User talk:Zakawer2

Stop edit warring
Take your discussion to the article's talk page instead.  Serpent   King  18:01, 10 September 2018 (EDT)
 * Knock it off. I saw you doing it again while also coming dangerously close to making assumptions of bad faith. MM3 is right, what you are trying to add contains speculative info. Disagree with that? Take it up on the talk page before you do any further editing there. Black Vulpine  of the Furry Nation.  Furries make the internets go! :3  17:49, 11 September 2018 (EDT)
 * ...and now the page is protected. Unowninator (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

ZSS and Samus as separate characters
While ZSS and Samus have separate awakening battles in WoL, there is nothing suggesting that they are outright separate entities, since gameplay and story segregation is a thing (same for Mario and Doc). I feel that it's probably just best to state factual information - that they have separate awakening battles, without any subjective info as to whether they are separate characters or not. There is no rule stating that separate awakening battle = separate individual. I took it up on the article's talk page.--Darthrai (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2018 (EST)
 * Only in Brawl were Samus and ZSS the exact same being. This stopped after SSB4 separated the two characters, and Ultimate continues to treat them as fully separate characters since they have their own character numbers, are highly separated from each other in the character selection screen in addition to not only appearing in different places in the mural, but also in "The Ultimate Showdown" commercial as well, so I believe that they are separate characters in the World of Light Adventure Mode. There's nothing suggesting that they are the same character in the game aside from Ridley's reveal trailer and Zero Suit Samus's new Final Smash. Zakawer2 (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2018 (EST)

QDV
Just giving you a reminder of this. Please do not attempt to confront memoryman3.  Alex the  Jigglypuff trainer  12:41, 26 December 2018 (EST)
 * Yeah, but can you please place any and all clone-related articles in Ultimate (all Echo Fighters in Ultimate as well as Dr. Mario, Young Link and Pichu's SSBU articles) as well as the clone article under permanent semi-protection? Zakawer2 (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2018 (EST)
 * Alex isn't the person to ask about that - the admins (such as myself) are. And, at present, we are not placing articles under semi-protection for one user. Aidan,  the Festive Rurouni  12:45, 26 December 2018 (EST)

Reminding you of this. Your messages will do nothing at all to resolve the situation and may only escalate it. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 17:30, 27 December 2018 (EST)

Dr. Mario
Regarding this edit, in what way is Dr. Mario a full clone? Many of his attributes are different from Mario's, and his down special and down aerial are different, not to mention the MegaVitamins and the different properties of just about every other move. It'd be more accurate to say he's a semi-clone than a full clone.

I suppose you could say Chrom would also fall under this, due to his up special being different from Roy's. You could also say there's no such thing as a "full clone", as even the closest full Echoes fighters (Daisy and Richter) have a few differences. Dr. Mario is more similar to than anyone else in terms of Echo status. Alex95 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2019 (EST)


 * All of Dr. Mario's non-attack animations except for his on-screen appearance, idle animation, idle poses, taunts, victory poses and defeated/No Contest animation are identical to Mario's, as are his animations for virtually every single attack except for his down special, down aerial, back throw and side special (his side special is still a cloned move, but has a different animation now). Additionally, his size, proportions, facial expressions and voice clips are identical to Mario's as well, in addition to his weight, falling speed, fast falling speed, gravity, initial dash speed and frame data for most moves. That is enough to warrant calling him a full clone, and is also enough to consider him an Echo Fighter (although he does not have the label) as well.


 * Isabelle, on the other hand, has different proportions and completely different non-attack animations from Villager, and even her cloned moves have different animations. While her traction is the same, all other attributes are different and she cannot wall jump either. Isabelle also has a completely different neutral attack, up tilt, neutral aerial, up smash, forward smash, down smash, side special and down special, and was developed in the same manner as a unique character as opposed to a clone/Echo Fighter. Zakawer2 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2019 (EST)


 * "although he does not have the label" Just this alone is enough. Smash does not consider him a clone, so why should we? You listed more differences than I did. While he is still Mario, he's not the same character as far as the game is concerned. Alex95 (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2019 (EST)


 * Apparently, debuting in Melee is enough for Sakurai to not consider Dr. Mario an Echo Fighter. In particular, I think he wanted Doc, Pichu and Young Link to be grouped with the Melee characters, and giving them the Echo Fighter label would completely ruin this.


