Talk: Kabal of Twisted Thorns

So edgy I cut myself just by reading it. 

Orkmarine 00:17, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should be a little more careful with what you read next time them. May I sujest 'Go, Dogs. GO!' AmyTheStray (talk) 00:30, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to let you know that Im taking you to court over the injuries I've sustained after reading this article. Also Go Dog Go was the tits and wine of my childhood, so dont be dissin it.

Orkmarine 00:40, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

File:Imposter.jpg

Imposter101 - "We will be judged not by what we have destroyed, but what we have created": TALK - 12:23, Friday, April 19 2024 (UTC) So, the plan is to over describe everything with slight variations in dialogue and language? There's no substance or anything.

No, my plan is to remove everything and just have the entire artical day "Dark Eldar equals badness" AmyTheStray (talk) 00:52, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? --Cheers The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions 00:54, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

File:Imposter.jpg

Imposter101 - "We will be judged not by what we have destroyed, but what we have created": TALK - 12:23, Friday, April 19 2024 (UTC) So your still going for the lack of substance plan but removing the pointless, annoying and obnoxious over description? A man named Will Shakesman once said "Brevity is the Soul of Wit". This means: "Don't waste my time" Stop it, stop wasting my time. But, I'm guessing from your previous reactions you'll not actually respond properly, and just try and fail to be clever in response. In all honesty the article would be fine with substance. It lacks footing or anything but trailing and droning on over description and "edgy" dialogue.

Ok, sweetheart. Firstly, when you say "wasting my time" it is not my fault, it is yours. If you don't like my writing style you don't have to read it, so you are really wasting your own time by crying about it. Second, regardless of your silly quote, the writing style I use is called "Hexodescriptive", which is a type of mood scaling used for hyper descriptions used by many many authors to achieve a specific feel. So honestly, you are entitled to your opinion, but try not to attack people on a subject you have a slightly narrow viewed. AmyTheStray (talk) 01:07, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Coldsteel the hedgeheg was also hexodescriptive

Orkmarine 01:10, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that is, but it doesn't sound very relevent AmyTheStray (talk) 01:17, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

[1] Such a writing style doesn't exist according to google. --Cheers The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions 01:18, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

well my degree in contemporary witting styles says otherwise AmyTheStray (talk) 01:20, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

writting*

File:Coldsteel the hedgeheg 1d6e94 4913929.jpg

Oh its extra relevant.

I'm not seeing the conection. But I will take your word for it !!!!

minus the exlimations AmyTheStray (talk) 01:29, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you can see the connection it has to this video then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_k_57WoIPU

Orkmarine 01:36, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Alright guys, lay off. She's used similar format in her other articles, and yet for some reason I don't see you ripping the Void Sirens a new one.

But, as for the lack of sustanance, they do have a point. Make it as edgy as you please, but that isn't going to amount to anything if their isn't some context behind why they're currently crawling in their skin. 40kfan (talk) 01:51, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Do not the construction template, 40K AmyTheStray (talk) 01:55, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

note*

Needs proofreading. For instance:

"Sha'Thiie, whose power and incite (some say foreknowledge)"

—from the article

incite is to encourage, the context clearly calls for insight, apprehending the true nature of something through intuition.--OvaltinePatrol (talk) 02:00, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm just saying. 40kfan (talk) 02:01, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

File:Eversorwryyy.png

Chuuihou - Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!: TALK - 12:23, Friday, April 19 2024 (UTC) Now, I do understand that you specialize in this kind of 'style' Amy. I mean there is nothing wrong with it, the vocabulary and sentence structure is nearly flawless; but, in retrospect, it lacks substance. The thing about exposition and extensive description is that it really envelopes the reader into a story or setting, allowing them to imagine every waking moment of it. So naturally, I would suggest doing something a bit more with it. As for your responses to the more constructive criticism received from others, they are seemingly narrow-mindedly said and placed. I honestly saw it as slightly ungrateful and juvenile. So, maybe you should just listen a little to us? You are a wonderful writer, but substance is key.

Gee, it's as if we keep repeating the same point over and over again.40kfan (talk) 02:08, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

"Incite" is meant to be "Insight", which is fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. As for constructive critisism, Ork was making a joke about my work as he has done beofre, saying it is 'too dark' or 'to edgy', which is fine and the reason why I made the "Go, Dog! Go!' remark. (By the way, I also love that book). while Imposter, who just doesn't like me for some reason, started his 'constructive critisism' with a stupid sarchasitic attack at my writing, which he continued to do. Then they went on about a hedgehog for some reason. So honestly, appart from the spall check, I'm stuggeling to find any 'constructive' critisisms on the entire talk page. AmyTheStray (talk) 02:19, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

File:Eversorwryyy.png

Chuuihou - Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!: TALK - 12:23, Friday, April 19 2024 (UTC) Well, Imposter did technically suggest that you give the article more substance, Amy. He also suggested that it not be entirely dialogue driven. As for Ork, he is simply Ork and nothing more. Nothing constructive there, I swear. Also, I'm hurt, was I not constructive at all? I do not like being hurt. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Oh sorry, you are the peak of construction. And if one is to give critisism is is better not to attack the artical and then yell about why you think everythignis wrong. There are far better ways to do so. And honestly, if there was so much wrong with my writting I think my publisher would tell me. AmyTheStray (talk) 02:32, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

