• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Status
Not open for further replies.
People were spamming requests that the staff did not have the time or knowledge to write, so we removed it, but this is still not a discussion thread.
 
Antvasima said:
People were spamming requests that the staff did not have the time or knowledge to write, so we removed it, but this is still not a discussion thread.
Apologies. Was just checking.
 
shouldn't these profiles be removed to?im dont eveen have words to describe how bad they are.


this.

and this.

or maybe they just need a content revision idk.
 
Axl233 said:
this.

and this.

or maybe they just need a content revision idk.
Well, given that they have justifications, properly filled out stats etc. I don't think they are canditates for deletion.

So probably more a content revision case.
 
Oh yeah, forgot about it but.

Lord Vortech

The guy pretty much stole the profile I posted on Ever's wall and alot of the chunks are probably wrong (Such as High-Mid regen).
 
problem is that the first profile looks really old and badly done, the second profile have no justification for AP and the city level durability feat is not eveen city level because he was far away from the explosion,but yeah you are right im think they just need a content revision.
 
I have deleted the profiles.

I agree that ideally they would need a content revision, but they are sufficiently obscure to ensure that it is unlikely that anybody here will be able to help out, and as it stands they have unreliable statistics.
 
Mudcrab Guardian Spirit, The Adoring Fa, Arch-Curate Vyrthur and Wuunferth The Unliving

Badly made, irrelevant pages that lack feats
 
Are you certain? It is said to be a character from a webcomic series.
 
Probably. The calculation not only links to one that isn't approved by the Wiki, it is one that measures in Newtons, not joules. From the clip there is no way that is 7-C.

His powers are bunk and his formatting needs work.
 
I removed it, though I invited the creator to save the source code, put it into a blog, and refine it for later.
 
Chuck Norris (Fact Book)

This shouldn't exist as a profile on the wiki. At all.

It doesn't matter that the Fact Book is an "Officially published" thing, because the term isn't even applicable. This isn't a fictional series with characters, or anything of the like. Chuch Norris Facts are an internet meme, and the "Official Fact Book" is something the real Chuck released to capitalize on the meme.

Legitimaly, the Old Spice Commercial profiles were more legitimate than this.
 
It was approved by like, 7 or 8 staff members.

It is strictly based off a piece of fictional work. As long it's admin-locked and monitored, it should be ok.
 
Which ones? Quantity does not mean correct. People might approve it because they find it funny, but the fact of the matter is that it is objectively contrary to what our wiki is about.
 
Using chuck Norris facts as an actual source seems like it would mean invisible dragon should come back, since even though it's terrible it's a legitimate series and wasn't just written based on an internet meme. While I'm ultimately indifferent, I'm seeing many parllels to invis dragon with this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top