 * On the other hand, Sakurai apparently didn't consider Dark Pit and Lucina worthy of being grouped alongside the Smash 4 veterans, especially as they were infamous low-effort clones that did not get differentiated in Ultimate at all, so he retroactively gave them the Echo Fighter label while simultaneously adding five more clones, three of which are less unique than even Dark Pit and Lucina (Daisy, Richter and Dark Samus) and two being more unique (Chrom and Ken) than the SSB4 clones. Zakawer2 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2019 (EST)

This needs to stop
Not only are you jumping the gun far too quickly here, but this is also NOT how you should deal with suspected sockpuppets under any circumstances. You really need to have a careful read of QDV and stop playing vigilante on random users' talk pages.  Alex the  Jigglypuff trainer  19:17, 21 February 2019 (EST)
 * This behaviour is also not acceptable. This is not appropriate use of edit summaries, and targeting specific users' edits is not appropriate either.  Alex the  Jigglypuff trainer  19:38, 21 February 2019 (EST)

Though you were right this time about the sock for MM3, I must ask that you do not accuse people of being sockpuppets without evidence. If you suspect someone of being a sockpuppet account, please add their name to the Admin noticeboard. Thanks!  Serpent   King  18:19, 22 February 2019 (EST)

You're doing this again, just a reminder that this is in violation of QDV, and you are once again responding too soon without proper evidence.  Alex the  Jigglypuff trainer  12:52, April 21, 2019 (EDT)

Elevating this to an admin warning. This is absolutely not ok. If you have suspicions about a user being a sockpuppet, or anything else involving user misconduct really, use the admin noticeboard. This will not be tolerated again.  Serpent King  13:17, April 21, 2019 (EDT)

This
I don’t care if Memoryman3 is annoying. You shouldn’t remove any mention of Daisy just because one guy bugged you. Regardless of how Daisy is a clone, it’s her move too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lou Cena (talk • contribs)

Once again, your behavior is unacceptable, you're ignoring the administrators warnings, reverting Daisy related content and paving your way to get blocked in the near future if you don't stop this. You can accuse me of being a puppet account all you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.28.204.62 (talk • contribs)
 * Firstly, that kind of block talk is generally not acceptable from non-administrators. Secondly, your attitude here is unacceptable in general.


 * As for Zakawer: I am assuming you were trying to remove that irrelevant description for Charizard, but you need to pay more attention to the full edits you are undoing. The reason your edits were being undone is because your original edit removed valid information. Lou Cena is also somewhat at fault here for undoing the entire edit rather than just re-inserting the relevant information, but regardless you need to be more careful, and you should also probably have a read of 1RV.  Alex the  Jigglypuff trainer  14:07, May 9, 2019 (EDT)

Okay, sorry I won't do it again, I was just upset. --37.28.204.62 14:48, May 9, 2019 (EDT)

You did it again
There were some legitimately good points in this edit (such as explaining Hero’s shield), but the fact of the matter is that you seem to hate memoryman3 so much that you try to devalue everything about Daisy. This is a terrible thought process, and I’d suggest you stop focusing on devaluing Daisy as much as posible. It’s not vandalism per-say, but this behaviour is mildy concerning. Lou Cena (talk) 14:07, June 15, 2019 (EDT)
 * And now you’re edit warring after I changed that specific piece of info back. i respect your attitude on gamefaqs, (if Zakwaker3 is you), but please don’t bring it into a wiki. Lou Cena (talk) 19:28, June 18, 2019 (EDT)
 * I am indeed Zakawer3 from GameFAQs. Zakawer2 (talk) 03:32, June 19, 2019 (EDT)
 * You keep edit warring even after I told you twice to please stop. Lou Cena (talk) 14:15, July 13, 2019 (EDT)

Knock it off already, seriously. Your recent edit war here is completely unacceptable, and you gave no proof for your claim other than "memoryman bad". (Reflection multipliers can be changed just like any other variable in the game, an example being Wolf's Reflector, and your claim is wrong anyway because 1.5 * 1.175 (Dr. Mario's multiplier) does not equal 1.6, which is his verifiable multiplier in-game.)

Memoryman is already blocked, and all his common target pages protected, so there's no reason to keep this unconstructive behavior. Also per what the other users told you above, stop editing small sections of pages only to devalue Daisy.  DracoRex,  Creator of the Land  10:47, July 22, 2019 (EDT)


 * Following up on this, it would appear as though you intend to continue this behaviour. This is not an appropriate or sensible approach to take to these kinds of situations. I strongly suggest that you do not continue to remove information simply because it was added by Memoryman, as this is not a valid reason to do so.  Alex the  Jigglypuff trainer  08:47, July 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Once again, do not remove valid information simply because you suspect an IP of being Memoryman. Follow the correct procedures but leave valid information where it is.  Alex the  Jigglypuff trainer  08:16, August 2, 2019 (EDT)

Yeeeeeaaaah reading these comments over, here's your official block warning. Drop that grudge of yours or you will be blocked from editing the wiki. Disaster Flare   (talk)  09:39, July 23, 2019 (EDT)

Your still doing this even though everyone is telling you to stop. Seriously are there any actual reasons to do this besides "memoryman sockpuppet"? Just leave these pages alone if that's the only reason you have to change it. It's unproductive.  Supa  Toad 64   20:10, August 2, 2019 (EDT)
 * And also Do not revert another user's revert on an article.  Supa  Toad 64  20px   20:22, August 2, 2019 (EDT)

You're really stubborn aren't you? --5.158.48.67 14:38, August 9, 2019 (EDT)

