Topic on User talk:YetiSwarm

Yeti, I would like to explain why sources are needed your case and why your edits were reverted.

Speaking specifically about skill damage, it's a very easy value to inadvertently inflate when testing. There are multiple factors that must be taken into consideration.

• Are any Skill DMG Cap EMPs ranked up?
• Are there characters that affect damage just by being in the party?
• Are weapons equipped that affect skill damage cap or even all damage caps?
• What main/support summons were used
• Is Belial equipped as a sub summon ?
• How many times was the damage tested?
• etc.

Note that this list is non-exhaustive. While it is possible that you may have tested in a properly controlled environment, you provided no evidence of how you tested your numbers. With these in mind, I could not keep those numbers up without a proper reference. In particular, the proliferation of supplemental damage means we must be very mindful of how damage is tested.

The reason why some Twitter accounts, GameWith, and certain other sites are often referenced for exact numbers is because they are known to reliably and systematically test in a controlled environment. Additionally, we often do not use gbf-wiki (the Japanese wiki) for citations because they do not source their numbers. We do not know how their specific values are tested or who tested it.

Unfortunately, you chose to unnecessarily remove information from unrelated wiki pages which resulted in your temporary suspension. There are better ways to resolve and understand the situation.

--AdlaiT (talk) - Wiki Admin 23:41, 2 July 2020 (CEST)

You know what wikis across the web use for things that are reported to be accurate but unverified? The "verification needed" tag. It is systematic and widely used everywhere - even on this wiki. What do you do instead? Simply delete, over and over. You're also flat out lying when you say "you chose to unnecessarily remove information from unrelated wiki pages" One change was made to Tiamat to highlight the blatant hypocrisy of an unverified damage cap on the wiki and an unverified damage cap being deleted from the wiki. The wiki is a worse place for you and your like existing.

See e.g., these 778 pages (https://gbf.wiki/Category:Verification_Needed) that correctly address content which someone thinks need verifying, BUT ARE NOT OUTRIGHT DELETED. Are you going to go through those 778 pages and delete them all or are you going to admit there's a better solution? I anticipate you are not a big enough person to do either (verification needed), but by all means prove me wrong.

Here's even a page with a damage cap with no citation, not even to some random guy's twitter: https://gbf.wiki/Sephira_Emerald_Blade. Guess what tag that page has? Oh fuck, now you're just gonna delete that info. Guess I'd better screenshot it.

I left revert comments saying that numbers need a source. That was supposed to be an opportunity for you to provide screenshots, a spreadsheet, an explanation of your methodology or something. You also could have also used the associated talk pages.

In Summer Cassius's case, he has two skill cap EMP nodes and his own supplemental damage support skill. Because you did not provide evidence that you accounted for these factors (along with the other ones I listed above), I had enough reason to question its veracity. Leaving those numbers there with a verification tag can also be misleading because it can imply that the damage cap is increased upon enhancement when it might not at all. The onus is on you to back up your own numbers, which you can actually still do.

However, what you did in response was clearly retaliation and those edits were not even related to damage caps.

--AdlaiT (talk) - Wiki Admin 01:52, 3 July 2020 (CEST)

What are you even talking about with this: "However, what you did in response was clearly retaliation and those edits were not even related to damage caps."? What imagined slight have you concocted? Can you provide any support for whatever you're accusing me of?

Another admin suspended an anonymous user (who coincidentally has an IP address in the vicinity of your's) for removing another user's edits and I had thought that IP address had belonged to you, especially considering the timing.

However, all of my other points still stand.

--AdlaiT (talk) - Wiki Admin 02:58, 3 July 2020 (CEST)

Oh wow, looks like the recent changes page of the wiki has someone with an IP address of 66.115.145.22, which according to https://www.whatismyip.com/ip-address-lookup/ says is Ontario, Canada making some changes. My IP address above shows I'm located in a DIFFERENT COUNTRY, but that's totally "in the vicinity" of me and must be me, huh? Yeah, hold my beer while I drive to Canada to make changes on the wiki. I'll be back in 13 hours to post again from Canada and then another 13 hours to post from home again. Is your tinfoil hat surgically attached or can you remove it?

All of your other points remain condescending and inconsistently applied. All of those factors were controlled in testing (I'm not a dumbass) and even if I posted a youtube video of the process you wouldn't believe me at this point. However, if I tweeted it, that would be enough because twitter is the most reliable source - just ask Trump. Guess I'd better start tweeting and linking to my tweets instead.

LMAO, I'm responsible for wiki changes in other countries now. I can't get over that.

I said it was a coincidence. These incidents happened when I was asleep and occurred in a short timeframe, which caused me to mix the incidents together when reading up on the situation.

Though, you've made it clear what your demeanor and level of civility is. It is not welcome here.

--AdlaiT (talk) - Wiki Admin 03:53, 3 July 2020 (CEST)

Same right back at you. Your demeanor is that of a small child who doesn't like it when anyone else plays in their sandbox. Feel free to take your ball and go home.

I mean you're just proving our point.

You're using yet another NordVPN IP just like the "anonymous reverter" had, must have been a wild coincidence.

sad.