User talk:1337 B33FC4K3

Archive

1. 1

See this is why people have a problem with you.

Look at this edit summary of yours. How is that anything but actively disrespectful? How could you possibly think that writing that kind of thing is a good idea? Most of your edits are good edits by themselves, but your attitude as you make them is not acceptable. Toomai Glittershine The Xanthic 12:51, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

This particular user keeps adding the same wrong information (essentially making up buffs). I think it's become enough of a problem that I personally call him out for it.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 12:56, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

Regardless of the veracity of what someone is saying, I'm sure you should be capable of getting things resolved without resorting to antagonism. Toomai Glittershine The Different 13:00, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

An inquiry

I would like to formally ask what happened in your life that has caused you to act like such a jackass to others. Prior to my previous departure in 2012, I remember you being a rather upstanding individual, who could help out others interested in the competitive Smash techniques, as well as tell others about when their personalities and such were harming their development. Ironically, it seems you have begun acting like those you chastised: Stubborn, obnoxious, constantly pissing and moaning, and frankly no fun to talk to. What exactly happened that caused such a radical personality change?

If you don't want to say what happened, that's fine, but at least try to minimise how often you act like a stubborn and obnoxious jerk who constantly pisses and moans about everything to others.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 13:41, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

It's really petty to blame life for your problems, but I guess the 1 thing that has caused me to lose faith in the userbase here was when I had a falling out with OT and the rest of the users just blindly supported him and paid no heed to my thoughts. Around that time I had finally figured out the inner workings of Smash (and fighting games in general) and what skills it took to be good. I also researched heavily into character design. With regards to my character Marth, I realized he didn't have the tools needed to win consistently in Brawl. I presented my findings to OT and from there countless wars were raised. To this day, I seriously doubt he or anyone else here understands where I'm coming from.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 14:22, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

So basically, you and other users have what is known as a "having different opinions about what is arguably an arbitrary subject", and you decide that the only way to get back at this is to be excessively snippy and rude to everyone else...Gotcha.

I say, doing that is just as petty as blaming your personal life. It just makes you look like a child throwing a temper tantrum in a store because their mum won't buy them an extra bag of sweets. But whatever, it's obvious you have no interest in changing, given that OT is inactive and no one frankly cares to debate this arbitrary subject, so I will leave you be.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 15:05, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

You can be mad at my actions but a character's potential in the game is an objective quality, assuming that the game does not change significantly. Marth cannot be both good and bad.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 16:44, 27 October 2014 (EDT)

These edit summaries

These seem a little harsh, don't you think? They're on the verge of, if not are, personal attacks, which aren't allowed. Please don't write edit summaries like these. Thank you. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 15:45, 3 November 2014 (EST)

Before you defend him, you should know that this particular user keeps updating the pages I edit with the same false information he has yet to justify. He is likely a poor player so his word of mouth isn't sufficient proof. He needs to give me frame data. I have reverted his edits multiple times and explained why he is wrong each time and he fails to listen. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 16:03, 3 November 2014 (EST)

For starters, in the first edit summary I gave, all you said was "You're all dumb. Especially you, Epsilon". You did not give a reason there, just a on-the-verge-of-a-personal attack. Second, that's no excuse to say those things in your edit summaries. And third, I will not defend him; he can be reverted, however you should leave that negative commentary out of your edit summaries; if it persists, just leave a message on his talk page (without personal attacks or negative commentary). Rtzxy Reflect!!! 16:14, 3 November 2014 (EST)

I want to point out that the user Epsilon has a pretty long history of constantly adding useless/pointless information to the changes section in character articles, constantly ignoring users, and adding crap to said mainspace articles that obviously isn't encyclopedic. For reference, see his talk page, his contributions, and the histories of certain SSB4 character pages (Peach (SSB4) in particular; Ctrl+F Epsilon and it'll be somewhere down there). While the remarks in these edit summaries aren't necessary, a lot of users are sick of Epsilon's ignorance and I think something should be done about it by now. Scr7(talk · contribs) 16:33, 3 November 2014 (EST)

I get that Epsilon constantly adds unnecessary/useless information to pages. However, my original point of all this is the fact that edit summaries like this are uncalled for and shouldn't be said, as some are on the verge of violating SW:NPA. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 18:18, 3 November 2014 (EST)

I really am perplexed why you find me to be a bigger problem than him. I'm not exactly bullying a saint here. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 18:21, 3 November 2014 (EST)

"I really am perplexed why you find me to be a bigger problem than him."

I never said that, nor I think that. Yes, Epsilon is becoming a problem here, but what I'm saying is that you should handle his edits a little less harsher than summaries like this. Simple explain to him (without negative feedback) at what he did wrong, and remember to assume good faith. Simple as that, no need for negative commentary like this. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 18:27, 3 November 2014 (EST)

Given his continued ignorance of my reasons for reverts, I have little reason to be patient with him. Since he didn't listen to my reasoning the first 10 times, I will assume he will not listen the next 10 times. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 20:40, 3 November 2014 (EST)

True, but that's no excuse to resort to on-the-verge-of-if-not-are-personal attacks, or personal attacks in general. No matter how much Epsilon screws up, you shouldn't do stuff like this. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 21:20, 3 November 2014 (EST)

You're not really seeing things the way I see them. You are treating Epsilon like a saint. Epsilon does not have the right to my patience. His actions are just as if not more inexcusable than mine. Brian^{Don't try me!} 23:17, 3 November 2014 (EST)

He may not have the right to your patience, but that doesn't mean you start personally attacking him. Also, I'm not treating him as a "saint"; in fact, I believe that he is becoming a problem and that something needs to be done. However, it's your edit summaries that are a little extreme. What I've been saying is that you should be less harsh with your edit summaries, no matter what Epsilon or some other troll/vandal does. You still can't start personally attacking other users, even to vandals/trolls, no matter what they do. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 23:33, 3 November 2014 (EST)

You're not getting the point. I think we know that Epsilon is a problem; we're not arguing on that. You're not a bigger problem than him, but because of what I've seen, we know these edit summaries are a problem, which is what we're arguing about. Your edit summaries were way too harsh; it doesn't matter how long you've been dealing with him, "Oh god, could you be any dumber Epsilon" is basically calling him mentally retarded, and is still a personal attack. Just treat him like Brandondorf.

