Your recent edits
You have gone through several pages and undone my edits because you believe they are part of some "proposal" that hasen't been done. However, you failed to recognize that the primary purpose of those edits was to fix some button images, and thus created a lot of broken links. Be more careful.
In addition, the only "proposal" I see about top-page instructional quotes died due to lack of user interest and doesn't really appear to have been about the same thing, so I decided to start a new standard that is not as disruptive to the page layout. Toomai Glittershine The Prismatic 23:36, July 7, 2019 (EDT)
- I apologize for if I created any broken links (of which never showed up in my previews), but the proposals I was referring to was related to the move quotes and origins. The move quote one was about finding a different method to list them instead of using tabbers. So, if that proposal “died” as you said, it means it was a failure meaning that no alternative for tabbers were found. So by that logic, tabbers are what will stay in use. If you found a possible alternative, then you’re suppose to contribute to the discussion instead of ignoring it and claiming it’s “dead”. It’s the whole point of the proposal page in the first place. The origin one was related to the organizing of the move pages, in which you partook in. You stated that the origin was in the incorrect paragraph in the examples and refused to explain why that was the case when it clearly wasn’t. All pages have their origins in the place you said was supposedly incorrect. Even if that were the case, you can’t just ignore the discussion and do what you want. Also, the rules state that undos are not to be undoed. Most will consider these actions as an abuse of administrative power under personal bias. Although all this would support at assumption, I hope we can brush it off as a misunderstanding. If we don’t abide by the rules set in place, then how can we be trusted to be allowed to edit this wiki? At first glance, I thought you were another random user like me, only with a name, but now I see that you are an admin. I don’t want you painting a bad picture for yourself. Fine, brush me off as a random user, but I don’t want anyone to ignore the rules, that includes the admins. I would like to respectfully request that you revert your edits regarding the move quote tabbers and origin locations, and then properly discus them on the wiki as the rules state. If you believe something’s the case when it isn’t, that’s why the rules suggest discussing it on the talk page or make a proposal. I wish good tidings for you irl. 18.104.22.168 00:02, July 8, 2019 (EDT)
- You must be talking about a different instructional quotes discussion than I am then. I'm referring to this one, where after I brought up my idea, the discussion started to go towards "hmm yes" and then tapered off.
- I can't find the discussion on origin sections you speak of, so you'll need to link it if you want me to comment.
- You also seem to talk a big game about understanding rules (which is unusual for a new IP), but you also fail to recognize a few things:
- My edits did not "undo" anything; they created a new layout from scratch in addition to fixing broken images (hmm I wonder if using tabbers would hide broken images from editors? extra reason to avoid them). It is incorrect to claim I reverted any reverts.
- If we had to go through a new proposal (or revive an old-but-related proposal) every time we wanted to do something, we'd never get anything done around here (too much bureaucracy). Since the instructional quotes discussion tapered off, and was trending towards "yes" to my idea anyway, I figured no one would object to it - especially since having tabbers at the top of a page introduces loading issues that cause content to jump around, and thus should be heavily avoided unless no alternative exists (which is not true in this case).
- None of this has anything to do with me being an admin; you can check my contributions from years ago and you'd see me doing the same things, kicking off wide-scale conversions of articles from one format to another in the absence of dissent. Now that there is some dissent, I'll stop until it's dealt with. Toomai Glittershine The Multifaceted 09:03, July 8, 2019 (EDT)
- One thing that I dislike in the new format is that there's no distinction as to the source of the information. This would be much more problematic with pages that have multiple quotes with wildly different sources. For instance, most Ultimate newcomers have quotes for both introduction taglines and Super Smash Blog entries, and making no distinction between them would lead to a lot of confusion. A simple reference on the end of the quote with its source would likely fix the issue. Nokii — 11:24, July 8, 2019 (EDT)
Just because I haven’t edited on the wiki before, doesn’t mean I don’t try to do research. You specifically used the word “died”, meaning it ended without resolve. Even if it was leaning towards “yes”, it still isn’t consensus. Which means, the proposal is suppose to be null and void. Or for better words, the proposal is dropped and goes back to what it was before. With the tabbers, I was talking about the use of them for the quotes for moves that made multiple for them. The tabbers were used for “quotes”, so I don’t know what “red-linked images” you’re talking about. None of the sort showed up for me. Again, since the proposal was to use something different and “died”, they are suppose to still be used. In regards to undoing, someone had undid my undos which is said to be against the rules. I mention it so the person can retract their action as it is against the rules. Lastly, the other proposal I was referring to was this one. Looking into it, you claimed the preferred location of the origin was already known, or general knowledge, but didn’t continue it the convention when evidence contradicting your claim appeared. Forgive me, but it seemed as if you just “brushed it off”. If an action is done to maintain consistency, unless it’s to fix the minority, it is my understanding that a proposal is to be put out and discussed until it’s resolved. If not, then it stays how it was before the proposal. I am having a hard time understanding you when you’re doing things you’ve told others that those actions are not acceptable by the wiki. As I said before, these types of actions can be deemed as a misuse of an admin status. All I ask is to please practice what you, and the wiki, preach so the former doesn’t happen. Again, I bid you, and that other user, good tidings Admin SK. 22.214.171.124 12:56, July 8, 2019 (EDT)
- You linked to a "proposal" that only mentioned origin sections in passing and not as an actual part of the proposal, and I never commented on it as you appear to claim. You don't have any origin-section-moving undos as this IP, and I can't find any related-looking IPs doing so on a quick look (besides, if you "haven’t edited on the wiki before", how would someone else have "undid my undos"?). You didn't recognize that button icons went missing due to your reverts and called me "Admin SK", so you aren't paying a whole lot of attention to details. You've made it hard for me to take you seriously. Toomai Glittershine The Spark 13:23, July 8, 2019 (EDT)
- I greatly apologize for that Admin Toomai, I misread both yours and Admin SK’s usernames both times. It’s a tad difficult for me when they are color coded, that stuff tends to mesh together for me if I don’t pay closer attention. That’s what I get for doing that in mourning. Anyway, this is an example of what I meant regarding the tabbers and origins. As you can see, I undid your edit, but then someone undid my undo. I see no red links in it. I greatly apologize for confusing you and the other Admin and retract statements made in relation to the Admin confusion. However, aside from that, I believe that wouldn’t make my other points related to the general discussions of the tabbers and origins invalid. I hope you can forgive my grave error and help me with this. I am fine if you want to completely disregard me do to my error if that is under the wiki’s rules to make you, that in particular I do not see anything about, but I still wish Good tidings upon you irl.126.96.36.199 13:55, July 8, 2019 (EDT)
- This IP gets a lot wrong, likely as they are new to the wiki, but they are 100% correct in saying that this proposal was not at a consensus. After you entered the discussion, there were 3 supports and 1 neutral, hardly a consensus. The proposal was not ready for implementation, even if it "tapered off". I wouldn't say it failed, but it definitely did not pass. While this is not an abuse of power as previously stated, the implementation was definitely not agreed upon simply because one admin agreed with it. KungFuLakitu, Spiny Overlord 14:23, July 8, 2019 (EDT)
- Let's please keep this talk page between admins and the IP for the time being. 14:33, July 8, 2019 (EDT)