Hi, welcome to Game of Thrones Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the File:Gregor Clegane 1.png page.

We welcome all contributions to the Wiki but please be aware of the following simple rules:

1) This wiki is meant for the Game of Thrones TV series and the TV alone. Spoilers from the novels are not permitted at all. Discussion of earlier events in the novels and the use of non-spoiler background material from the novel as regards specific events, characters and places in the TV series are allowed (in the 'In the books' section of an article) but future events cannot be discussed.

2) This wiki has specific permission from HBO's marketing department to use a reasonable number of promotional images and screencaps from the series to illustrate articles. The use of other copyrighted images is not permitted without either specific permission or fair use attributions. For example, this Wiki cannot use Amoka's portrait images or Ted Nasmith's castle pictures as these are copyrighted. In addition, the Wiki is focused on the TV series and TV series alone. Images from other media should be avoided without a very good cause.

Enjoy your editing and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:47, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

New images

Please categorize your new images according to the standards set by other images.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 22:38, September 1, 2013 (UTC)


You haven't categorized and licensed the recent images you've uploaded to the wiki, ignoring our image policy. Consider this your last warning! – The Snow Prince (talk) 13:14, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was unaware of this, not to say that is any excuse. It has been completely corrected and I'll license and categorize the images from now on. ArticXiongmao (talk) 13:49, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

You keep writing "Vandalism" as "Bandalism". Thank you for warning the Admins about that guy.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:57, June 10, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Don't know what I was thinking. You're the guy, right? He was insulting you all over the wiki 14:48, June 10, 2014 (UTC)


I was certain that Varys gave her golden chains when they discussed about her future-life in the Free Cities ("Mhysa"), but it turned out to be diamonds after I watched that scene recently. I can't remember when Tyrion gifted her the golden chains though... which episode was it? – The Snow Prince (talk) 10:14, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Sometime in season 3, after Tyrion is promised to Sansa, but before the wedding. Can't quite place the episode. I'm pretty sure it's "The Bear and the Maiden Fair". Shae's page tells us about the chains but the Season 3 section is an unsourced mess (someone really should sort that out), and Tyrion's page doesn't even mention them. ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:45, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

"In the books"

Yes, on the "Differences" page, we need to include the phrase "in the books" because out of context, it isn't clear if certain short statements like "The Thenns are not cannibals" refer to their status in the books or in the TV series.

The general rule of thumb for dividing material between "Notes" and the "Differences" page, is that the "Differences" page is for stuff book-fans would notice...but a difference will be put into the main episode page's notes if a change is significant enough that it might confuse TV-first viewers. Things like "The Qarth storyline got expanded in the TV series", or "Talisa was Jeyne Westerling in the books but got changed around in the TV version". Similarly, Tyrion's murder of Tywin is the important closing scene of the third novel, all of his past involving Tysha comes to a head with that, and it is quite bizarre that they changed it.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 12:11, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. And yes, it does belong there, but not in a different sub-section, does it? I re-consolidated it now without losing any information (only details about Tysha's original story, which are told in the link that leads to Tysha's page, after all.) And it's not so bizarre they changed it. They told the story once and alluded two it one time each season from then on; it wouldn't have had the same dramatic impact for the viewer. Even the attentive viewer, who would have known what they were talking about, wouldn't have actually felt the drama exposed in the books. Could've emphasized it in earlier seasons, that's true. Also, I edited the opinion from I don't know why an opinion fits there (even if it it's from someone notable), but if it does, at least it should reflect what they actually said: they were not "utterly baffled"; they were critical because it eliminated complexity from the scene, and then they said it may have been a good idea to cut it for the TV show. ArticXiongmao (talk) 12:35, June 18, 2014 (UTC)

...Why wouldn't I choose to put it in a separate sub-section? It's important enough that as an Admin-level decision I separated it as a subsection.

Yes, this was bizarre. Yes, they were setting it up. Yes, viewers should have been able to remember a simple story he told prominently in Season 1.

This entirely changed Tyrion's motivations for killing his own father and I am stunned that you actually think this improved the drama.

Yes, I did need to rephrase the note about's review. NO, they did NOT say it was a good idea to cut it: they didn't review the past seasons and seemed to have forgotten that Tyrion actually did explain it within TV season 1, or any of her other subsequent TV mentions in the following seasons. Elio phrased it as "if it had never been mentioned AT ALL before, why introduce it now?" He was in error; it had indeed prominently been introduced before.

Indeed, Elio responded to a post I made on the YT video asking about this, and he said: "It removes a great deal of the pathos and tragedy. Some is there still, of course, but it's significantly less powerful than it could have been. Shae, in particular, more than anything."

...but you then quoted their misunderstanding, out of context, to present it as if they were okay with it?

I'm going to restore that sub-section, only updating the stuff.

Do not revert it again or edit it in any capacity. You already reverted my Administrator-level edit once before, asking "how can this be a sub-section?"-- according to what rules? The rules I make as an Administrator? Try to alter that section again and I'll give you a temporary ban as a warning.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:35, June 19, 2014 (UTC)


Categorize new images.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 03:50, June 19, 2014 (UTC)


Question: I just googled your name; do you run a Tumblr account named "ArticXiongmao", or is it just a coincidence that it has the same name?  Because "Xiongmao" means "panda", but "arctic" has a "c" in it.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:19, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Artic is a nickname, it does not refer to the adjective. And yes, Xiongmao stands for panda and I was aware of it. I have a couple of Tumblr accounts, one of them is safe for work (lukanieto), and this one isn't, although I don't use it much. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 21:31, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

...are you male or female? Look, the "ArticXiongMao" Tumblr account isn't just "Not safe for work" but "hardcore sex gifs, plot what plot?" -- you can't keep using the same screename for both. It is inappropriate. Can you either change your screename to "Lukanieto" or create a new profile altogether named "Lukanieto"?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:48, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how my gender is in any way relevant? But yes, the minute I realized my tumblr had the same name as this account, I thought about changing it, don't worry. Still, those are my personal accounts, I don't see how it's none of your concern. There are no guidelines about this when joining the wiki, as far as I could see, probably because that would be ridiculous and ridiculously prudish. Even if I used my real names for both, I can be an amateur editor for a wiki and have my own tumblr blog with whatever I want on it. But don't worry, we needn't have this discussion; I was going to change it anyway.

Done. I've changed the Tumblr address. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:14, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

I've had bad experiences in the past - admittedly by people who were not you. "Back in the day" years ago, an Admin on wikipedia kept harassing me and other people attempting to work on a set of related articles for a particular TV series. Much later, we gradually realized that the only reason he'd become an Administrator is by diligently making hundreds of edits into the pages of pornographic actresses - nor did he seem to understand that this was something to do in private. It also weirded me out that...he used his real name as his screename, and indeed accused the rest of us for being "bizarre" by not revealing to him our personal names. Now this was like eight years ago, ancient history...but I'm concerned about the stereotype of "this scifi/fantasy show is only popular because horny fanboys like to see the T&A in it". This is not you personally, I've just had some really bad experiences.
Your writeup about the Arianne Martell situation over on Lukanieto.tumblr was actually spot-on. I hope they're just casting her later.

P.S. I've been busy with the new schoolyear starting and yes, our Season articles need a good overhaul - I haven't had time to devote attention to how much or how little we should say in the Season 5 article. Thank you for updating it so much - I'm writing to give you a headsup that I will be going over it soon, but I don't want to offend you for changing the substantive work you've already done on it. It's just the revision process...and you'll probably revise whatever I have to say too. Dear god, what if the ironborn are cut entirely? Madness.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:22, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know it was that easy to change Tumblr account names. That's fine - just so long as it's not the exact same thing as your username here so it doesn't come up in google-search, etc.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:25, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree with the Arianne thing? Honestly, I thought you were more of a purist than that. I don't mean to offend at all, by the way. As for your bad experiences, I get that. And I was happy to help out with the Season articles. And no, I won't get offended by changes to the Season 5 articles, obviously. My only strict guideline when editing is that I'm not a fan of too much speculation in the production and adaptation sections, as you may have already seen (IMHO, best to state the facts and possibilities and let people form their own opinions.)  —ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:29, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Well, I meant your analysis was logical...I'd still prefer Arianne; I'd still prefer Willas Tyrell.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:34, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Gotha :) —ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:39, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Article titles

The names of articles about characters do not include the character's title.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 19:32, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

Meena Rayann

Source of her casting please.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 20:51, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

What? It's already in the Season 5 page... I don't understand. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 21:25, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

That's specifically the problem: you can't just make a sourced statement "Meena Rayann as Meereenese noblewoman" on the Season 5 page....and then not give the citation on the Meen Rayann page itself! When you made the Meena Rayann page you had to fill out these citations.

Immediately drop whatever else you're doing and add these citations to every new page you've made.

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:51, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Season 5 character summaries

I had an idea but I wanted to run it past you before editing anything because it's a pretty major edit across several pages, on the character summaries and background section of the new major characters for Season 5. There's been some issues with the Dornish characters in terms of what we think we know vs how it was in the book, and also with the High Sparrow ("How much should we spoil, exactly?"). Then I realized... We got official descriptions , along with the Comic Con reveal! So why not use them?

