User talk:PeabodySam

Kanden
It was brought up on Discord that is green and yellow, and looking at his character in the infobox on Metroid Wiki, I find that agreeable. However, looking at his Brawl trophy, he seems to have all three colors. Is it possible both palettes are a reference then? Alex95 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2018 (EST)
 * Ugh, wikia. Sheesh, that green lighting is annoying, then. But while I see black and yellow on Kanden's armor, his actual skin looks more green to me, and the green tint is part of his artwork, which they could've gone off of. I don't think Weavel would work. And this green palette of Dark Samus's could've been created to match Samus's, which had no real origin, I suppose. Alex95 (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2018 (EST)
 * Talk page posts should be replied to on the page they were originally posted on... See TALK for details. Black Vulpine  of the Furry Nation.  Furries make the internets go! :3  18:44, 28 November 2018 (EST)

Spirit Battle Inspirations
Listen, what you've said has been on my mind, and maybe we need to make some sort of compromise. You want the "inspirations" to be short, not too bloated, and to the point. I want them to be detailed for more context behind the "inspirations". I've recently thought back to how bloated I made Gruntilda's Spirit Battle inspiration is and how to make it short and sweet, not too unreadable. Maybe if we found a way to work together to keep the inspirations detailed and short at the same time, we can avoid some kind of editing war.

If you need an example of how we need to compromise our edits, I am always online. Autismo555 (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2020 (EST)

Hi, I hate to be a bit of a bother, but I need to know if this is what you were looking for in the Spirit Battle Inspirations. Below here, you'll see my current edit of Gruntilda's Spirit Battle inspiration...

And below this is my rewrite of Gruntilda's Spirit Battle Inspiration...

I need to know if the latter edit is what you're looking for in the Spirit Battle inspirations because this is what's been on my mind for a while. You want it to be short, straight to the point, I want it to have a bit more detail behind the context. I'm asking this for any sign of approval so we can make amends and we won't have an edit war with each other.


 * I'm very sorry for the delayed response! I've been working a lot of overtime this month and haven't had much time to check SmashWiki.


 * I definitely appreciate that you're willing to talk this over. To me, the main issue with including excessive detail or wording in the "Inspiration" column stems from the fact that it is a single column in a table that already has ten other columns. These aren't like the "Origins" sections of a full-fledged article, which can go into as much detail as needed. Therefore, keeping it concise and "short and sweet" looks better in a table format.


 * I think your proposal is definitely a step in the right direction, cutting down on unnecessary wording like "the choice of", "furthermore", and keeping it directly relevant to the spirit battle itself. However, I would suggest that references to the spirit's abilities (such as Hazard Skills) aren't necessary if they don't tie directly into the spirit's origins; in this case, since Gruntilda isn't associated with poison in Banjo-Kazooie, I don't think there's a need to specify any inspiration for the Poison Floor hazard (without delving into speculation). Of course, if there's any disagreement about what is or isn't a direct reference, it's something that could always be taken to the talk page for discussion.


 * This is how I would further trim the inspiration column; otherwise, I think it looks good. I do wish there was a way to decrease the width of the column without relying on sub-bullets...


 * --PeabodySam (talk) 13:49, March 1, 2020 (EST)
 * I'm glad you have some approval of my ideas.
 * I'd also like to take a slight step back and discuss Spirit Battle placements in WoL because before I started the editing, someone first used the Spirit Battle placement references in the Sacred Land with Urbosa, Impa, and Saria. The reason I went along with that was because there was a bit of context to their placement in the WoL based on their location. I felt that certain Spirit Battles, such as Trace's Spirit Battle in Outer Space needed a bit of context with their placement because some of it hardly draws parallels to their source material. That's why I elected to say the stage represented Trace's Spirit Battle being located on a fiery sun, even though it does seem like speculation on my part.Autismo555 (talk) 18:43, April 3, 2020 (EDT)

Hello. I've come back after all this time to ask your permission to alter the Spirit Battle inspirations for the Metroid series because you have oversaw the edits for that column. On a related note, I know you're not fond of my previous edits regarding the Spirit Battle placements because they are speculations, but I can't guarantee someone else won't come along to add that in the column.Autismo555 (talk) 09:57, May 8, 2020 (EDT)


 * Well, I knew this would happen sooner or later. I'm honestly not sure what else there is to add to the Metroid series, since the inspiration is phrased rather concisely and currently is pretty accurate in describing how the spirit battles represent the Metroid series. I suppose there's nothing to stop you from editing that page, but since I know the Metroid series like the back of my hand, I may be watching the page like a hawk and swoop in if I find that there's any changes that I disagree with. --PeabodySam (talk) 16:52, May 10, 2020 (EDT)


 * Thank you. I hope you don't mind some of the Spirit Battle placements I'll add to the columns.Autismo555 (talk) 09:54, May 15, 2020 (EDT)