Admins, the behavior of 86.180.117.90 is very much in line with prior Memoryman3 sockpuppets. Many of their edits have been related to balance patches and Daisy, things that Memoryman3 is very clearly interested in. What I have been doing is trying to prevent this wiki from getting ruined by this user, suspected by Cookies and Creme to be a Memoryman3 sockpuppet. I will stop being too condescending and not engage in excessive edit warring once you have agreed to block that user. Zakawer2 (talk) 16:02, August 9, 2019 (EDT)
 * If I may clarify, I was not the one who reported this sock. Cookies CnC Signature.png Creme  18:10, August 9, 2019 (EDT)

There are no edits of my previous IPs (specifically 37.28.204.62, 5.158.48.67, 93.108.115.167) editing Daisy or balance patches, the only thing I edited was the Vegetable, nothing else. --93.108.115.167 16:09, August 9, 2019 (EDT)
 * Clearly, there is evidence that Memoryman3, who has been permanently banned from SmashWiki, has been using anonymous IP addresses to edit the wiki and skewer it toward his own personal biases at the expense of ruining the status quo. Also, Trainer Alex said the following regarding you: "You have similar behavior on the site to Memoryman, you have a similar attitude towards Zakawer, you both put two hyphens before your signature, and your IP changes very dramatically, which is not typical of what happens with ISPs. I'd also like to add that even if you are not Memoryman, your behavior on the site is still unacceptable, and I would strongly recommend you have a read of our policies, particularly regarding use of talk pages." Zakawer2 (talk) 16:19, August 9, 2019 (EDT)

Please don't revert my my talk edits (you edited my Ip), thank you very much! --178.166.112.232 16:22, August 9, 2019 (EDT)

"I will stop being too condescending and not engage in excessive edit warring once you have agreed to block that user." No, you will stop at once. You don't get to decide when you do or don't follow the policies, nor do you get to decide who the admins do and don't block.  Alex the  Jigglypuff trainer  17:41, August 9, 2019 (EDT)
 * Fine then. I'll just stop for now. Zakawer2 (talk) 17:57, August 9, 2019 (EDT)
 * You will, because the next time it happens, you will receive a 3 month block. We've been around the block and back here. Not all edits to MM3's usual targets are implicitly made by him. Also, reversions require edit summaries (beyond just "mm3") which you haven't been giving. Please take this seriously, and have a nice day.  Serpent King  16:28, September 9, 2019 (EDT)

Well, as someone who witnessed the war against Memoryman, this looks more like an opportunist attempt to rid the wiki of Memoryman's presence not mainly for the benefit of the wiki, but because you have a strong grudge against him. This is evident as not only were your sockpuppet reports confirmed wrong, but you're willing to break the wiki rules to remove information added by who you suspect to be Memoryman, even if it's valuable information, especially because as soon as your block is over you immediately go back to edit warring. Your behavior is no different from Memoryman's edit warring so I suggest you drop your grudge and instead try to benefit this wiki.  Supα Toαd 64,  The Best   01:47, September 10, 2019 (EDT)

AGF, again
This edit here isn't necessarily vandalism, since the IP could've interpreted the Japanese text wrong. There is no reason to call it "Obvious vandalism" unless it is actually so. Cookies Creme  18:13, November 17, 2019 (EST)

Calling out people on your userpage.
I've told you once not to do this, and I am telling you again. Please do not use your userpage to call out other people. It's a bad look.  Serpent   King  10:55, March 24, 2021 (EDT)
 * Sorry. Won't do it again! --Zakawer2 (talk) 10:58, March 24, 2021 (EDT)

This
Though I don't disagree with the reversion, I would like to point out that Rosalina is at least, in media related to her appearances in Mario games, referred to as one pretty consistently (example). Also worth noting is that she was originally going to be related to Peach, which can still slightly be seen in her final design. At the very least, I've definitely heard people colloquially refer to her as a princess. Aidan, the Rurouni  12:22, September 27, 2021 (EDT)
 * I am well aware that Rosalina definitely looks like a princess (and was originally intended to be a relative of Peach), and that she's often perceived to be one. Palutena, on the other hand, is absolutely not a character that anyone in their right mind would ever call a princess. And edit changed the page to focus more on an alleged "girl" datamine without any verifiable proof.Zakawer2 (talk) 12:56, September 27, 2021 (EDT)
 * Most throws have multiple animations for the victim. One of those is labelled "girl" internally (as an example: e01throwngirlf). I agree that Palutena and maybe Rosalina don't belong on that page, but it's not completely baseless. Hitbox Enthusiast Zeck (talk) 13:39, September 27, 2021 (EDT)

Really man
I outright warned you to not remove entire edits of legitimate information, and you just go immediately do it yet again by flagrantly reverting me? It doesn't matter if you were right about it being added by a Memoryman sock, facts are facts and belong in the article no matter who wrote them in. I can also see this isn't your first time being blocked for insistently mishandling sock cases, so if you ever do any of this sort of shit again when your block is up, the next one will be much more severe. Omega  Tyrant   04:25, September 29, 2021 (EDT)