I'm thinking particularly about characters such as Doran or the High Sparrow, whose respective official descriptions explain their roles perfectly without spoling anything; Myrcella, whose role in the show so far is summarized perfectly; and Trystane and the Sand Snakes, whose differences with the book counterparts have created some confusion on the Wiki.

So my suggestion is to use these official descriptions, pretty much word for word, at least until we get anything more substantial, and use the "In the books" section for whatever differences there seem to be, such as Trystane being the heir or Tyene using daggers (...for some strange reason; I hope they don't turn Tyene and Nym into Obara lookalikes.)

Anyway, what do you think? :) —ArticXiongmao (talk) 20:35, September 21, 2014 (UTC)

...Were you too busy updating your pornography Tumblr to bother to check any of the Talk pages in which we already discussed this weeks ago?

As stated before, even thought that the SDCC casting descriptions were very suspicious to the point that they wrote in to ask HBO to confirm if there had been an error. The casting descriptions given out at the time of SDCC are officially unreliable, and we're waiting for more information. Yes, this means that articles like "Tyene Sand" are half-finished...we are powerless to fix this, and it's HBO's own damned fault for not being more clear about the TV continuity character relationships.

Pay Attention.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:01, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

No ridiculous delusion of power excuses your blatant unprofessionalism as an administrator. I have never seen anything like this, let alone in a platform built for and supported by volunteers. Abuse your powers as you wish inside the wiki, but you better not harass me outside of its confines ever again. I graciously changed my Tumblr's name to please you, even though you were being anything but gracious or even remotely civil. But now you have crossed a moral line, and you are extremely close to crossing a legal one. No, I am afraid you are in no place to continue using my personal lifestyle as a form of insult or admonition —and more importantly, you have no right to harass me with my private entertainment, which has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The thing is, in stark contrast to yourself, I do not depend on this wiki for my sense of self-worth. As every other sane person here, I am a volunteer editor in my free time. This means I do not need to stand for this, so I will not suffer any more ridiculous bullying or harassment from the likes of you. I hope you change your ways, not only because your shockingly unprofessional behavior disrupts any possible sense of community but also because you have earned and will continue to earn the dislike of many. Dislike, not hate —nobody but you cares about this wiki enough to muster the will to "hate" because of it. Most people have better things to do with their time.

You have lost yet another productive editor, again only because you could not bother to try and behave like a functioning adult, and instead used this platform as your own childish power trip. Maybe you should start wondering if it is not everyone around you who is wrong. Maybe it is you. Maybe this wiki would function a hundred times more efficiently and with happier editors if you were nowhere in sight. But I very much doubt you will realize this, let alone admit to it. After all, you would never abandon your ridiculous "dominion" so easily. Goodbye, and grow up. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:17, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

You crossed a line.

No ridiculous delusion of power excuses your blatant unprofessionalism as an administrator, that everyone has seen many times and in this case you can see in my own "User talk" page . I have never seen anything like this, let alone in a platform built for and supported by volunteers. Abuse your powers as you wish inside the wiki, but you better not harass me outside of its confines ever again. I graciously changed my Tumblr's name to please you, even though you were being anything but gracious or even remotely civil. But now you have crossed a moral line, and you are extremely close to crossing a legal one. No, I am afraid you are in no place to continue using my personal lifestyle as a form of insult or admonition —and more importantly, you have no right to harass me with my private entertainment, which has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The thing is, in stark contrast to yourself, I do not depend on this wiki for my sense of self-worth. As every other sane person here, I am a volunteer editor in my free time. This means I do not need to stand for this, so I will not suffer any more ridiculous bullying or harassment from the likes of you. I hope you change your ways, not only because your shockingly unprofessional behavior disrupts any possible sense of community but also because you have earned and will continue to earn the dislike of many. Dislike, not hate —nobody but you cares about this wiki enough to muster the will to "hate" because of it. Most people have better things to do with their time.

You have lost yet another productive editor, again only because you could not bother to try and behave like a functioning adult, and instead used this platform as your own childish power trip. Maybe you should start wondering if it is not everyone around you who is wrong. Maybe it is you. Maybe this wiki would function a hundred times more efficiently and with happier editors if you were nowhere in sight. But I very much doubt you will realize this, let alone admit to it. After all, you would never abandon your ridiculous "dominion" so easily. Goodbye, and grow up. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:18, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

Which is more? Five disunited forces or one smaller but united force? You have been causing more problems than you solve.

First, there was a time when people would be humiliated for publicly maintaining porn blogs, using the same screename as elsewhere. This was unprofessionalism.  And the thought occurred that you should be apologizing for this, not me apologizing to you. I'm worried that sort of behavior might eventually scare off female editors, and wikis already have gender imbalance problems.

Second, it's your own fault for not paying attention to Season 5 casting info policy which we discussed weeks ago.

Third, you've been running roughshod over the wiki for a while and it is time to rein you in.

Meaning specifically, Fourth: actually fill out in full the actor and character pages you have created recently, instead of leaving them as half finished work for others to follow. When I said "drop what you're doing and finish this immediately", I meant that as a literal order: if you do not I will give you a warning ban. You need to follow basic directions.

This is your only warning.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:23, September 24, 2014 (UTC)

I gave you a direct order to drop what you were doing and fill out the actor pages you left half finished. I said this was your only warning. You ignored the warning, and instead have been adding small fixes to the "in the books" sections.

I'm giving you a one week temporary warning ban for this.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:41, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Serial commas

Use serial commas.

"Regular directors Neil Marshall, Alex Graves, Alik Sakharov and Michelle MacLaren will not be returning for Season 5."

This sentence is meaningless. "Sakharov and MacLaren" are not a conceptual unit like "Benioff and Weiss".

Graves, Sakharov, (comma) and MacLaren.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:30, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I realize I've been annoyed with you a few times and I'm sorry about that. You couldn't have been aware of this but for the weeks between when Season 4 ended and early October, I was getting increasingly annoyed at Werthead, leading up to the big fight we had three weeks ago. I was taking out my frustrations on minor points with you. I hope that in hindsight that makes more sense, I was walking around being angry about other matters.

But that's over now and time to focus on Season 5.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:38, November 5, 2014 (UTC)

No worries. My response was also too explosive. I apologize for that. And yeah, now to wait for Season 5, huh? Big news come almost every week. BTW, I standardised the order of the sections in each of the episodes from all seasons (using the seasons 3 and 4 order), and added the seasons 3&4 style "In the books" section in the episodes from the first two seasons.  —ArticXiongmao (talk) 20:51, November 5, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for re-correcting the edit ​I made on Bronn's page about him being a recurring character in the first season. 01:29, November 9, 2014 (UTC)Sebahed​

Image uploads

Hey, just a quick note about uploading images: All images from Game of Thrones need to be tagged with "HBOImage" enclosed with {{ as copyright law requires us to acknowledge that ownership of the images we use here belongs to HBO. Images also need to be categorized to prevent them from becoming orphaned/unused, and need to be uploaded under specific file names that are relevant to the subject; for example: "Sansa's new clothes.jpg" rather than 12345678.jpg. Thanks.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 11:16, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I simply uploaded a new version of an already existing image (because the quality of the original was horrendous), and I assumed it already had the proper tags. I noticed the name, but I couldn't change it, because it was substituting an existing image, right? Normally I do this right. Anyway, I fixed it. Fixed other recent images as well, uploaded by other people, which lacked the HBOImage box and other information. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 11:21, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for sorting that out. And yes, only admins can move file names. Thanks again.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 11:31, November 11, 2014 (UTC)
Try and remember to categorize your image uploads.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 20:04, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

New actors in Season 5 category

That's not what the Seasons categories are for. Please remove that categorization in all the articles.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 04:46, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Done ;) —ArticXiongmao (talk) 13:38, November 15, 2014 (UTC)


Make sure official Game of Thrones images are tagged as "HBOImage". Thanks.--Ser Patrek, the Wolfskinner 13:52, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

Isabella Steinbarth

You made the page for Isabella Steinbarth, and loaded up the image there. It isn't from her IMDB page.

Now we're getting this message:


--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:15, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I took the wrong photo for some reason. I cannot really explain it. I fixed it. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:50, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

News Source

Do not link to They have been blacklisted as a news source for plagiarizing this wiki.

They're not "" anymore. The original staff moved to

But you know this you read both.

Look, there are ways around this: instead of linking directly to an old report, link to the report that they were quoting as a source.

In this specific case, it's from the revolt so....just link to a more recent report mentioning Maggy the Frog.

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:23, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

I despise WiC. Didn't know they were blacklisted, tho. Good to know. Now I don't feel bad if I change a WiC reference to a WotW one. Thanks. Still, be aware; by undoing my edit, you broke the reference string again, which was what I attempted with my edit (since Maggy was cast, someone took her out of the list of "reported to be cast", but she was the one who had the link for a whole lot of characters.) Since this piece of news was pre-Fansided shitstorm, I linked to this WotW article, which mentioned all of these leaked casting calls the staff had previously reported at WiC. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:45, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

The Children re Tysha

Please list the specific points from the Tysha note on "The Children" which you feel need to be changed.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:54, March 3, 2015 (UTC)

Baratheon Numbers at the Battle of Castle Black

Since I'm both a very boring and a very bored person, I counted the Baratheon cavalry in the Battle of Castle Black. I might have missed a few, but it's pretty precise. 1,451 come from the South, from the Wall side, including Stannis and Davos, and 1,323 come from the North. All in all, about 2,770 of Stannis' 3,000 army he said he had. Maybe he didn't have enough horses, maybe he left some men behind at Eastwatch and/or Dragonstone. Either way, here's the counting:

Stannis North - 1323

A count of the Baratheon cavalry who attack the wildling camp from the North at the Battle of Castle Black.