NecrusIV - Administrator / CSS & Html wizard: TALK - WHY IS THERE BACON IN THE SOAP!? I'm 1/4 the way through a Fine Arts: Interactive and Visual Design degree. Does that count? Guess it isn't printed on a certificate yet, so it doesn't count. Dammit. I didn't sign up for this. Anyway. Nothing personnel, but I kind of agree with the general consensus here, regardless of what you deem to be constructive criticism or not. The intellectual high ground's the charm, right? Alright, better stop bullshitting. Your writing style is perhaps commendably lush, but it's merely a smokescreen for the rather thinly buttered substance that this article has. It qualifies as just any other Dark Eldar Kabal, and I mean it's up to you if you only want that, but isn't it something of a point of fanon? To possess qualities that canon work simply doesn't have? The entire article is kind of like a bland chocolate with a finely detailed wrapping. Sure the wrapping's pretty, but I could have got like a dozen of these chocolates for the same price at Coles or Woolworths.

First, I'm not taking the intellectual high ground. It's just how I talk, I'm not being rude and I'm sorry if it sounds like that. Second, the artical is NOT at all in any matter finished. Substance comes from reading a full story, not a few paragraphs of it. It's like complaining that an art piece is bad after seeing a tiny snippit of the corner . Also, I don't really eat chocolate, but thankyou anyway. AmyTheStray (talk) 02:42, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

NecrusIV - Administrator / CSS & Html wizard: TALK - WHY IS THERE BACON IN THE SOAP!? 1. "well my degree in contemporary witting styles says otherwise" "I'm stuggeling to find any 'constructive' critisisms on the entire talk page" " if there was so much wrong with my writting I think my publisher would tell me" Dismissing criticism with certain elitist qualities pretty much qualifies as standing on an intellecual high ground. 2. It can still be possible to tell if an article is good or not, even if it isn't finished. Being finished is not the first criteria for good literature. 3. It was an analogy.

Did your writting degree cover the art of spelling?

Orkmarine 02:54, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

1.1. Saying that I know somthing about a topic that I am fairly well verse in is not elitist. I know for a fact it is a writting style becasue I studied it. If someone said something wrong about something you love would you change your mind and agree with them even though you know a fact?

1.2. Attacks are not constructive, and I am not about to say 'Yes thankyou, my writting is horrible. I now know the error of my ways' when I know my writting is not horrible. The veiws of a few people are not going to change that my thoughts. 

1.3. I AM a published author, and I was stating that if a person whose job it is to tell people they are horrible says my writting is good, then that is good enough for me. 

2. I know, but you need to see a little more than an opening sequence.

3. I know. 

And by now I'm a little tired of this, so if you like you can go back to your own writting instead of wailing about someone elses.

AmyTheStray (talk) 03:09, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

And Ork, no it doesn't. I know I'm a horrible speller. AmyTheStray (talk) 03:10, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

File:Eversorwryyy.png

Chuuihou - Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!: TALK - 12:23, Friday, April 19 2024 (UTC) I agree with Amy, the subject has gotten rather old. Despite, stances on the subject, criticisms were made and points were brought to light. Now, we all have things to see and people to do. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

The writing style is pretty good I have to say. Though you should do something about the layout. Putting a quote right in the middle of a section really breaks the flow. I would also avoid writing these guys' history in story format. It clashes with the rest of the article. The premise is alright, though I don't think much of it. it's hardly five star fanon, but I don't get what everybody is screeching about. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 03:33, October 5, 2014 (UTC)

NecrusIV - Administrator / CSS & Html wizard: TALK - WHY IS THERE BACON IN THE SOAP!? 1.11. The way you're playing it is dismissive, and your only justification for the dismissal is that you've got a degree in it. 1.22. Quality is not objective. If people point out problems, they're probably right. There's no "it's shit", this is genuinely pointing out a lack of substance and an over-reliance on detailed writing to cover it up. 1.33. C.S. Goto is also a published author, just like Tommy Wiseau is a published director. Just like Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand are published political theorists. 2.1. Opening sequences are often hallmarks of good films and literature. 3.1. Therefore what you said isn't really an argument. 4. Tiredness doesn't negate the fact that the community genuinely thinks there's a problem with this article. The point of talk pages and a wiki community is not to simply praise people. There's also room for constructive criticism. There's a reason we have a whole quality policy and template system. It's not only a final solution for all Untermenschen articles.

So, I read the page over again. Annnnnddd now I see what everyone is talking about. It's just... ick. I really should not write sometimes. Time for a rewrite. 0-0 AmyTheStray (talk) 09:09, October 15, 2014 (UTC)

Also... I don't remeber being a ganster.... yo. AmyTheStray (talk) 09:13, October 15, 2014 (UTC)