User talk:Erik the Appreciator

To communicate with Erik... is to be alive. Well, okay, that's not exactly subtle. Okay, so I don't have much of a talk-page policy, just a preference with talking style; If I leave a message on your talk page, you can either reply there or on here. When you leave a message on this page, though, I'll respond on this page instead of going to your talk page. And also, with nomenclature; "Erik the Appreciator" is my user name to keep in character on the site, but you can just call me Erik (Jensen) wherever I show up. Alrighty then, the space below is open up to any and all posts regarding my Wikipedia edits. Just keep it relevant! Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) Archives: The Premier;

Reporting Vandalism

User:Bman87301 has been consistently reverting my edits to Luigification, despite repeated warnings and discussion on the subject. Is there a way you can Protect the page just from one person? I don't know if he really deserves a ban just for one article. - Gargomon251 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoo boy, this is a really hard case; Bman is not at all your typical troll. Looking at his talk page and the Luigification talk page, he doesn't just have strong opinions; he thinks and lays his viewpoints out in detail, however much even I don't agree with them... And it seems evident he believes himself to honestly be the one editing in good faith, just like you are. (In fact, if his edits are what he honestly believes to be correct then I don't think that would count as actual "vandalism."

Now, one does not block a user because that user disagrees with another through intense debate. A sysop would give a user a warning if he makes some honestly incivil personal attacks, but as for content disputes over subjects which I'm not an expert in (like Luigification), I don't think I can be so helpful. (And unfortunately, I'm looking at my sysop options and don't see any option to block a user from a specific article.) I would recommend getting other sysops who focus on the subject of gameplay concepts to join in and take whatever actions they feel as necessary. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 23:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Do you have any suggestions whom to ask? - Gargomon251 23:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the list of sysops on the wiki. Out of them, I know Silverdragon and Charitwo are active, and Kirby King recently commented in the Crew namespace discussion. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, Special:Listusers/sysop wiki link version Logan - (Talk·Contributions) 00:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Okay, thanks. :) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Smasher Reversion Bot

Do you know how to operate these bots involving porting articles off the Smasher namespace, Erik? If not, I can do the research myself, but if you happened to know offhand how something like that works, it would save a bit of time. --RJM ^Talk 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I don't know ANYTHING about bots, but there are times (including but also other than right now) I wish I did. ;) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 19:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I'll work it out. Thanks! --RJM ^Talk 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I Know You!

You one of those super awsome god type users. Us nobodies are supposed to bow down in your greatness. *Bows* Do you need anythign, a donut, a hoagie perhaps, maybe a foot massage. Okay maybe I am a little crazy but if you see me make sure to say hi! Zmario (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Well, thanks for that, I guess... Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Section Revisions

During your recent project of reorganizing character trophies onto character articles (which was a great idea by the way), you also reorganized some of the sections claiming they were "messes" (Jigglypuff, Pichu). I think you may have been more focused on the trophy project and may have overlooked some of the actual content in the articles. While having an "In the Super Smash Bros. series" section along with sub-sections for the individual SSB games may have seemed redundant at first glance, it really wasn't because the text appearing prior the individual SSB game sub-sections were discussing multiple SSB games. Your changes ended up putting non-SSB/SSBM/SSBB-specific info into SSB/SSBM/SSBB-specific sections which not only made each section less sensible, but made things disorganized and harder to navigate through via "Contents". I ended up revising them so that the non-title specific information now appears under the "Trivia" sections instead since it was all trivial info anyways. I just thought I'd bring that to your attention. --Bman87301 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, it looks like you're right about all that, and I shouldn't have called it "horrendous". But in my opinion, the reason having the three SSB game sections within one SSB series supersection wasn't good visually was that it was only the supersection that was a big header with a line under it, with the three game sections not having lines under them, while in all the other pages the fact those three game sections have their own big headers-with-lines makes those seem stronger-defined as sections about entire games.

What you did with the Trivia section looks like a good solution to the issue of the SSB-overall-info's placement, and I might also suggest incorporating some of that into the introductory top paragraph (like "As a fighter in the Super Smash Bros. series, Jigglypuff is lightweight and seems weak overall, but has some surprisingly powerful techniques that have consistently earned it's spot in the middle Tier since the original game."). Thanks for the post!

(P.S. By the way, I'm also considering moving the In Single Player sections into their respective (SSBM) articles.) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 17:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering

I wanted to say hi, but I also wanted to ask you something. I saw a user by the name of User:SMASH-Erik the Appreciator. Is that an impostor or some fan of yours? I wanted to check, just in case. FyreNWater - (Talk • Contributions ) 08:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol, actually that would be the result of what happened to my old SmashWiki account when the merger happened and my SmashWiki user account conflicted with the fact that I already also have an "Erik the Appreciator" account here on Wikia. All the edits by "User:SMASH-Erik the Appreciator" were actually me long ago on the old SmashWiki. There might be a few other users who have their names as part of red "SMASH-[name]" accounts, registered as edits in page histories... Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Shadowcrest/policy

As a sysop, I expect you to be interested in benefitting the community- and I wholeheartedly believe that the implementation of all of the proposed policies/other administration-related things listed on that page would benefit the wiki. It would be greatly appreciated if you would point out any issues you have with any of the things listed on that page, and whether or not you think any or all of them should be implemented, and if not, why not.

Of course, I realize you have a life and other things to attend to- I don't expect this to be completed overnight ;)

Whenever you get the chance, it would be great if you would comment on them.