Stannis South - 1305

A count of the Baratheon cavalry who attack the wildling camp from the South at the Battle of Castle Black, including Stannis Baratheon himself and Davos Seaworth.

Actually Stannis said he had 4,000 men left's good to count but I think it's overthinking it. He's got 4,000 men overall, and he probably has a couple hundred making it west on foot with the baggage train - this is as many cavalry as he had left. thing: I thought Davos was riding with Stannis, not commanding a pincer.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:41, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

Trystane pic

I'm not annoyed about TV-Tyene anymore, now that I've realized she's a specific combination of book-Tyene and book-Elia Sand (though I do wish they'd cast someone who was South Asian if they wanted her more like Ellaria). At any rate I was relieved when I heard that she does use poison as her signature weapon: poisoned daggers.

Anyway, where did you get that new pick of Trystane?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:05, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen your analysis on the subject. The restructuring of those pages, especially Tyene's, was really well done. Some wonderful work there. Hadn't noticed the Elia parallel; they are certainly doing an amalgamation there, while maintaining Tyene's most prominent features —she's petite and innocent-looking compared to her elder sisters, and she uses poisons.

As for that Trystane pic, I took it from TWOW's Twitter. Where did they get it? Good question. Probably directly from HBO? —ArticXiongmao (talk) 01:10, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I see now - I wondered because maybe the source had more new photos. Whatever, a good pic is a good we can finally give him a decent family tree photo.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:13, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

No more profile, huh? He's not a King in a coin, after all.

I see you've edited the family tree, btw. Now the 3 cast Sand Snakes are individually listed. That's great!

EDIT: I just noticed, Sarella is in the third place, because her mother is "Various women". Couldn't this be amended? There is enough space for "A peasant", "An eastern noblewoman" and "A ship captain", maybe? Just to keep it all in order, and consistent so that the explanation of the mothers is not in their daughters' boxes. Tyene's especially, since the dotted line already marks Ellaria as her mother; no need to reiterate it. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 01:15, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

I considered that but it doesn't really work - the relationship boxes get really confusing if someone has more than two spouses. Yeah there's space for "a peasant woman" and "an eastern noblewoman" on the left side...but how would they link to the Oberyn box without the lines crossing over each other? This was the best solution.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:28, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

Episode synopsis

Those synposises were proven as fake? What are the confirmed synopsises we do have?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:47, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

1 to 3 were real, reported weeks before 4 to 7. A person supposedly from SpoilerTV reported the 4-7 synopses on the comment section of a The Watchers on the Wall article. Sue the Fury published it, presumably after making sure it was real, but then Bryan Cogman said some of the information was wrong (the episodes he wrote), and SpoilerTV didn't publish this information at all. So, it was fake, and Sue in fact deleted the article. You won't find it, if you look for it. I deleted the ones I could (from the season 5 page, and one episode which was unblocked,) but the others are blocked. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 20:58, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Image uploads

This was specifically titled "DothrakiHorses". It was used as an image of the detailed wooden horse statues at the gates of Vaes Dothrak, not the city in general.

DO NOT "reload" images with entirely separate shots, under the same file name. Or at least check what's linking to it - you would have seen that "Great Stallion" uses that image. If you have a wide-shot of the city, simply load it up as a separate file name.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:54, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

You did the same thing to a few other images:

We already have an aerial image of the Great Sept of Baelor, but you copied over the image we needed of the entrance to the sept, with the statue. GreatSeptS3.jpg

You also did this for the shot of the direwolves running, but I'll rework that.

Don't upload new versions of an image under the same name if the file you load up looks significantly different.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:03, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming episodes

I don't think it's a good idea to post your notes on books to screen for unaired episodes here, even on your talk page.

Why didn't you simply write these as a Word document on your personal computer, and simply leave them offline?

Also you're proverbially biting off more than we can chew: we're not finished updating the wiki for EPISODE ONE of Season 5. Even one episode a week is a fast rate for us.

But you're jumping ahead to work on lists comparing specific chapters from the advanced episodes?

Look, I understand if...pointing out which chapter each scene is based on is "what you're good at", and you just dashed it off quickly. But we need to prioritize on current stuff.

At any rate, while you were actually trying to be as careful as you could....inherently, the new editors jumping on for Season 5 can see your edits in the "recent changes" feed, and it encourages them to outright add information into articles.

This is not a warning or anything, but please just keep your "in the books" chapter notes offline until each episode airs.

I blanked them on here, but you should be able to pull the notes you already had from the History tab, there's still there.

I"m doing this because yet another new user just asked if he could add info based on leaked episode information.

We need to be thorough about "The Wars to Come", one episode at a time.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:38, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

That is wise. I had hoped people wouldn't visit anyone's Talk page, but you're right that it's risky. Unfortunately the "Talk page" edits appear in the recent pages. I'll do it privately, outside the wiki. As for why I'm doing that and not other stuff, well, mostly it's because I'm really interested in the process of adaptation, and I'm re-reading the books right now so I have them fresh in my mind, and the "In the books" section is usually lacking for months, so I wanted to have it prepared. Anyway, I'll try and help out with the other stuff too. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:18, April 16, 2015 (UTC)


I've only just seen what Alexandervonweimenn had written on your talk-page. I've blocked him.--Ser Patrek (talk) 12:46, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. He was just a troll. He did that because I undid one of his changes; Obara's famous book quote, from an unreleased episode.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 13:03, April 16, 2015 (UTC)


I am remaining unspoiled and have not watched.

But a question was asked regarding House Florent.

Please answer with a "yes" or "no":

In the leaked episodes, is there any mention that Shireen and Samwell are related, because their mothers are both Florents? Any mention of House Florent at all?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:52, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

No. :) QueenBuffy35px-Pink crown 22:25, April 16, 2015 (UTC)
No, to both. Is their relation mentioned in AFFC? —ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:57, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

...Damn it. Well Shireen didn't have that many scenes in AFFC. Maybe the Viewer's Guide will make some mention of it, I don't know.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:30, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Mossador's page

There appears to be something wrong with Mossador's primary page photo. You uploaded a better version of my picture, yet the profile only shows my version of the photo. And it appears to be way to big (vertically). Can you manage to fix it? :/--Sebahed (talk) 22:23, April 17, 2015 (UTC)


User talk:ArticXiongmao/Jaime/Cersei scene

Indira Varma

You misrepresented me when you said that I was deleting her other roles.

I was not doing any such thing. All I did was to place Torchwood above her other roles.

I was simply rectify her Torchwood work which people neglected to mention before. 00:12, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

Prostitutes from High Sparrow

Turns out the prostitute characters from High Sparrow have recurred in the past and will recur next episode; need to sort out recurring character casting; see talk page on "High Sparrow" and continue discussion there, I have some links; please cite the ones you identified with links, etc.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:38, May 2, 2015 (UTC)


Please try and remember to add the licensing template when uploading new images. Images that are property of HBO need to be tagged as "HBOImage".--Ser Patrek (talk) 05:24, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

Editing Vandalized articles

If you see vandalism in a page you're about to edit (like the "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken" article) please be so kind as to eliminate the traces of vandalism.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 02:26, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

House Forrester

Hai! i just wanted to leave a request about putting House Forrester as one of the combatants in The War Of The Five Kings page. They are sworn to House Glover and helped House Stark alot. Have a nice weekend.

Bad news

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:14, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

I planned on visiting the set, if they filmed in Navarra. Now... Nope, I'm not gonna go "as south as south goes", hehe. So yeah, bad news for me. But it doesn't really matter overall, right? We don't even know what they want to film. Dothraki Sea or Red Mountains are my best guesses. I love Bardenas, though. Has a kind of otherwordly feeling that few places have (Almería certainly doesn't.) But maybe they aren't looking for that, anyway. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 00:34, June 11, 2015 (UTC)


Check the ser gregor talk page i replied5.170.40.242 19:11, June 15, 2015 (UTC)


So many edits and you write "Sir" instead of "Ser"?--Gonzalo84 (talk) 16:52, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Still, does that merit commenting it here? It was just a typo ;) —ArticXiongmao (talk) 16:54, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Sand Snakes fight

Thank you for removing those parts from the "Sand Snakes fight" section that you did; in hindsight they were a bit of a reach, and straying off-topic.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:53, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

They included perfeclty fine information, it just didn't belong in a section dedicated to the infamous Sand Snake fight. I see you have distributed the deleted parts to more appropriate places. Good idea. Should've done that myself, honestly. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 23:56, June 30, 2015 (UTC)

