User talk:Alex the weeb/Archive 2

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Archive.png This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

This[edit]

Will you stop overstepping me, please? Frankly, you constantly get on my nerves, lecturing me about breaking policies, most frequently 1RV, when you just as often break it yourself - case in point, this very example that you provided here. It needs to stop, because I've had enough. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 19:10, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Ok firstly I'm not "overstepping you". Your removal of the move tag was erroneous and therefore I reverted it. If you can point to me where on SW:MOVE it states that a move proposal can not be made to move a page over a redirect, I will gladly concede, although since I have already read the policy in question, I can say that no such statement exists. Secondly we already established that 1RV does not apply in the case of provably invalid reversions, and since you reversion violates tagging policy (since your reason for removing the tag was not a legitimate reason), it is invalid. Finally I do not appreciate the aggressive tone you have been showing towards me lately. I am simply following policy, so I don't see why you should have the right to be aggressive towards me about it. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 19:16, 27 February 2018 (EST)
I'll add that you should never remove a move tag if it's just been put up. A move tag simply means that someone has suggested moving the page to a different title, not that an action has already taken place. Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:58, 27 February 2018 (EST)
And for the record, Black Vulpine, you left a message on my talk page telling me not to remove move tags, which is exactly what you did. St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 23:02, 2 March 2018 (EST)

How to[edit]

...Create one of those arrows on character pages to show how something (knockback, for example) has changed? St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 00:42, 2 March 2018 (EST)

On the editing bar above the edit window one of the tabs is labelled "special characters". Select that one and scroll to symbols. You should find the right arrow towards the end of the second to last line. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 06:21, 2 March 2018 (EST)
Awesome. St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 10:23, 2 March 2018 (EST)

Wild Link in Smash.[edit]

It's basically consensus at this point tho

Yeah.... if that logic applied, they would've used Skyward Sword's Link in Smash 4, but they stayed with Ocarina Link. Tell me, how can you possibly be sure that the pattern is broken? Unowninator (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2018 (EST)

That's not the point though. The reveal trailer clearly shows it's Link's BOTW design. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 15:40, 9 March 2018 (EST)
As I've said before "It's too dark & I can't even see what he's wearing to identify his game." If you notice something that I don't, please tell me. Unowninator (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2018 (EST)
Not only does the silhouette show that his hair has changed, but one can also see that he is lacking his cap and has both a sword and a bow on his back, much like his BotW appearance; this, and his tunic appears to be slightly blue. Also of note is that TP Link was the basis for Link's design in both Brawl and SSB4 (with influence from SS), showing his appearance has been consistently modernized with each installment. Is that enough evidence to prove this for you? BaconMastreBaconMasterSig.png 16:15, 9 March 2018 (EST)

Question[edit]

Why'd you do that to your userspace? It is hilarious though lol. St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 11:21, 14 March 2018 (EDT)

It's Pi day! Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 12:06, 14 March 2018 (EDT)
lol St. Reggie, the Iron Leprachaun Warrior 22:06, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

Knockback[edit]

Can you stop edit warring over there, please? While I have done nothing else to join in on the 'action' over there, I happen to agree with Zowayix and Ac2k, the 'very specific conditions' for that trivia point should be detailed, or else the trivia point should be removed. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 19:09, 15 March 2018 (EDT)

Technically I'm not the one edit warring, they are. They're the ones who violated 1RV, and I'm trying to clean up after their mess. As for removing the trivia point, that's not a good idea considering it's a valid and interesting piece of trivia. If you want a simple trivia point to turn into an essay about how this can be activated then by all means, do so, but I really don't think it's a good idea, and if it looks horrible, I may revert it. I've summarised how it would be done, but I really doubt it needs any more detail than that. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 12:03, 16 March 2018 (EDT)
That's not an excuse to leave out encyclopedic information. If a trivia point could be turned into an essay, it probably belongs in its own section anyways, not just as a bullet point in the trivia section, and there's nothing wrong with that. Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:42, 17 March 2018 (EDT)
Except that it's not the kind of thing that deserves its own section, considering that it's somewhat irrelevant in playable situations (the requirements to set it up come at the cost of the game being actually playable). Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 17:46, 17 March 2018 (EDT)

This reversion[edit]

