User talk:Myth: Difference between revisions

Here's the thing. Yes, once notable, always notable. Mango doesn't use Puff anymore, but that doesn't mean he wasn't at one time the best Jigglypuff player ever. With Dr. PP with Brawl Mario however, '''you have not sufficiently shown that he was ever a notable Brawl Mario in the first place'''. Your only evidence is '''one single video, from right after Brawl's launch, in a match PP didn't even win'''. How many times have we told you, '''a notable player using a random character in a tourney once does not make them a notable player of that character!''' For evidence, '''you are supposed to show tournament results where Dr. PP did exceptionally well with Brawl Mario, or any other thing such as a power ranking that shows him regarded highly with Mario'''. A single losing video from right after Brawl's release '''is not evidence'''. And '''time period does matter''' ''when it's early 2008 and everyone is bad and were playing random characters trying to find their main that they stopped playing soon after''. ''Winning also matters'', '''you are not a notable player with the character if you do not win an exceptional amount with the character'''. No player is considered notable because they "almost win" and "look really good".

Also, when your ban ends, the next time you edit war or put a big name player as a notable player of a character they used once in a tourney, '''you will be immediately blocked for a month, with your talk page blocked as well'''. You have been getting away with your shit and attitude for way too long, if you don't start listening and keep insisting on your ways, you simply won't be allowed to edit here. You will also be rebanned, if you're going to ignore us and keep trying to argue PP as a notable Brawl Mario because of one ancient video '''while not giving us any actual evidence that we keep telling you to give'''. The users of the Wiki have tired of you long ago, and I'm going to put my foot down on you now. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 19:59, 5 May 2014 (EDT)

 

I'm going to step in here, as a neutral observer, and explain what's at issue. The issue is not, on the whole, if Dr. PP is a notable Mario player. The issue is that, rather than have the discussion on the talk page, you do it via edit warring. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but you must also respect community response. In this case, all the evidence was against you in terms of Dr. PP. You have made a few legitimate arguments, but they were all contained in the edit summary's of edits in violation of [[SW:1RV]] and/or on your talk page ''once you were already banned''.  Where were these arguments on the talk page of the article in question? And once your arguments are responded to, you do not have the right to simply edit your shit back in just because you disagree with everyone else. I'm not even going to get into the specifics of the argument, because they are irrelevant to your ban. The only thing I will add—which is something that I have previously talked to you about—is to reiterate that just because there are a limited number of notable entries in a category does not mean that the threshold for notability in said category is lower. Even through I main Zelda (and was at one time the top Zelda player in IowaI) I don't get to be in the Zelda (SSSB) player category just because there aren't a ton of Zelda pros. I'm not at the level that is actually notable, nor is my play with Zelda actually recognized by the community. We don't need or want people like me categorized in the Zelda pros because it dilutes the importance of the category. [[User:Clarinet Hawk|Clarinet Hawk]] <small>([[User talk:Clarinet Hawk|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Clarinet Hawk|contributions]])</small> 12:56, 6 May 2014 (EDT)