need to be made because it's "kewl". New Frontier is a whole series built on this tendency, as every one-shot and cast-off character from Trek all end up in the same sector somehow.

So yeah, I got tired of Peter David a long time ago. I liked his run on the Hulk when I was reading it, but again, that's been years ago.

The fan-wankiness may well be the result of an editorial mandate more than David himself though. (I know the SW novels have that problem. And, it is consistent enough I that I tend to blame editorial mandates more than the writers.)

As far as the Wiki goes, Willis is not the only self-indulgent member there. Remember the tantrums when he made legitimate (based on the information he had) edits to the Sideways page? Many of the photo captions are based on in-jokes that require a detailed command of triviality and minutia to understand, and a completely insular view of the hobby to actually appreciate. They, (Willis and the others), also like to throw in references to unrelated subject matter, presumably as a way to show how "hip and kewl" they are about pop-culture.


Dom
-had a legitimate edit removed, ruled out completely (despite in-context evidence). The page the edit was made to was then locked.

I get referrences to unrelated subject matter... if it makes sense. But the Nazghul referrence for Thundercracker I'm just not getting it.

Shockwave wrote:Yeah, I found my way to the rules page because... let's just say I get REALLY bored at work. I had changed a few of captions under the pics and apparently they have strict rules that whoever put the original captions there is the only one with any valid sense of humor because they are oh so clever and no one in the entire universe could ever possibly be funnier than said person. This just smacks of Willis because we all know he's oh so clever Half the "jokes" on the G1 Thundercracker page don't even make sense. One has a pick from the 86 movie captioned "NAZGHUUULL!!" Seriously, what the hell does that even mean? I think from here on out I'll stick to Wikipedia proper for basic info on things.

It's a Nazgul. Y'know.

And that's not the rules, the rule is change it to something better or don't change it at all, and you should generally contribute useful stuff (info pages for new toys, for example) before you go around changing captions.

I only ever put in new captions where there's empty ones. And I've been there several years, so they don't mess with me.