Oh, and, you got a fact wrong in your second edit summary - Brawl physics allow heavier characters to survive the charged up smash up to about 80% in Brawl. Qwerty (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2014 (EST)

If he's becoming a problem, why don't you stop wasting your time dealing with me and talk to him, Rtzxy? You'd solve both this problem and his delusional edits. Also Qwerty, why are you treating him as if he's a respectable and intelligent editor? He is neither, given that he keeps adding the same erroneous edits and can't seem to understand my reasons for reverts. I wonder if he even reads them. Also Qwerty you are wrong about the up smash fact. Falling speed, not weight, is the primary component in determining how well you survive vertical hits. Remember everyone is floaty in Brawl. The only character who could possibly survive a fully charged up smash at 80% would be Dedede and it would have to be on a stage with a really high ceiling like Yoshi's Island. Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:19, 4 November 2014 (EST)

Eh the up smash thing is false, my bad. But we're not talking about what Epsilon is doing here. He's a problem, his edits are disruptive, but that's not the problem. You can deal with him on your own time. This section is talking about the problems in the way you're acting, which is a different matter. If he doesn't listen to your reverts, keep reverting his edits until he gets them, and leave a message on his talk page if it gets necessary. The edits he's made don't change the definition of a personal attack, which you've just done. We're trying to get across to you that you need to tone down on your edit summaries, especially towards other users.

I think the only other thing I can reiterate here is what I said last post. Go review that :D. Qwerty (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2014 (EST)

That is not the way to go. The problem here is that Epsilon is ignoring, perhaps deliberately at this point, all the evidence and warnings provided to him. We can't keep reverting his edits because he just won't listen. I don't think that what Brian said (and tends to say in general) was appropriate. However, I do agree that we need to be harsher on Epsilon. He's barely bordering the line between good faith and ignorance, and action needs to be taken to make it known that he needs to improve. --Timson622222 (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2014 (EST)

Simply put, Brian: you can be harsh to Epsilon, just don't add personal attacks in your comments. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 14:57, 4 November 2014 (EST)

Notice

I suggest that you should read SW:NPA, because what I saw in you edit summary, is you calling someone a dumbass. So let me be clear: STOP ADDING PERSONAL ATTACKS IN EDIT SUMMERIES WHILE UNDOING AN EDIT BY A USER you can be harsh, but don't add personal attacks to it. Thank you Smashworker101 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (EST)

I'm not siding with the IP that wrongly edited the Falco (SSB4) or anything but can't you see from above that you've been called out numerous times for disrespectful edit summaries? Your undo edits are rightful but can your attitude be less of an ass about it? Dots (talk) The GameCube 19:18, 18 January 2015 (EST)

Quite frankly, I'm tired of people being dumb.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 18:02, 19 January 2015 (EST)

"Your undo edits are rightful but can your attitude be less of an ass about it?"

You shouldn't be calling someone an ass either. Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:59, 19 January 2015 (EST)

So by expressing that this wiki's users are dumb, you unnecessarily call them out in an harsh, offensive way if they make an incompetent edit. I see. I guess you don't mind your peers seeing you as a jerk who rudely attacks those who does you wrong for your revenge. Would you like to be treated this way and have people disrespect you just because you don't respect them back? I have no right to change your attitude but its something to consider. Dots (talk) The Zerg Rush 18:23, 19 January 2015 (EST)

Not my fault people don't listen to the facts I present.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 19:42, 19 January 2015 (EST)

OK, 1. Not every user has seen your "facts". 2. A lot of what you say is opinionated and there have been times where you've been wrong. And 3. when you're mean to IPs and users it makes them gravitate away from the wiki and makes the wiki seem less "open". I admit there are many cases where you're correct, but when you act like a dick about it, it harms the wiki as a whole. Laikue (talk | contribs) 19:47, 19 January 2015 (EST)

Dude, character viability is not an opinion; a character cannot both be bad and good at the same time. And barring a few frame data mistakes, when's the last time I've been wrong about Marth, Falco, or anything related to high level play?--Brian^{Don't try me!} 19:53, 19 January 2015 (EST)

You know, we respect your knowledge and we don't see a problem with it (When it comes to your arguments vs. OT's, I personally side with you now), but your hurtful douchebag attitude is the problem. Dots (talk) The Medic 20:09, 19 January 2015 (EST)

I think Brian is right because he is surrounded by a bunch of idiots who clearly don't know what they're doing. Why bother introducing them to Smash if they weren't going to man up to begin with? In this situation, we can liken Brian to an anteater that is being surrounded by the equivalency of a few ants attempting to take down an anteater; this anteater is a beacon of knowledge, blazing across a black sea of ignorance.

As you can see, it is up to Brian to be the hero that Smash Wiki deserves, but not the want that is wanted. 108.194.146.62 22:31, 26 January 2015 (EST)