Talk:Battle of Westmark
Dude, stop posting false information, leave my post and if you have any problems with it, send for some GMs and LTs and we can all discuss this.
- I'll tell you again what I told you before. All the information that I've posted on all the articles that I've made are true and can be backed by facts. The only issue at hand is whether or not this battle was part of the Riga War, which it was not. My reasoning for saying so is because you called in foreign allies in RP (orcs, dreadlanders, dwarves) and they fought with you, while our side has other Imperial aligned players fighting with us on their Imperial characters (wood elves and nauzicans, etc). This battle falls under the Krajian Rebellion portion of the wiki, which I will be working on after the 18 years' war and the Riga war are completed. If you've any further arguments, please leave them below and I'll respond to them to the best of my ability. I hope someone from the wiki team monitors this conversation so that, should this talk page come to incessant rambling with no progress, one can make a decision and end our debate. I would also propose that no work be done on this page or on the Riga War page until we've come to a decision here. -- Pureimp
As I stated when you PMd me, there are several reasons why this is still part of the Riga war.
1. We did not officially call in allies, there was only a few external people that came to help, a few of whom had defected from the carnatian side, many of the people who you claim were external had courland Alta. This is shown by the RP post posted immediately after the battle, which I can't link because the wiki doesn't allow me to, but search it on lotc.
2. This battle was a continuation of my campaign against Carnatia, and took place after the siege of Krakens Watch. I posted the warclaim to retake Krakens Watch, the war goal of thenRiga war for both sides.
3. These battles took place outside of Riga, not Kraja. As I told you in PMs, I accept that the following warclaim was a separate war as it was:
a) Fought elsewhere b) Had different war goals c) contained different factions
The battle of Westmark was
a) Fought in the same place b) Had the same war goals c) Contained the same factions
You can see the difference in the number of people who participated on my side when allies were actually called in, from 70 or so in the battle of Westmark, to twice that number at the following battle. The latter was the time we called in allies. Also, you're numbers are massively skewed. - Vege
Hey, just thought I'd throw my two cents in here too. Pureimp I have no clue as to why you are removing factual parts out of the battle section, and renaming a character who was there at the time and in rp lead the Courland side forces. I've used this battle to further develop my character and this information has been used a variety of times in rp, and as such I would appreciate it if you kindly backed off from constantly removing that characters name for no other reason than to spite us. We're not trying to make a bias post, look at the original as pure proof of that yet instead it is you who actually seems to be making this post extremely bias by turning the battle section into how the "great Barbanov" saved his troops and how Ser Rickard was so important. I suggest you refrain from editing this page from now on, and allow some others to take a look at it. The phrase "the victors write history" really shines in Orenian rp unfortunately, but that is rp and as such we don't really give one. This wiki is not a place for you victors to determine what happened and as such you should refrain from making this post terribly bias towards Oren. In regardss to Yoppl taking charge of this post, I'm not going to scream bias straight away but its really funny how you got a very Orenian wiki-team member to monitor this post. Cheers- WoodenApples.
- On the topic of renaming the character- the dates which vege gave and when this occurred, it would make no sense at all for Sven Staunton to have been leading (considering the fact he was supposedly born in 1557-58 and this battle took place only a few years later). Things on the wiki should be factual, but they should also make sense according to the timeline of this server. According to pureimp, he talked with vege and he agreed to having the name change to George Staunton (if this is wrong, correct me as this is what he told me). And your jab at how the apparent bias, can you please give a list of what you consider bias on the wiki, I cannot do much without the actual examples. I can however cite numerous examples of bias and straight untrue facts which has been written in the past few days (such as Staunton "ruling the north" which never happened, they only ruled around 1/4 to 1/3 of the actual northern land, or that Madelyn Staunton married John Owyn which also did not happen at all, for he was married to Julia Adelheid for the majority of his life till his death).
- If you do think I am enforcing bias, I am more than happy to have another wiki team member moderate this discussion. But again, I cannot do anything if I am not given actual, clear examples of what is wrong and what needs to be changed accordingly.--Yoppl (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- As yoppl stated above, because Sven was only 5 years old in RP at that time, I asked Vege to give me another name that I could use and he suggested George Staunton, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting this "history is written by the victors" stuff from. As for why Barrow is important, he practically commanded the Coalition army during every warclaim and had a prominent leadership role throughout the war. The Barbanov saving his troops bit was so I could provide a logical realistic explanation for how Peter was captured instead of just "oh and he got captured while retreating". This is how we've done things before on previous battle threads on this wiki, and that's how I wrote this article. -- Pureimp