[1] If you look at the reversions I made, you'll see that literally every single one of those is spelled in lowercase in their respective article titles. Also, I edited a bunch of non-capitalization stuff, which you just ignored and straight up reverted. This is further proof that you should put more effort and stop being lazy with RecentChanges. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:24, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

If that's the case then those articles should probably be moved, since they are titles for technical terms with uppercase abbreviations, which should be capitalized. Also as for calling me lazy, it seems as though you have a habit of going after users you don't like, and this happens to be further proof of your overly aggressive personality, so perhaps you should make sure your own house is clean before coming after me. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 07:12, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
That's a blatant strawman, I'm not "going after you" because I don't like you, it's because your reversions are counterproductive and making things more complicated for the other users who have to fix it. Me being "aggressive" has nothing to do with this and is not a defense of your own actions, if that's what you're trying to do. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:50, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I would say that what you have been doing to Black Vulpine certainly counts as aggression. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 15:43, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Informing people of policy violations/mistakes is not "aggression." If you don't want people complaining about you, don't violate policies.
Anyways, can we agree that if you wish to patrol RecentChanges, you should pay more attention before reverting things? Awesome Cardinal 2000 17:03, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Ok, maybe I should have taken a little more time to look over the edit. However what you have been doing to Black Vulpine goes beyond informing about policies. You're calling him out for things that don't even violate policy at all, and what's more you're completely overlooking actual policy violations that have been happening recently (as they always do unfortunately), and solely been targeting him. I would call that aggression. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 17:06, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Well, what happened here isn't violating policy either, there are plenty of things that technically don't violate policy, but still inhibit the growth of the wiki. Besides, I've argued with plenty of users here in the past few weeks, not just BV. And no one has disputed the claims I made as being incorrect. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:01, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Now you're blatantly lying. You have been called out several times for wrongly accusing Vulpine of policy violations. Alex Parpotta the flying lobster! 18:02, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
When? Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:14, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
I don't see why you're so insistent on pushing something that was settled already and has nothing to do with the original topic of this conversation. And you get mad at me for supposedly targeting certain users. Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:16, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
Because you do target certain users. You've gone after me many times over issues that are too minor for even an admin to get involved with. You've been spoken to about the issue by TWO admins - both of them bureaucrats, no less - and haven't even bothered to listen to either of them. You have an attitude problem, coming off constantly as being arrogant and acting like you know everything. You've been gone for quite a long time, and yet you think you know everything about how this wiki works, even though some major changes have happened in the last few months. We are a wiki, yes, but you take it way too seriously, being overly pedantic (even by wiki standards) and latching onto people like a lamprey eel when they do something that you think is wrong, but in actual fact, the issue is too minor to be worth worrying about, even if it occurs frequently, or the issue is not an issue at all. Such behaviour is toxic - and yet you cannot accept that, even when everyone, including the administration, has been calling you out on it. Mic. Drop. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 20:28, 25 March 2018 (EDT)
"You've gone after me many times over issues that are too minor for even an admin to get involved with."
Not every discussion requires an admin to get involved. If you can point to an instance where an administrator explicitly disagreed with me and told me I was wrong, then perhaps I'm stepping out of bounds, but until then, this point is moot.
"You have an attitude problem, coming off constantly as being arrogant and acting like you know everything."
So I know how to follow the rules here, and that suddenly makes me "arrogant?"
"You've been gone for quite a long time, and yet you think you know everything about how this wiki works, even though some major changes have happened in the last few months."
As I said dude, none of the admins have disagreed with me on anything here. Just because things changed doesn't mean I haven't adjusted to them. If I'm wrong, prove me that I'm wrong, instead of using that logic as an excuse.
"We are a wiki, yes, but you take it way too seriously, being overly pedantic (even by wiki standards) and latching onto people like a lamprey eel when they do something that you think is wrong,"'
If you're gonna edit or participate in talk pages, you have to expect that people will disagree with you, and don't get mad when they argue with you. That's how wikis work. Out of all the users here, you've been the one most actively posting warnings and reminders to regular users. How can you claim that warning people about breaking the rules is "overly pedantic" when you do it the most out of anyone here?
"but in actual fact, the issue is too minor to be worth worrying about, even if it occurs frequently, or the issue is not an issue at all."
If an issue was "too minor to be worth worrying about," you wouldn't have multiple people warning you about it. FYI dude, for nearly everything I called you out on, there was a discussion earlier on your talk by another user warning you not to do the same thing.
"Such behaviour is toxic - and yet you cannot accept that, even when everyone, including the administration, has been calling you out on it."
So it's "toxic" to attempt to remind other users of rules and debate with other people with regards to content, but it's perfectly acceptable to continually break rules that people have already warned you about, whine and complain that people are being mean when they enforce the rules on you, and refuse all attempts at proper content discussion? Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:12, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Misusing rollback[edit]