Temporary ban

You have been temporarily suspended from editing this wiki for uncivil behavior (insulting language). Being civil or not is not dependent on the encyclopedic level of certain articles, articles can be improved and tweaked without resorting to insults or posturing.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 19:07, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I insulted a guy who does not abide by any wiki rule in his writing, and constantly insults and harasses other users. I've been informed that other Wiki users are building a list of all the many, many times that The Dragon Demands has insulted them, among other transgressions. Aside from harassing and insulting people, he always makes references to "admin-level decisions", and threatens people with bans if they do not abide by those decisions, essentially shutting down all possibilities for discussion. Personally, he outright stalked me through my username (why was he trying to find things about me? Answer me that) and harassed and shamed me into changing the address of my personal, private —not advertised anywhere AT ALL— Tumblr for explicit content, because, since it shared a name with my username here, it's "unprofessional" (even thought it didn't have anything to do with this wiki and being a volunteer editor is not a profession.) Later he used this issue (in which I was the victim) to continue to shame me, with gems like: "Were you too busy updating your pornography Tumblr to bother to check any of the Talk pages in which we already discussed this weeks ago?" In what world is that acceptable? Why the hell hasn't HE been banned a thousand times over? Oh, he's an administrator. What a surprise. Shameless. Absolutely shameless. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 11:49, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

A few years ago, we held a vote on whether or not Dragon should have his Admin rights removed. Believe it or not, he was much worse at the time. In the end he kept his rights after promising to tone it down. He said he would change, and I thought we should give him another chance. (for reference:

There are times when I regret voting in his favour, such as when he acts out like when he tried to have me perma-banned (he thought I'd hired people to vandalise his user page), or when he perma-bans first time users for mistakes rather than explaining how the wiki works. Our wiki has a horrible reputation in the Wikia community because of this. I've lost count of how many times I've been in Wikia chatrooms and seen them mocking us and "That crazy Dragon guy", saying "Don't edit there, you'll just get perma-banned and the other Admins don't give a shit".

You can always ask the other Admins to hold another vote, but I don't think it'll work. DRAEVAN13 12:26, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

So a proven bully, harasser and stalker who does what he wants in the wiki, essentially writing opinion articles instead of encyclopedic text, all thanks to the threat of his banhammer, is able to keep doing what he wants because... the other admins "don't give a shit"? Well, it does explain things, at the very least.

Having read through the evidence presented in the previous incident, I must say I don't see how he was "much worst." He was more brazen, I'll grant you that, but his actions are the same —threatening and aggressive language, all-too-common threats of bans for daring to contradict him on a non-administrative issue (again, shutting down all possibility for discussion), then actually going through with some of those bans; not to speak of the times he has harassed people (or stalked and shamed me, as you can see above in the sections "Question " and "Season 5 Character Summaries ".) How is that all of this doesn't result in an automatic ban? Let alone revoking his admin status; it should be beyond obvious that putting an end to this ego-trip of his is the only reasonable thing to do. Other users (such as I, for example) have been BANNED, sometimes permanently, for much less than all of his transgressions. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 13:04, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, Dragon does do a lot of good when he's editing articles, undoing vandalism, and updating the new content when a new season of GoT is airing. If he gets demoted he'll probably leave the wiki, and then the work and backlog will pile up. It'd be against the other Admins' interests to demote him, since they'd have to replace him or be more active themselves. Notice how Dragon is the only Admin here on a daily basis, while most other Admins leave for days, weeks, or even months at a time. I'm sure there's a good reason as people have lives outside the wiki, but it's still true.

I've been in contact with the Wikia Staff multiple times and they've told me they've gotten lots of complaints about him. Though they agree with the complaints, short of him banning everyone or starting to issue death threats or something equally extreme, they don't want to get involved.  DRAEVAN13 13:15, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I imagined that the main reason nobody does anything about it is that he's so active and does indeed do a lot of work, some of it quite good. That's an absurd reason not do do anything, of course, but I do understand it. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 13:22, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

All we can do is hope he'll change. For the sixth or seventh time. DRAEVAN13 13:25, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

He has no reason to change if nodoby reacts against the aggression and harassment, the liberal threat and use of bans, and the opinion articles thinly veiled as encyclopedic texts. I'm pretty sure he truly, honestly believes he's being 100% rational and agreeable.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 13:43, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

It's not a mere matter of "insulting": cursing at people is uncivil. I never cursed at you, that's not comparable.

...I wish this "list" of complaints would have been simply brought to my attention instead of not letting me know there was a problem.

Second: ArtixXiongMao, my intention was not to "stalk" and harass you and yes it was kind of inappropriate, but I googled your screename and your tumblr came up on top of the first page. It doesn't matter if it wasn't "advertised" anywhere, that's just how google search works. I then complained that you really shouldn't use the same screename for such things if you want to keep them private, and you changed your screename. Have I brought that up again in months?

As for banning accusations, your recent temp ban was due to uncivil language and made by Gonzalo84, not me.

I promised the other Admins I wouldn't ban you myself because it would be inappropriate. Do you see me "running around banning" you?

Overall I'm genuinely confused: we were always comparing the books to the TV series on here, for years, by the time you joined. If you want to focus on bare things like casting announcements and production info, why didn't you focus on the main wikipedia pages about that? I don't mean that accusingly it's seems better suited to what you're seeking and I don't know why you wouldn't prefer that.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 13:40, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Of course you are confused. Nobody has ever brought up these awful actions of yours! This is all a surprise to you! It always is, somehow. And don't make this about me; yes, I'm a casual editor, I mostly edit technical stuff. But I don't believe that's all the wiki is for, as you always claim I do; it's a nice strawman, though. However, most of your big projects are mostly opinion articles. It's quite telling that you always question me about these issues, and seem confused when it so happens that I agree with you. You actually cannot fathom why I wouldn't want those articles on the wiki, as written, if I agree with them, which is quite hilarious. They are not encyclopedic. At all. They'd be laughed out of freaking Wikipedia. They are opinion articles, and if someone dares to change anything (after the months of blocking, which go on indefinitely if someone doesn't insist), they are threatened with bans. Do you not see how your behavior is detestable?

I know you didn't ban me. I was prepared for the ban and have not fought it. I was asking why you haven't been banned for your much worse behavior. It's now pretty clear why.

I won't engage you further through here, TDD. It has proven to be an ineffective method to relay to you the complaints people have against your behavior —it's a conversation you seem to be totally uninterested in having; you're always surprised it's an issue at all, and it never goes beyond that. I'm tired of this cycle. Now I have my explanation of why you're still an administrator or a user at all; understandably, nobody is willing to spend as much time of their daily lives as you do dealing with this wiki. Fair enough. DRAEVAN13, I hope the matter is resolved, but I too have few expectations. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 13:46, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Well I object strongly to the cursing, please don't do that in the future it can lead to further bans. Cursing was provocative and only inflamed tempers, let's calm down now.

I welcome your constructive criticism about the articles on gender, rape, etc. so long as it remains civil. The blanket-statement yelling about it was not...productive.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:09, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

One thing you should keep in min Artic is that this is not Wikipedia. The purpose of the Wikia Project was to provide a space free of the notability guidelines and such of our mother project.

I have read some of the articles in contention and I believe Dragon tried to provide different sources and views on controversial matters among the fandom (such as the Jaime/Cersei scene or Sansa's wedding night or how come the writers cut off the Tysha confession but gave us minutes of the useless Orson Lannister monologue). They do similarly at Wookiepedia. If an article gives the impression of being biased it can be tweaked, nevertheless. But articles on themes and subject matters are not uncommon.

As for other matters I remain adamant: we will keep comparing show to book. Should a matter of adaptation prove controversial it wil be addressed here by contrasting the differing opinions. Like Wookiepedia, which we sometimes employ as a model, GoT Wiki is a manifestation of the fandom. Just like Lucas-hate or Lucas-gushing have articles, there, or the Jar Jar Binks article addresses the unpopularity of the character or the Watto one addresses that the character was criticized as a jewish stereotype. Neutrality is an ilussion, but we must try to remain OBJECTIVE - which is not the same.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 16:16, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

We should compare show to book. Everything you said sounds reasonable to me. If you think it wouldn't, you were probably paying attention to TDD's strawman of me instead of to me.

Random example: see that part in the "rape" article (previously only in the "Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken" page) where the media reaction to Sansa's rape is shown? When TDD originally wrote it, the negative reactions were literally the only ones portrayed, and the text was generally a mess, until I came in and added the very many positive reactions the scene got, and reestructured it a bit. You can go and look up how the text was before. Gone unchecked, TDD is everything but "objective."

