Concerning Project M articles
Because you are an IP, I'm not sure if you're the same as this guy. However, in case you aren't, there's a few things I'd like you to know going forward. While your large contributions to pages such as Lucas' Project M page are greatly appreciated, the way you've written the "Attributes" section is not following Smashwiki's standards for such sections. This article and this article can serve as examples of how to write future "Attributes" sections. Over the last few years we've especially tried to phase out "Strengths and Weaknesses"-type sections with bullet points since they are generally set up in a more subjective manner. As for the rest of your contribution, I'm not sure why the wiki standard is the way it is, but you would best be suited in making sure future edits look a little more like the examples I sent you.
Again, thank you for editing! Understand that this message is not meant to come off as harsh. We are happy to see Project M players take the initiative and improve Project M articles rather than resorting to other means. John HUAH! 15:32, 11 March 2017 (EST)
Yo dude! Thanks a lot for taking the time to read and critique these edits. I got IP banned from trying to make accounts the day I made these edits- that I still don't understand how I failed to successfully make an account that day is a testament to my ignorance of wikis and websites in general. My response is that I don't want to change the formatting to match the other articles, because I think the formatting of the other articles is bad. It's totally ok with me if y'all don't want critiques this late in the game, as I'm sure these arguments are nothing new- feel free to just skip the critiques if that is so.
my thoughts below (skip if u want tho)
I understand consistency in formatting being a respectable goal in a massive collection of related information like this, but I feel that the way articles like this present similar information (i.e. strengths, weaknesses) is bad formatting. It still presents itself in a subjective manner, while being much more difficult to read quickly. For example,
"Ness is not completely infallible, however. He possesses below average speed in both the ground and the air, making it hard for him to chase faster opponents. His ground game is also generally weak as he possesses short-ranged tilt attacks. His up and down smashes are also lackluster. While his up smash can be used as an out of shield option and his down smash as a situational edgeguard, both KO considerably later than his other KO options in a neutral situation, and his forward smash, while extremely powerful, possesses high ending lag and is easily punishable if it misses. Ness's biggest flaw, however, is his recovery. While there have been various buffs to his recovery that make it much more reliable and viable than in previous Smash games, it is still relatively easy to gimp for characters with multiple jumps, such as Jigglypuff, Kirby and Meta Knight, or with moves that reflect or absorb, such as Rosalina, Fox, Villager, and Pit."
I think writing this under the header "weaknesses" with bullet points is easier to digest without information that is not necessary for competitive play, like "While there have been various buffs to his recovery that make it much more reliable and viable than in previous Smash games" or needlessly ornamental writing like "Ness is not completely infallible".
I admit that I don't know if y'all have a specific goal with the way information is formatted here, or why you chose the standards you have. I can totally accept that my formatting is bad as related to a larger purpose of the wiki that I don't understand. I would not object to others reformatting the information I added to the Lucas page. Thanks so much for all the work you do with the smashwiki!