This edit was not a valid usage of rollback, as it does not fall under the requirements listed under SmashWiki:Rollback. Awesome Cardinal 2000 12:15, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

An admin had already given a reason why the edit in question should not have been done therefore negating the need for an edit summary. Please quit giving reminders like this. Serpent SKSig.png King 12:17, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Where in SmashWiki:Rollback does it say that this kind of reversion is acceptable? Awesome Cardinal 2000 12:18, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
The policy says that rollback is to be used for vandalism only, not for cases where an edit summary is not required. Awesome Cardinal 2000 12:19, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Why do you insist on nitpicking our users on policy breaches, even when they clearly make no difference? You've been putting Alex and BV under a freaking microscope ever since you got back from your hiatus, and I find that to be a problem. Serpent SKSig.png King 12:21, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
[2] Where in SmashWiki:Rollback does it say that this kind of reversion is acceptable? Awesome Cardinal 2000 12:22, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Where does it say that we must follow the letter of the law in 110% of cases as opposed to the spirit of the law? Toomai Glittershine ??? The Eggster 12:24, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
It doesn't but I am not going to allow you to continually annoy and even push out valuable contributors because you think it's somehow your responsibility to enforce policy when it has absolutely nothing to do with you. Serpent SKSig.png King 12:26, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
I'd like to point out that rollback is to be used on bad faith edits, and ignoring an admin's warnings about adding certain information (in this case while outright acknowledging that they are doing it) is bad faith. Therefore rollback usage is acceptable. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 12:27, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
"Bad faith" means intentionally trying to harm the wiki. That's not a bad faith edit, and does not deserve usage of rollback. Awesome Cardinal 2000 12:31, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
I can't think of any instance where a reversion of a good-faith edit would not be more clear and informative without an edit summary attached to it. And allowing people to rollback whatever they want just leads to people becoming careless with the tool, and abusing it when they're too lazy to do a normal reversion. SmashWiki:Rollback already says "If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back, do not use this feature." Awesome Cardinal 2000 12:29, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
You want to talk of argumental fallacies, that was a "slippery slope" argument. People will not "abuse it when they're too lazy to do a normal reversion" because we will never allow that. Also I am assuming there was never doubt that the edit should have been rolled back to Alex. Would I have done a normal reversion there? Probably. Would I jump down the throat of someone who made a RB like that? No it's not worth anyone's time. Serpent SKSig.png King 12:35, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
"People will not "abuse it when they're too lazy to do a normal reversion" because we will never allow that."
Except that's exactly what's happening right here?
"Also I am assuming there was never doubt that the edit should have been rolled back to Alex."
Except other users will doubt that it was a actually a bad faith edit, meaning that rollback should not have been used. Is this a clear-cut, 100% bad faith edit? I don't think so. This is the problem with allowing wiggle room for rollback usage.
"Would I have done a normal reversion there? Probably."
So in that statement, you're basically agreeing with me that it was an improper usage of rollback, so it should not happen again. Awesome Cardinal 2000 12:53, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Intentionally ignoring warnings from admins is harming the wiki. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 12:33, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

(reset indent) Frankly, it's AFD, the line between good- and bad-faith edits is extremely fuzzy right now... Aidan, the Springing Rurouni 12:33, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