Anyway, it's impressive how, yet again, it's all about me and the fact that apparently I don't like comparisons to the book, and that that's my main issue with TDD. Aside from the non-objectivity, and a general sense of aggression and entitlement (very much a "the showrunners should explain themselves for this atrocity!"), what about the threats of banning to crush any possibility for discussion, Gonzalo? What about that time he stalked me and shamed me into changing the name of my own personal Tumblr blog? And that's just me! —ArticXiongmao (talk) 16:27, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Regarding that incident with your tumblr blog; I haven't brought that up myself since it happened, as I thought it would only embarrass you; (you're the one bringing that up now) - yes I shouldn't have yelled about it at the time, but even then I said it was really prudent to not use the same specific screename for something like that. But that's in the past: I really didn't want to drag it up again and I haven't since then. There's no need to keep bringing that up now.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:22, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

...yes, and I thought adding positive reactions to the Sansa scene was a good idea, and encouraged you to add it. That's...that's just growing and refining the article. If you wanted to cut it entirely from the proposed article on Rape purely for size limitations etc. you could have just said that.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:25, August 25, 2015 (UTC)


Look, I was upset and surprised by the cursing, but if anything I was trying to address many of your criticisms before this (i.e. on the Jaime/Cersei subpage). Draevan13 is getting a lot more of this addressed by disagreeing/reacting/compromising civily, not by launching into personal attacks. As honest and non-condescending advice, you'd get your points across much more effectively if you go about it the way he is.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:04, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

...Watto was a jewish stereotype?!--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:38, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

Right now your one week temp ban is in place until Friday. If you simply apologize specifically just for that insulting outburst in which you were cursing, I'll lift the ban immediately. If you will be civil (stop cursing) about this we can both work together on refining it.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:27, August 25, 2015 (UTC)

I said what I did willingly and I meant it, and I'm willing to "do my time", as it were. It wasn't an outburst I later regretted, though I do understand why you in particular would think so. Anyway, I was prepared for a permanent ban —A single week is lenient! I'd have happily complied to a permanent ban if that was the decision of the rational administrators, and I'm even happier to return since that wasn't their decision (The "Production" section of the "Season 6" page —the main thing that should concern us, aside from fully updating Season 5 stuff, considering that the production of Season 6 is what's actually happening right now— is already out-of-date, by the way. I'd say most would agree that's probably more pressing than, say, an article on rape.) My case is that your many outbursts (for which you only had to apologize with no other repercussions) and your generally abrasive behavior are more than enough of a reason to revoke your administrator status and maybe even ban you, so what makes you think I'm gonna apply different standards to myself? You should probably think on that and apply it to yourself. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:23, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

...I never curse at people. That's a standard that we both live under. You were temp-banned specifically for saying "fuck" and "shit" to an Admin, not for disagreeing with an Admin.

Look, did you pause to think that if you didn't keep demanding my removal, I wouldn't be upset with you? Or warning that such harassing behavior might lead to a permanent ban? Gonzalo84 already said that yes we will compare the TV series to the novel and have thematic pages, so you're not going to win on that point, but otherwise, I'm not going to threaten to ban you for disagreeing with me (again, Draevan13 just started listing off specific points he wanted to "tweak"). e

We can still have a functional work relationship on here. If you'll calm down work can continue as normal -- re-opening old wounds isn't productive.

At any rate Gonzalo84 told me via e-mail that while he didn't think I'd done anything particularly wrong, arguing wasn't helpful and I should calm down with things, so I will. Another problem is that for such particularly sensitive writing decisions I was hoping the other two bureaucrats would get a chance to look them over to check what I did, but they're both kind of busy with real life at the moment. So I guess this will remain provisional for a while.

At any rate this is officially me holding out an olive branch: please stop behaving abrasively towards me and I won't towards you, let's calm down, this bickering by us both isn't getting work done.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:46, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

Fellas fellas fellas.. -shaking her head- I leave for a few weeks and sh*t hits the proverbial fan. lol I can't understand why matters can't be brought up before things get so heated. I was unable to have my input during this matter,and I am pleased to see some kind of solution has been reached. Please remember, we are all adults and need to respect each other... as hard as that may seem. We are a team here, with one common goal.. to make this Wiki amazing and to have fun while doing it. Next time there is a problem this severe, please contact me or another admin (Not TDD if you don't feel comfortable in doing so) and we will figure something out. I know you said the admins don't care ArticX.. but we really do.. I really do. :) QueenBuffy35px-Pink crown 23:39, August 30, 2015 (UTC)

House affiliation

Hey, just blind curiosity due to the work others were doing on infoboxes today - if you had to pick, what's your House allegiance?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:03, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

Not to barge in, but I was browsing his profile like 5 minutes ago as well and the thought crossed my mind too. - InGen Nate Kenny (talk) 22:04, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I understand the question. After all, Westerosi Houses are not like Hogwarts Houses; it's not like they reflect a personality. If you mean what faction I support during the show's conflict for the Iron Throne, that would probably be Daenerys Targaryen, in large part due to her general good nature and —relatively— progressive ideals (despite the 'Mad Queen' potential), and for her group of advisers, which are the most narratively diverse and interesting council I can think of; Tyrion, Varys, Jorah, Daario, Missandei, Grey Worm. At the same time, I'm a big fan of many individual members of House Stark, and I may identify with them the most; yet they aren't exactly much of a House or faction anymore, are they? And it's not like Robb was an Iron Throne contender anyway. Still, if my interpretation of the filming reports and my own speculation turn out to be correct and a reborn Jon leads an army of Wildlings and Northmen against the Boltons, in the name of Sansa and Rickon Stark, don't doubt that I will be cheering the Starks on.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:16, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

...we're asking in the Hogwarts Houses sense.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:55, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

It all depends on a House's Lord, usually, right? But if we're going for stereotypes (Lannisters are sly bastards; Starks are honorable fools, etc), and if we're going for the Houses which have a generally defined stereotype, the Great Houses... I'm not rigid enough in my morality to be a Stark; I'm not driven enough to be a Targaryen; I'm not enough of an absolute arsehole to be a Greyjoy... It'd probably be between a Lannister, a Tyrell and a Martell. I honestly have no idea. Can't I go off and be a maester or a rich merchant or something? Let's say Tyrell. I like how they roll, I love their current secret de facto matriarchy, and I like the climate in the Reach. I'd say Martell but I hate heat.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 23:06, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

As of yet, no one on the wiki has ever picked Arryn or Frey, heh. Oh I don't know, some people chose just Maesters. Or one of the major vassal Houses.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:06, September 21, 2015 (UTC)


Sorry I've been busy with homework lately but I just finished. I was distracted from wiki work though: is there anything I should be working on now? Don't want to leave you hanging on anything; juggling a dozen things at once as always, but finally making headway on the "To Do" list...Sorry if I wasn't too responsive these last few days.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:53, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

Production articles

Good work on updating some of the production staff articles with images, etc. They don't get enough attention, probably because we don't know as much about the nuts and bolts of who the different line producers are, etc.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:19, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they're still stubs. But at least I credited them properly, which was something that was missing for most of the producers, even major ones such as Bryan Cogman. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 20:58, October 15, 2015 (UTC)


If people can't write on here to a standard of intelligibility, that is a problem. You can.

I can't read Russian, so I don't edit on the Russian counterpart of the wiki.

Often it isn't even a language thing; often even native English speakers write so unintelligibly that it affects basic comprehension.

Below a certain level it becomes a problem.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:02, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

Because calling a "TV show" a "movie" is just SO unintelligible, especially when she mentioned "seasons". You understood her perfectly, and you could've just chosen to correct her and that's it; instead, you chose to be rude and uppity. That was your choice, your behavior. Don't put it on her for not understanding the language perfectly. At least she was making an effort. You said I can write to a standard of intelligibility, but that's only because I was met with understanding and patience from teachers and people I interacted with on the Internet; if I had been treated as you treated her, my English would be utter horseshit. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:14, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

That is an absurd comparison.

It's not our job here to...teach users to write to a basic standard of written English. There is a minimum level of acceptability.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:30, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and you helpfully defined that bare minium as "intelligibility." Unless you're a bit short on reading comprehension, you must have understood what she meant; you didn't have to rudely reply that what she was saying was incoherent. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:42, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

" this is my first time here in Game of Thrones Wiki. I am not really a fan of those with seasons/episodes movies/books at all. But this one is quiet interesting huh?"

This sentence is not intelligible.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:44, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were just being rude. I'm so sorry, I didn't know you actually lacked basic reading comprehension. Have you ever even tried to communicate with someone who doesn't speak your language? Good grief. She means she's not a fan of serial storytelling —that is, movies and books with continuing story lines in-between seasons and episodes and novels. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:47, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

Don't use such insulting language with an Administrator. It also didn't escape my attention that in your initial post you called me "an asshole" before you thought better of it and redited it to say "stop being rude".

The wiki doesn't exist so people can have fun randomly editing it; it exists to be an accurate information source for the many more thousands of people that simply read it.

This is how the super-troll Ch'Vyalthan crippled the wiki for three months after Season 2 ended. From Florida, allegedly English primary language, but with such awful writing (bizarre grammar errors) that he was borderline unintelligible -- took advantage of our trust as for weeks we desperately tried to "teach" him to be better. And what came of that?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:51, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I used no insulting language; if you truly didn't understand her, you actually do lack basic reading comprehension. That's my professional opinion, not an insult. As for the actual insult I edited out, I see; I can't hurt your administrative feelings, but it's fine to insult and be rude to commoners, right? Great. Just great. You're creating such a positive community here, TDD. Bravo. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:52, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

....I've never tolerated users cursing at each other either. And cursing at Admins is worse. Also "uppity" is fairly insulting in English.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:57, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

So you of all people won't admit to arrogance, which is what "uppity" refers to? Here's another word for you: self-awareness. Or the lack thereof. Anyway, go have fun with your Marriage article. Ta-Ta. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 14:58, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

(sigh) - DIRECTLY illustrating my point, "uppity" is not a synonym for "arrogant" to native English speakers. Google the word "uppity", and see how many times its racist overtones turn up. It is considered offensive to call someone "uppity" these days.

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:01, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

America isn't the center of the world or of anglophones. Difficult for you to grasp, I know, considering your absolutely ridiculous stance on British English; but still, try to grasp that fact, please. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 15:04, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

Please just keep the conversation civil.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:33, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

Why undo?