I'm sorry
Hey, Sorry for putting words in Sakurai's mouth. I think I'm taking the sources too seriously, however there is something wrong with my edits: Misconceptions, but everyone makes mistakes like this sometimes. I'll remember that there is only ONE case of a character replacing another one, like Lucas replacing Ness in Melee, and Ridley was no way heavily considered for Brawl. I won't do this again. 81.110.120.177 01:16, August 23, 2021 (EDT)

QDV
Edits like this just to yell at a clear bad faith user/IP is unacceptable, all you're doing is wasting your time and giving them needless attention that they're probably after. As the policy states, when dealing with vandals and other bad faith users, exert the minimum effort necessary to handle them and do so quietly, i.e. just revert them and alert an admin. Omega  Tyrant   00:06, April 22, 2022 (EDT)


 * I apologize if I was acting out of line. Had this been an ordinary vandal or troll, I would not have responded at all, as per SW:QVD.


 * However, while my tone was certainly stern, I carefully worded my message to avoid sounding like I was "yelling", harsh, or overly antagonistic towards this editor. My goal was to help, not to hurt. Because despite their repeatedly poor behavior, I do not believe that this particular editor is a vandal or an attention-seeking troll; I still believe in good faith that they sincerely think they're making good, constructive edits and are understandably getting angry and frustrated when those edits are undone. And it seems to me that you must also believe this to an extent, because I don't see why you would give a repeat offender "bad-faith user" a mere six-month block (instead of indefinite) unless you believed that there was hope that they could still change their behavior for the better.


 * I wanted this editor to know that they do not have an upstanding reputation, and it is up to them to change that. I wanted them to know that there is no reason to obsess over the wording they are so hyper-focused on, and that they are better off spending their time doing something else rather than making the same mistake over and over. I wanted them to know that it's okay to just let go and move on with their life. Because I would want someone to tell me this if I needed to hear it, and so I'd do the same for someone else.


 * And if they chose to shun my message, ignore the opportunity for healthy self-reflection, and continue down their current path... well, then I would have known that I at least tried to get through to them, and that's all I could do. --PeabodySam (talk) 17:42, April 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * IPs don't get indefinite blocks as IPs can change, resulting in someone who had never done anything on the wiki being unable to ever do anything through no fault of their own. They had just come off of a 3 month block, 6 month is next in line; hopefully long enough for them to either mature or forget about targeting this wiki. --CanvasK (talk) 18:02, April 22, 2022 (EDT)


 * I see. Thank you for explaining that. --PeabodySam (talk) 18:16, April 22, 2022 (EDT)


 * This person has been making the same clearly dumb edits with inflammatory edit summaries between multiple different IPs after several bans, with no other positive contributions, they have long since passed the line of reasonably assumable good faith. And the point of my message isn't about you being "overly harsh" or "antagonistic", it's about not wasting your time with bad faith users and not give them the attention they're seeking. Regarding not permabanning the IP, what Canvas said is right, IPs should never be permabanned (this person jumping between different IPs already demonstrates why permabanning them is a bad idea), and six months is about the longest they should be banned for, with a year being the absolute max for particularly severe cases. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 18:46, April 22, 2022 (EDT)


 * Yes, I'm well aware of this person's history. I've even been the target of their insults on multiple occasions, simply for reverting their edits and explaining in a calm, professional tone why I did so. And I honestly doubt that if they'll learn their lesson if they haven't already. But I still see their edits as hyper-focusing on a single issue that is probably born out of a misplaced desire to use "correct" terminology, instead of trolling or vandalism. If that's true, then I can at least understand where this editor may be coming from, since I too have a tendency of hyper-focusing on smaller issues, such as specific terminology. And if I'm focused on something I shouldn't be, then I may need someone to tell me to snap out of it.


 * Case in point. Here, I focused more on you telling me that yelling at another user is unacceptable, since that wording came across less as "hey, don't bother wasting your time, that's why we have a policy against it" and more as "you're in big trouble for flaming" (hence why I felt the need to defend myself as acting in good faith), rather than focusing on your intended message.


 * But you're right, I'm probably just wasting my time trying to speak to someone who doesn't want to listen. --PeabodySam (talk) 19:33, April 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * "But I still see their edits as hyper-focusing on a single issue that is probably born out of a misplaced desire to use "correct" terminology, instead of trolling or vandalism."


 * If the person had a genuine interest in helping the wiki and really was just hyper-focused on this one dumb term absolutely no one else uses, then they would have took this issue to the talk pages, stopped after their first block, and/or make other positive contributions in the meantime, instead of flagrantly ignoring the reversions and their constant blocks, jumping on different IPs to evade their bans (to the point of forcing us to do a range block), and making inflammatory edit summaries all the while. Assume good faith and all, but there's a point where you have to recognize a troll is a troll. Also generally it's never productive anyway for users to leave a talk page message to someone that was blocked, if something needs to be said to them about their behavior the admins will do so.  Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 21:35, April 22, 2022 (EDT)