@Cardinal: I feel the need to point out that under SW:BLOCK, it states "Disruptiveness: Overtly negative attitude towards other users". You've been showing this very clearly with your behavior toward Alex and Black Vulpine. Disaster Flare Disaster Flare signature image.png (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Okay, I need to ask: What exactly is wrong with SeanWheeler's edit? I'd understand if it was any other day, but isn't that the point of April Fools? Unowninator (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
If I'm corrent, he was re-adding content that was proven fraudulent before AF started. Toomai Glittershine ??? The Quintonic 12:49, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
So attempting to remind other users of policies is considered an "overtly negative attitude towards other users?" Awesome Cardinal 2000 12:53, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
When it boils down to repeating yourself to the same two users over and over and over again, yes. This negative attitude towards them is far more harmful than anything that you've yelled at them for yet. Serpent SKSig.png King 12:57, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
In the past month, amongst user talk pages, you have only edited your own and that of two other specific users. Before that, you have been seen jumping into user talk page conversations involving those two users and doing (what a quick search looks to be) much the same thing (i.e. only speaking negatively about them). Several admins agree that, at this point, you are targetting them specifically. Knock it off. Toomai Glittershine ??? Le Grand Fromage 12:58, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
There's nothing necessarily wrong with reminding other users of policies - the users have a set of rules to follow, and if they break them, they should be told so. However, when one user in particular is consistently keeping a watchful eye on one or two particular users, barking at them for supposedly breaching a policy, even when people who are, in the hierarchy of the system, higher than them are disagreeing with what is being said, then it becomes a problem. It especially becomes an issue when this process has consistently repeated over time. Aidan, the Springing Rurouni 12:59, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
If they don't want to be "targeted," they should avoid making counterproductive edits that go against the goals of making a more complete wiki. And I've seen plenty of other discussions on user talk pages, but I haven't commented on them because I agree with what the person was saying and the discussion doesn't need further input.
If you don't want this shit to happen again, why not actually take a firm stance on what is going on? Why not say something like "Listen to XXX, he's right" or "That was actually a correct usage of rollback," instead of giving vague, wishy-washy mediations that run down the middle/don't agree with either side? If you agree with my accusations, but think I'm excessively targeting certain users, why not say it outright so the user will stop? If you think it's not my job to go around enforcing minor things, then how about stepping up, doing your job, and agreeing with me, instead of doing stuff like this and making it more complicated? Minor issues should not simply be cast aside, because they're still issues. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:30, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
"If they don't want to be "targeted," they should avoid making counterproductive edits that go against the goals of making a more complete wiki"
The whole point of editing is to make the wiki more complete. Vandals are different, as they try to actively bring down the wiki.
"If you don't want this shit to happen again, why not actually take a firm stance on what is going on?"
Are you completely ignoring what is being said? They are taking a stance; they're saying that there's nothing wrong with what was done.
"If you think it's not my job to go around enforcing minor things, then how about stepping up, doing your job, and agreeing with me, instead of doing stuff like this and making it more complicated?"
You're not always right, you know? And where do you get off saying that the admins need to "do their job"? I don't think that's a comment that someone who has taken an extremely long hiatus has a right to make. Aidan, the Springing Rurouni 14:14, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

(reset indent) ac2k, how many people have to disagree with you before you realize that you are in the wrong here? I am disagreeing with you, so there's that argument out the window. Eagle eyeing users for the most minor of things is harmful to the wiki, and that's just how it is. Serpent SKSig.png King 14:24, 1 April 2018 (EDT)

Exactly. If the staff are disagreeing with what you say, no matter how you explain it, you just can't win. Please let it go, Ac2k. Unowninator (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
But no one here's actually disagreeing with the main accusations that I'm making here, which is that people need to stop using rollback for things that aren't vandalism. While constantly nitpicking at people is not desirable, it has to be done if you aren't going to do anything about it. On the contrary, does that mean users should be allowed to constantly use rollback for things that aren't vandalism and receive no repercussions for it whatsoever? Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:34, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
Rollback is for bad faith edits. Said edit was bad faith. End of story. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 15:38, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
You clearly don't know what bad faith means. If you have to make an explanation as to why you think something is bad-faith, it's not a clear-cut case that deserves rollback. Awesome Cardinal 2000 15:47, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
No, it is you who does not understand what a bad faith edit is. Ignoring an admin's warning deliberately is bad faith. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 15:57, 1 April 2018 (EDT)
You really need to stop pissing people off over small issues like this. Look at how many people you have annoyed with your disruption. MHStarCraft Mega Man X SNES sprite.png 16:00, 1 April 2018 (EDT)