What exactly was incorrect about what I added in "The Wars to Come" notes page? I know Mance isn't dead in the books, but in the show he was killed off (at least till he is revealed to be alive in season 6). Or does that item belong to the last season 5 episode, in which Stannis was allegedly killed? Why not write the reason? 16:53, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

Well it's kind of a spoiler...though we're fairly sure he really does die. Let's see what Season 6 does...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:54, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

It's not a "tradition". And two kings die in season five, not one. If you're going to choose one, choose the one actually involved in the War of the Five Kings, Stannis; so, if anywhere, that note belongs in Mother's Mercy. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:31, November 23, 2015 (UTC)

OK, then could you please post it on Mother's Mercy? I'd do it myself but it is blocked. 05:47, November 24, 2015 (UTC)

Season 6 adaptation

Hey TDD, why did you revert my edits on the season six adaptation section all in one go? Really, none of it did it for you? Come on. I reworked it so that the first paragraph mentioned that TWOW will be the main source of adaptation, instead of that kind of a big deal being relegated to the last paragraph. I also reordered stuff so that there is a focus on which characters caught up and which didn't. Before, there was a bit of that, but there was a paragraph that didn't follow the same model, which was quite inconsistent. I also added a few main characters that had previously gone un discussed, which you just deleted alongside everything else! So could you explain why you just reverted ALL my editions, with no regard to any of it? You gave no explanation. I mean, I know you don't like me and all, but surely you must have reasons to just revert the work I do, especially when I didn't DELETE anything you wrote; I only reordered it, and added new stuff. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 00:36, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I was rereading it and not really satisfied, but then really some of the earlier stuff I wrote in there wasn't too good either. So since you asked this I went back and - instead of just reverting - went over the whole thing start to finish to try to rework it.

I really wanted to streamline it a bit now; the bulleted list is easier on the eyes than the wall of text from before.

I was just taking a stab at it to try to streamline it. I'm done now, though.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:43, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

Casting speculation

DO NOT present casting speculation as fact. Given that they don't give names anymore, you can speculate "possibly a young Old Nan", but don't just write "younger Old Nan" - that presents it as fact, even though we don't have confirmation. This is why I make it a point to wait for WOTW to completely confirm such things through their HBO contacts, instead of hunting down messageboard reports. We have to be verified. You probably just forgot to clarify that this was casting speculation, but please be more careful in the future.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:47, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

"Reaction to Season 5"

"...'Reaction to Season 5 has been mixed...'? As in one of the best if not the best critical response? And how do you ascertain that the reason for the reactions being mixed is the fact they adapted most of AFFC and ADWD into season five? Have you actually looked into this or is that, of course, just your opinion?--ArcticXiongmao

You cannot keep denying reality. Winning the Emmy award for Best Series in Season 5 was met by a universal commentary from all major critics, who felt the need to point out that it was probably the weakest season of the TV series to date (though this is of course relative to itself). These included: The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Rolling Stone, Vulture, Vanity Fair, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline,, Collider, BusinessInsider, io9,, Bustle, and HitFix, among others.

Cite, specifically, any major critical review outlets that felt Season 5 was the strongest season to date. Or that even felt it was just as strong as prior seasons. The general response from all of the above cited critical review cites is that it was "mixed" -- not "awful" or even "bad", but that relative to the high bar that past seasons set, it wasn't doing too well.

The first step to fixing problems is admitting there is one. You're just blindly championing everything about the TV show, and even taking notes about basic continuity errors as calculated insults (even when they're nothing about books versus TV but purely about production issues);

Name one critical review that didn't feel the need to point out "Game of Thrones won the Season 5 Emmy...but did such a mixed season really deserve it?"--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:48, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Shoo, shoo. I'd like this place to be clean. Take your random spouts of unnecessarily long nonsensical text elsewhere. I already said I won't embroil myself in more silly battles with you that go nowhere. Nice touch deleting your first instinct to "demand" that I cite stuff, by the way, as if you had that power. Hilarious. Good to see you're still as far away from anything resembling reality as you've always been. So, please, take your tragically unfounded megalomania somewhere else, as I see no point in quarreling with you any further —it's always fruitless. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 08:22, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

Sansa-Ramsay in the DVD commentaries

So they were going to avoid it, huh?

Maybe this will teach you to, huh, you know, watch the thing before criticizing it. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 19:28, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

....I didn't say they "had avoided" discussing the Sansa-Ramsay condensation because, by definition, the DVD commentary wasn't even out yet for Season 5.

What I said was that they had avoided discussing the Jaime/Cersei sex scene from "Breaker of Chains" in the Season 4 DVD commentary......a point which still stands.

Maybe this will teach you to actually, you know, pay attention to the specific content of criticisms of the TV show, instead of just blindly lumping all of them together to dismiss them.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 20:57, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, reading the article, my original point still stands even for Sansa/Ramsay: Bryan Cogman, and not Benioff and Weiss, was the one who even attempted to make a public explanation of the condensation. Also the article itself pointed out that it has been months since the episode aired but in all that time Benioff and Weiss didn't really address it at all in interviews of any kind. did you think this was a slam dunk against criticisms of the scene? And more importantly, how they were handling it?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:00, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

Season 6 casting updates

1 -

"Come on, we know who each of them is playing."

As a wiki guide, not a news site, we're more concerned with accuracy than being the first to report something by jumping to a conclusion....yes they are almost certainly those characters, but other websites cite the wiki; if we simply state "he's Arthur Dayne", others will cite us, taking it as fact - then if we make a mistake it's our fault.

Not a big issue, but please use qualifiers like "probably Arthur Dayne", etc.

2 - Don't add in placeholders under Appearances such as "2 episodes"; even if they intended to be in 2 episodes, they often reshuffle scenes between episodes. That's only for finished episodes as they air. I mean, note how Cogman said even he was surprised when none of the Starks appeared in episode 4.6 - there were some short Stark scenes but they got reshuffled in editing. We've seen time and again in the past that scenes get reshuffled from what was originally intended.

You can write out in long form in the header "A Baratheon general appears in Season 6. Casting calls describe him as appearing in 2 episodes".

3 - Be careful, some of th WOTW links you added were to the wrong casting pages.

No major issues here or anything. I wish they didn't wise up and switch to using pseudonyms like this.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:15, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Hi, can you please come to the chat?

I'm licensed to chill 17:20, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

Sansa wedding night commentary,_Unbent,_Unbroken?diff=236782&oldid=236781

"Hm... That's a lie. Cogman DID address why they put Sansa in Winterfell.)"

Please don't throw around the accusation of "lie" lightly. Yes your update is more accurate - the earlier comment was based on an incomplete transcript report of what Cogman said in the commentary track, from news sites: as of yet I don't have access to the Season 5 Blu-ray commentaries. Yes, I was planning to give them a thorough listen-through to be more even-handed and suspected (or hoped) they gave some more plausible reason for merging Sansa's storyline.

So yes some things are going to be updated with DVD info.

But if the text in an article reads "the writers never explained this" in an edit made months ago, then the writers do subsequently give a full explanation of why they did something in the DVD commentary...that doesn't mean the original edit was "lying", just that it was "out of date".--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:11, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

It was an assumption, one of the many you make. You didn't say it was an extract, and that perhaps he explained it further in the full commentary; you assumed he didn't, as you always do, and definitively stated that Cogman didn't explain why they put Sansa in Winterfell.

As for why I changed "bad" to "confusing", that wasn't supposed to soften the edge. "Bad" is a generic adjective; why was the camerawork bad? Because it was quick, choppy and confusing. Hence why I described it as confusing camerawork. It's a more meaningful adjective; it doesn't soften the blow —In fact, it focuses the criticicism. Right now, as it stands, the camerawork is described as "poor" and the editing as "bad". That's pretty much meaningless.  —ArticXiongmao (talk) 19:32, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

Well I changed it to "poor" camerawork and "bad" editing - "confusing" implies we didn't know what was going on, when we actually did. (shrug)

Anyway I do want to stress that I'm not criticizing: your edits to both the Sansa and Sand Snakes sections were great and helped to refine it down.

Ah, so in fact it was scripted to be shot at night. This explains so much. I mean, camerawork aside, so many reviewers just thought it was weird that both Jaime/Bronn and the Sand Snakes would mount a seemingly brazen daylight attack.

At a certain point you have to question whether filming in the Alcazar's courtyard was actually worth it given all these restrictions.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:41, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

When the episode aired, I was thinking during the whole scene: "Why isn't this taking place at night?". Apparently Cogman was thinking the same thing! Not only it would make more sense, but it would be quite beautiful. The conclusion I draw is that no, the Alcazar wasn't worth it; they should've just taken a few actorless shots from the place, as it has been confirmed they did for season 6, and be done with it. But once they had gone to the immense trouble to be able to film there, they had to. It's a matter of money and their tight schedules. If they had known, I'm sure they would've chosen not to film elaborate scenes there. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 19:47, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

It will be great if we see in Season 6 demonstrated examples of that they learned from this past experience and adapted accordingly; i.e. if we see a Sand Snakes fight scene set at night, at a location of their choosing or sound stage instead of in a limited on-location shot, etc., and then in the next DVD commentary outright say "we ran into some mistakes with filming them in Season 5, it was an unpleasant experience and even we weren't satisfied with it, so we've adapted accordingly". Ack.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:50, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

Seasons format

Wiki format is to consistently write "Season 6". Capital "S" and the numeral. Not lowercase "season 6", and not spelled out as "Season Six" etc.