Thanks, --Shadowcrest 01:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

These policies all sound like "goes without saying" policies one gets to understand simply by being around Wikipedia itself... Which is good, because that means it shouldn't be really hard to implement those. I didn't spot any questionable details during my rather quick glancethru of all those pages. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but then, you've had, in the last day, 3 people infinitely banned- 2 for nothing more than just being an ass (though this may be said in ignorance. If so, enlighten me.), and 1 person banned for a year for 3 vandalism contributions. A year for 3 contributions. Over on GuildWiki, his ban would last... 3 days, a week, a month max if the sysop was in a bad mood. I realize this isn't GuildWiki and I can't change this wiki into GuildWiki. But that's just crazy.

But not everyone goes to wikipedia. Just today I had to teach someone to sign their comments. People that come here could be completely new to wikis, never contributed to any wikis in their lifetime. Is it fair to expect them to be familiar with how they work and Wikipedia's policies? Not really.

It couldn't hurt to have policies set in stone- and not only on Wikipedia, on here too. Wikipedia pages aren't going to show up in Category:Policies. I also saw, as a block reason, "Profanity agaist a sysop. Second Offense". I don't know how that can scream anything other than "We need you are valuable and we need it now." If that were a normal user, would he have gotten a ban?

If nothing else, it gives the admins more control over their discretion (NPA/1RV vio=ban, no questions asked, nobody complains), and stops people from QQing "omg unjust ban I didn't break policy!!!11!one!!" --Shadowcrest 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the banned user accounts, all three of them would have been permablocked for the same reasons and the same quickness on Wikipedia itself: the 3-vandalism one would've been permablocked just as quickly for being an obvious vandal-only account; GalaxiaD has apparently been a long-running abuser who was confrontational, using totally inappropriate tone like this, and essentially undermining the overall project, which would've gotten any user long-term-blocked even without him invoking rather extreme religious oratory like what you see in the end of the first paragraph of this talk page section; and Kperfekt722 had caused very similar incidents with berating other people and super-insulting behavior like what you see in his own Final Message. All that kinda goes far and beyond "just being an ass"... To be honest, it's GuildWiki that sounds abnormally lenient with its penalties.

But anyway, yeah I agree that putting your policies into effect would help SmashWiki define its own sense of stability and user-conduct better. You should bring this up with the other more policy-minded and website-minded sysops and bureaucrats, though, because even though I'm a sysop I'm most interested in contributing article content. :/ (Being really good at writing article's paragraphs like Mario (universe) is how I became a sysop in the first place. XP) Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 04:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of how far the assholish behavior extended, and if that were indeed the case, then an extended block would have been warranted over there too. Possibly not infinite, but certainly not out of the question. I had just thought that they had disagreed with Randall about infinibanning Galaxia and he blocked them both for it- which, after all, he threatened to do (I'd find the link but I can't atm.) Whether or not it was an idle threat or not... I can't tell. I don't know him well enough. Thanks for the new info.

All the sysops except Auron are lenient. Auron says we're the carebear crew :(

I posted on all the talkpages of sysops with recent contributions (can't remember if it was a month or since August 1st), which happened to include you. Charitwo also recommended I make a forum, so I did that too.

We've got an admin who was promoted because he does menial tasks all the time and he's got a huge load of mainspace contributions, and it was a joke when our bureaucrat promoted him that he was a house cleaning admin. But now he's gotten quite good at doing the user-related and GuildWiki/Policy side of things.. so he got promoted to Admin that Cleans House ;) --Shadowcrest 04:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'll comment on my own talk page about the policies (which look to be pretty sound) but that GuildWiki sounds like exactly the flaky hierarchy that I don't want in a wiki. Promoting people into a position of power for menial tasks is a high-risk move and indicative of reckless administration. I suppose that works well in some communities, but I never felt like the care bears accomplished much while they were on television! :^) --RJM ^Talk 16:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Did the carebears have to manage a wiki? :P

He'd been around for almost two years, and since before he was promoted there was at least 1 sysop on around 20 hours a day, I'd guess. One of us would have been able to handle it if he "went rogue" until our bureaucrat (now we have 3 active crats) got on and demoted him. Really, the risk of anything serious happening was low, and Entropy (crat #1) trusted him- we had no reason to do otherwise. Since then, he's deleted 4,500+ images and pages :o

</defensive mode><on topic>

I'm glad they look sound enoug to people. I was afraid people would hate them all and I'd have a ton of work to do (and sorry for spamming your talkpage Erik :S) --Shadowcrest 19:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks... plus!

Glad to see you're back and editing again, Erik. A belated thanks is owed to you for helping to finish the Notes columns of Music (SSBB)... a task that needed completion. Thank you and keep up the great work! 5280s (talk · contributions) 20:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, well, I never actually "left" or even "took a break", because I check the wiki all the time. ^_^ I was just trying to get all 700 stickers, though, and I'm still at it. Now I got 698... You wouldn't believe how monumental a task it is to get them all. >_> But thanks! Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 20:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes I do. A Melee player still trying to get all 290 non-hacking trophies. I still can't figure out which bonuses I don't have... oh well. Not a huge loss. 285 is still quite the acheivement. (Let's not talk about how many continues it took me to beat all-star on very hard...) 5280s (talk · contributions) 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lulz, I didn't need hacking to get 290 Melee trophies and beat All-Star on very hard. =P Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate me here!)} 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)