I've seen you turning this into non-standard versions; yes, it would be a massive task to update this throughout the entire wiki, but the idea is that during the process of regular editing we see "Season six" to switch it to "Season 6".

I don't want you to waste your time trying to bring all articles into this format or anything, just don't actively change "Season 6" to "the sixth season" etc.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:17, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Cogman live tweets "Two Swords"

If I'm not mistaken you were interested in the ravages of the war in the Riverlands. I can't recall in which pages you mentioned this, but I'm pretty sure you did. Cogman is doing recaps of his favorite episodes, and he mentioned why the effects of the war on the common folk were largely ignored until season four, in which the journey of Arya and the Hound finally allowed them to properly show it, at the end of 4x01 with the soldiers taking over an inn and the burnt fields, the farmer's story in 4x03, and the dying man in 4x07. Apparently seasons 2 & 3 "showed some of the ravaged Riverlands" but time constraints meant they had to "lose them in prep" (that is, the pre-production / writing stage).

Anyway, I thought you might want to edit this in yourself, partially because you'd know in which pages you mentioned this topic. He's mentioned some other interesting stuff, such as the fact that Alliser Thorne was supposed to "appear in King's Landing in S2 reporting about the wight that attacked Mormont. But there was a scheduling conflict" with Owen Teale, so Thorne couldn't appear; in the end, Mormont sent a raven to the small council instead. Also, Cogman describes season four as "the final act of the first 'phase' of GoT", which jives more with your way of thinking about it if I'm not mistaken. Something he says that doesn't jive with your way of thinking ("We were essentially adapting the final third of a book"), but it does jive with actually counting the chapters, is that Season 3 and 4 are not "ASOS split in half"; Season 3 is the first two thirds, and Season 4 the last third, stretched out, with bits and pieces of AFFC and ADWD to make it whole. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 08:28, March 22, 2016 (UTC)

Oh I already did that. I happened to be on Twitter at the time he was live-tweeting it (not that I knew he was going to), so I already added all the info to relevant pages, particularly "Two Swords" when this happened - you must have picked up on the after-action report by WOTW the day after that.
Maybe you read one of my reply tweets or something, I pointed out (not that he responded) "I wish we saw more of the devastation of the Riverlands"....but this is all trivial. Everyone including the writers wishes seasons 2 and 3 could have shown more of that, but even by the time Season 4 ended I felt like they'd made at least some good steps towards trying to show it a little, which was as much as they could (the whole sweeping devastated landscape in "Two Swords" and Polliver summarizing the broader events throughout the Riverlands works reasonably well).
Oh "first phase" can mean anything, I'm not right or anything: I was annoyed Benioff said that the Red Wedding was the "midpoint" of the story when Martin said that the first three novels are really "Act One of Three" of his total story (based on the original plan to make it a trilogy); it would even have been followed by a time-jump. Personally I'd put the deaths of Joffrey and Tywin in rapid succession as the endpoint of "part I", but okay that's all falling action from the Red Wedding. ----Point stands that the Red Wedding is a major chapter break; some said first half, novels its more like the first third. But again, utterly trivial, we have no real idea. And it hasn't really affected the show that much either. (shrug).--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:06, March 25, 2016 (UTC)

Mother's Mercy commentary

The return to Castle Black was filmed at various stages, not at the beginning. Hardhome was changed, but the commentaries explain exactly in which ways; it didn't involved anything you mentioned.)

Please explain.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 00:21, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

You could just wait to listen to the commentaries and trust I'm not making it up. There's no room in the "Edit summary" to source everything in text!

I changed that paragraph because you baselessly speculated that the return to Castle Black was filmed early in production; that's not the case. In one of the commentaries of episode 9 the director explains that one side was filmed at the very beginning, because they had to destroy the set (the top of the Wall set), and Jon and the wildlings arriving at the gates of the Wall and looking at Thorne was filmed very near the end. In your speculation, now disproven, it followed that if they had filmed this earlier than the Hardhome re-writes (that you very much over-emphasized, we'll get to that later), they created a continuity mistake but couldn't fix it... but that's not the case, in all possible senses, because it wasn't filmed at the beginning, and because the Hardhome commentaries (the three of them, really) explain how the Hardhome setpiece evolved exactly. It didn't have anything to do with anything you mentioned, and doesn't account for any discrepancy. They wrote the outline, then the production intended to set the scene in Iceland but when the scripts came in they realized they couldn't build such an elaborate set in the cold wild. That was the first production change, nothing to do with the plot. The only thing that changed then was because of the director: he added the idea of the palisade, which gave them the opportunity to limit special effects in many shots by not having to do even more set exetnsions, and also to emphasize the idea this wasn't a battle but just the characters trying and ultimately failing to contain a horrible massacre (for which he also shot it more chaotically than initially planned). Nothing to do with the ships, nothing that explains why Jon and the wildlings came back to Castle Black from the North.

Not that it actually needs explanation, of course; the show has always done this, it's just that in the past the books had the more elaborate version that explained everything and now you have to assume stuff like everyone else has for five years. You should probably get used to it. The show's stuffed with enough characters, stories, setpieces and exposition; the last thing it needs is even more useless exposition. You want the REAL reason? Drama. It created a more dramatic scene. You want an in-universe reason? Jon didn't trust Thorne, but at least he knows many people in Castle Black, not so in Eastwatch. Or maybe the ships couldn't sail that far south (remember the horrible storm at the end of Hardhome). The real answer is of course that it doesn't matter, but you would never take that for an answer. Apparently these unexplained little continuity mysteries (not plot holes; that's not what a plot hole is, please learn that) are worth paragraphs and paragraphs of analysis, while real literary analysis is non-existent and even the basic encyclopedic stuff is not thoroughly up to date. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 00:34, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

1 - I just meant I don't have access to the Blu-ray. I fully believed you that it was in the commentary. But rather than complain "you didn't wait for me to post a longer explanation because the edit summary box is only so large"....wikis aren't time-sensitive. If you're making an edit that might be contested you need to take the time to write up the whole thing, and THEN post it all at once.

For example, I can't just write in "mention that Ellaria has four instead of five children episode 5.9 is an error".....I'd write up all in ONE edit, "ention that Ellaria has four instead of five children in episode 5.9 is in error, because the writers directly admitted this in the DVD commentary."

You've done this before recently: don't just say "I'm cutting this the DVD contradicts it"; you have to explain specifically what was said in the DVD that contradicts it, which is fine. I believed you when you said it's in the DVD commentary, I just wanted more information on what exactly was said.

I'm not asking for much and I'm not disagreeing that your edit was correct: simply that if you're going to make an edit on a contested topic you need to back it up with thorough citations. Not just "I heard it on the DVD commentary" but a summation at least of what was said.

2 - When did they destroy the top of the Wall set and specifically why? Just scheduling reasons or something?

3 - That there was a production issue stemming from Hardhome rewrites was admittedly a guess at some plausible explanation....if we accurately understand what was said in the DVD commentary, then that's even worse: not stemming from any production issues, this would mean they wrote episode 8 ending with Jon departing with a fleet, then in episode 9 randomly appearing in the middle of the continent when he could have just sailed around it. This is even more distressing. ----So production issue goes away, it was always a tentative guess, but it still doesn't address the apparent plot hole.

You want the REAL reason? Drama. It created a more dramatic scene. You want an in-universe reason? Jon didn't trust Thorne, but at least he knows many people in Castle Black, not so in Eastwatch. Or maybe the ships couldn't sail that far south (remember the horrible storm at the end of Hardhome).

Congratulations, you've re-invented the soap opera. Not Emmy-quality "writing" of "Drama", but events falling into place by happenstance because we assume the audience won't actually think about it on any level.

...Jon Snow is the Lord Commander of the entire Night's Watch; wha...why the heck does him being more familiar with Castle Black than Eastwatch have anything to do with the plot hole that they could sail south by ship instead of the LONGER overland trek to Castle Black (even compared to the overland distance to Eastwatch). I have yet to be presented with any plausible in-universe explanation.

Drama is only "dramatic" if it is plausible. For the sake of argument, imagine of in episode 9 when Jon is let back through the gates....Jaime Lannister forces Thorne to do it at sword-point. And it's a really dramatic and well-acted scene. But the only explanation Jaime gives for how he got from Dorne to the Wall in a single episode is "yeah, I rode my horse really fast". That isn't "drama", that's implausible, lazy writing.

...I mean I'm asking an honest question: you really don't care that it's logically implausible under scrutiny, but feel being a good dramatic confrontation scene outweighs that?

4 - ...I've been on fansites and other wikis for TV shows for a long time which weren't even based on any novels. In and of itself, moving past the novels won't be a knockout blow or anything. Also, quite a bit of Season 6 actually is based on the novels due to subplots getting pushed back - but point stands, "eventually they'll totally outpace the novels". But I'm genuinely curious: even if the TV show would have to drastically condense a lot of stuff for is moving past the books a "good" thing? I mean, adapt them loosely or not, but say....the Battle of the Blackwater in Season 2. If the books had ended with Season 1 and they were just going by a vague outline Martin gave them....I don't see how we'd consider that preferable, compared to at least having a book version for the producers to get more context from, even if the end result is condensed in adaptation.

You want the REAL reason? Drama. It created a more dramatic scene. You want an in-universe reason? Jon didn't trust Thorne, but at least he knows many people in Castle Black, not so in Eastwatch. Or maybe the ships couldn't sail that far south (remember the horrible storm at the end of Hardhome).

The missing ships wasn't a minor continuity error on the scale of "the color of his horse changed between episodes, but a plot hole unless explained otherwise. And even if the best we ever get from the writers is "ack, well maybe a storm forced them to shore off-screen"....that's still poor writing. That wasn't a minor point. No it isn't a matter of "you expect everything to be explained as in the books!" --no, I expect things to be cut out from an adaptation, but that the things which are kept in are logically consistent.

...give specific examples of moments from the TV show which wouldn't make sense to someone that didn't real the books, but in which a book-reader would be privileged to know information they didn't.

...Well it's my duty to instruct and educate you on this: here's some wise and salient analysis from Elio Garcia and Linda Antonsson, co-authors of the World of Ice and Fire sourcebook, which I keep emblazoned on my User Profile:

Elio Garcia: "Season 4 is a season with a lot of things that were plot holes. I mean, genuine plot holes. Where they kind of decide to do their own thing, and ignore the realities around it. Like Arya and the Hound at the Bloody Gate [announcing her name despite the fact everyone assumes she's dead, and with no repercussions]. They want to do this thing, and they don't think it through, and they don't care. They think viewers won't care - and I'm sure many viewers don't. But if you want people to treat it as a work that you can look at critically, that you can take seriously, and break it down and study it, then you have to care about the people who do that. If you don't care, if it's just entertainment, and there's no pretense to "art", then I guess it's fine."
Linda Antonsson: "You're basically pretending that you're just watching it from week to week, and you don't go back, you don't look at character arcs or anything - it just gets hollow...the idea of just shoving characters into positions because we want them to do this, we want them to do it now, without asking 'how are we going to get them there'?"
Elio Garcia: "And they think, 'forget it, people won't notice. Leave that work to the viewers to defend us by coming up with complicated, ridiculous ideas for how to explain the psychology of a character, and why it is subtley different enough to explain why they are acting differently."
— Elio and Linda, owners of, discuss plot holes in the TV adaptation of Game of Thrones.

I hope this helps.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:08, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

2. Space, presumably. They frequently destroy sets to make space.

3. Again, learn what a plot hole is. Something going unexplained doesn't make it a plot hole. If it it was unexplainable, it would be. I care more for the drama and the story and the characters than the petty details, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the details. It's just that sometimes there's no time for explanations. That doesn't make it a plot hole, though. I've tried to explain that to you a hundred times, so I doubt I'll get through to you this time.

4. You shouldn't link to your page, let alone quote those shameful clowns, in which you completely disparage the very show of which you're so poorly administering a wiki.

Please don't reply to this. I have answered your reasonable questions to the best of my ability, and explained why I edited out your baseless speculation. As for the other topics, this is no place to discuss it further. I'm not interested in elongated arguments with you, as you know. They're tiring. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 01:29, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Do not call the authors of the World book "shameful clowns".

Your answer seems to be that when things happen in the show that don't make sense, rather than even point out "this merits some explanation" (even if not a full plot hole" attack the very basis of analysis or comparison with the novels, rather than even attempting an explanation of your own. Can't think of a winning move so you throw the chessboard against the wall.

Your point about the Hardhome filming schedule is entirely accurate and will stand; yes, the DVD commentary made this more clear.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:47, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

That thing with Arya and the Hound really isn't a plot hole. He announced her name because he was there to ransom her. What else was he going to say? "Here is some random peasant girl I kidnapped, care to pay me for her?" And why would he care if there were repercussions for her? He said himself in the previous episode that his plan is to jet off across the narrow sea to join the Second Sons. We never see the aftermath of that scene and we haven't been back to the Blood Gate since Season 4... what "repercussions" are we supposed to see? {Also, free speech) Xanderen (talk) 08:33, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, Xanderen.
The Dragon Demands, this isn't a chess game. Well, it shouldn't. It should be a conversation, but you've repeatedly proven you're incapable of having one without using the "administrator" card —What can I do but just give up, or, as you say, throw the chessboard against the wall? You started this way of doing things. Don't blame me. In this case, I gave up because many times in the past I've tried to explain to you what a plot hole is and what it isn't, and if you haven't learnt by now you never will. Oh well, I guess I never learn either. Let's give it yet another try: A detail going unexplained (not the same thing as "not making sense"), especially when it is as trivial as the route a character takes and when it can be so easily explained, isn't a plot hole; in fact, I'd go further and say that if something so trivial can be explained easily, there's no need for the show to do any exposition about it (Thank God you aren't writing the show; it'd be a nightmare of storyless plot and exposition!). Now the "conversation" is really over, as the matter in question has been settled; that is, your baseless speculation on Hardhome and the trip back. Have you even implied you're sorry for spouting such nonsesne with absolutely no evidence? Of course not. Yet you still accuse others of not citing their sources. Never change!
As for those shameful clowns who have repeatedly and viciously insulted the show, its producers, its actors and Sue from WOTW, I will call them shameful clowns if I want. It's also shameful for you to believe they are in any way proper representatives of this fandom. Also, didn't they vow to never again watch and commentate the show again? Now they REALLY aren't worth quoting. Not that they ever were, but now they have nothing to do with the show you have no excuse. Unless they inevitably backtrack on their vow, of course. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 10:24, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand: there's a difference between "speculation based on citation of available sources" and "not properly citing a source". All I meant in this entire thread was that if you want to cite something from the DVD commentary you need to explain exactly what was said; not just "stuff in the DVD commentary supports my position" but specifically what was said. Because people can misinterpret statements by the cast & crew; so it's best to report both what they said and the conclusions you drew from it, not just the conclusions you drew from it.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:06, March 24, 2016 (UTC)

Locked pages

I'm out of synch from being sick earlier this week; are there any currently protected/locked pages which you would like temporarily unlocked because you have immediate ideas for changes which would help refine them?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 16:35, March 31, 2016 (UTC)

Permanent Ban

In the past several months, you have repeatedly exhibited insulting behavior towards Administrators, and even cursing at Administrators such as myself.

In one of the more prominent instances, you cursed at me saying:

"You are a fucking joke, Dragon!"

You were given a temporary ban for this as a warning.

Now, you've once again insulted an Administrator using childish namecalling, saying that I am "an idiot":

"Are you one of the idiots who whined at Idris Elba’s casting?"

You were given multiple second chances. After calling an Administrator "a fucking joke", giving you only a temporary warning ban was lenient and tolerant.

You were warned, and knew - or should have known - that this was your absolute last chance, and one more mistake or misbehavior in the future would lead to a permanent ban, with no possibility of appeal.

I think this punishment should have been obvious and expected.

One does not simply...curse at Administrators.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 23:54, April 17, 2016 (UTC)

This is an appalling abuse of your admin rights, Dragon. Last time I checked "idiot" was not a curse word... furthermore, he didn't even call you an idiot, he asked "Are you one of the idiots who whined at Idri's Elba’s casting?". Considering that you exchanged replies after that particular post and then blocked him several hours later clearly demonstrates a "gotcha" mentality. I would reconsider this course if I were you. - Xanderen signature 08:11, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
What I don't understand, regarding the "Race..." article and talk page that led to this event is why, instead of just sarcastically complaining the way he did on the talk page Artic never made an attempt to collaborate with the article's development. As for the "Are you..." comment: yes, "Idiot" is not a curse word, but the phrasing does imply an insult. In Twitter I tend to use kind of phrasing when I want to attack a conservative politician or "journalist". Since this is not the first time something like this has happened between Dragon and Artic this seems like Artic baiting Dragon because he doesn't agree with the articles on the show's themes and issues.--Gonzalo84 (talk) 17:16, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Okay but I don't want to yell about ArticXiongmao any further or launch into a long list of complaints against him. I gave a succinct list of reasons, I'm not going to complain more now that it's done.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:36, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
Nobody's "yelling", but this warrants discussion. It's simply not acceptable to block someone under a false charge, regardless of what may have happened in the past.
Gonzalo, It's deeply disingenuous to try and make out that Artic was arguing against the article's existence - he specifically said that he wasn't. He raised perfectly valid concerns with the content, however there is just not that much there at the moment, which makes collaborating difficult... it's really just a collection of extremely POV/Anti-D&D satements, providing Elio and Linda as a citation.
Dragon, I'm sorry, but you can't retroactively block people - digging up incidents from months past in order to justify doing so. On this occasion, you say he cursed at you, and he didn't - you've blocked him under a false charge; there's no clearer abuse of your admin rights than that. The fact that you did it silence criticism of your race article is painfully obvious as well. - Xanderen signature 08:56, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

I didn't "dig up" a months-old charge; he'd been on a strict warning ever since to be on his best behavior and that one more mistake would result in a ban. And Gonzalo already explained this: he didn't "curse" at me this time, but it was insulting to call me "an idiot".--The Dragon Demands (talk) 12:36, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

He didn't call you an idiot. He was talking about people who critized Idris Elba's casting based on race. Literally no infraction was committed here. - Xanderen signature 12:45, April 19, 2016 (UTC)
Dragon has kept a detailed account of ArticXiongmao's actions over the last while, and he has crossed the line too many times and been very problematic in general. Banning him is what is best for the Wiki.--Greater Good (talk) 10:14, April 22, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.