User talk:Serpent King

User:Serpent King/TalkGuide

Archives

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8
9. 9
10. 10
11. 11
12. 12
13. 13
14. 14
15. 15

Rename

Hey could you rename me to SleepyPuff? Thanks. Melee Weegie (talk) 20:45, December 1, 2020 (EST)

As per SW:NAMECHANGE, please come back here in a few days to confirm your name change. Serpent  King 11:40, December 2, 2020 (EST)

Account recovery

Hey, I am Rdrfc, could you confirm that I am in the same IP range? --93.35.181.122 14:09, December 5, 2020 (EST)

Here I am. --Rdrfc2 (talk) 15:34, December 5, 2020 (EST)

Unnamed topic

You're updating a page with invalid infos, I request to talk to an admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.154.10 (talk • contribs) 12:28, January 16, 2021 (EST)

He's the admin. I've already made 2 comments on it; how about you take a look at it. CookiesCreme 12:28, January 16, 2021 (EST)

Outdated template

Hi Serpent King, I noticed that the smash arena Discord thingy (whatever you call it) is outdated (focusing on Round 32). Is that necessarily a problem? SonDaniel (talk page) 19:43, January 19, 2021 (EST)

It isn't necessarily a problem, but it's just that it's never been touched, so expect it to be outdated in the current round. If it's a problem for you, I have updated it already to the current round. Howplayz 12:54, January 20, 2021 (EST)

Would it be safe to unprotect the echo fighter pages?

From what I understand, the Ultimate pages for the echo fighters and Dr. Mario were indefinitely protected because a persistent guy named memoryman3 would constantly demoralize the echo fighters' differences and claim Dr. Mario wasn't more unique than he was, and would keep coming back despite having multiple accounts banned. he hasn't been active for a while, so since you were the one who protected those pages, would you say it is safe to unprotect Dr. Mario (SSBU), Lucina (SSBU), Dark Pit (SSBU), Chrom (SSBU), Ken (SSBU), Dark Samus (SSBU), Daisy (SSBU), Richter (SSBU), Clone, Princess Daisy, and Galeem? 72.219.72.215 15:55, February 15, 2021 (EST)

His twitter is inactive too . Considering how this guy seemed to be the reason why the echo fighter pages were protected, I think it's safe to lift protection now. 72.219.72.215 14:19, February 17, 2021 (EST)

Like I said in the Discord, this IP has a good point here, and those pages have been protected for over two years now, I think it's time we relax the protections. Worst case scenario and this IP is Memoryman pulling the long con or Memoryman is just lurking in the shadows and waiting to strike, we can just revert the edits and re-implement the protections. Omega Tyrant 00:50, February 18, 2021 (EST)

You can actually confirm I'm not memoryman by checking my IP location to see I'm in the United States, while memoryman is british according to smashboards and gamefaqs. Also, I forgot to mention these, but would the same apply to the clone page Daisy's non-fighter page, and Galeem as well? I don't have any immediate plans to edit these pages (unless Pyra and Mythra turn out to be seniclones), but it just seems like the misconceptions that led to the protection of these pages were primarily from one troll who isn't active anymore, and those that were from other people were because of inconsistencies with the Echo Fighter label that are just kind of accepted now. 72.219.72.215 01:17, February 18, 2021 (EST)

MemoryMan3 has definitely been inactive, so I can justify removing protection. It should immediately go back up if something happens though. Aidan, the Lovely Rurouni 01:44, February 19, 2021 (EST)

Any reason why you or Omega can't do it? Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 03:13, February 19, 2021 (EST)

(edit conflict) My assumption is because Sook is the one who protected most of them (sans Dr Mario, Princess Daisy and Galeem). On that note I also support the protection removal, should Memoryman strike again the protection can be re-implemented. Omegα Toαd, the Toαd Wαrrior. (BUP) 03:48, February 19, 2021 (EST)

I'm just waiting to see if there's any serious objections, since these protections have been in place for so long and I wasn't around when the Memoryman shit happened. Omega Tyrant 03:46, February 19, 2021 (EST)

I do think relaxing the protection would be great, and we can always revert the protections if necessary. On the contrary though his GameFAQs account was active again just recently, so perhaps we wait a bit more before a decision is made to get rid of those protections. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 06:52, February 19, 2021 (EST)

He hasn't been seen here, so I think we should be fine. Black Vulpine of the 🦊Furry Nation🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 07:14, February 19, 2021 (EST)

I have no objections. Serpent  King 09:59, February 19, 2021 (EST)

Memoryman3 made a sockpuppet called MrMHM that edited as recently as October 2020. He could potentially return to ravage and ruin pages anytime soon, so I feel that the pages should stay protected. Zakawer2 (talk) 10:52, February 19, 2021 (EST)

We're talking about 1 guy here. We wouldn't lock any other page because 1 person keeps making bad edits to it, so I don't see why these pages should be any different. Multiple people have several of those articles on their watchlists, and undoing his edits is very easy. Alex the Weeb 10:55, February 19, 2021 (EST)

Name change

Hi Serpent King, I would like to change my username to Daniel1204. I will give you a confirmation by tomorrow. Thanks! SonDaniel (talk page) 15:37, February 17, 2021 (EST)

Hi Serpent King, I am here to confirm my request. I would like my username to be changed to Daniel1204. SonDaniel (talk page) 13:42, February 18, 2021 (EST)

Username change

Hello, I'd like to request a name change to 'Hewer', please. Bandana Hewer Dee (talk) 10:32, February 19, 2021 (EST)

Per SW:NAMECHANGE, please write back here in a few days to confirm. Serpent  King 08:45, February 20, 2021 (EST)

Confirming my request: I would like to have my username changed to Hewer. Bandana Hewer Dee (talk) 04:38, February 21, 2021 (EST)

"offensive and not commonly used"

Firstly, Rapetent is not an uncommonly used phrase. Search "rapetent smash bros" on Google and you will find tons of results all mentioning it on places like Smashboards and reddit. Secondly, I do not understand why you are choosing to blatantly ignore SW:DELETE and SmashWiki is not censored to misuse your admin powers to keep the page the way you want. If you have an issue with the word "Rapetent," go suggest an amendment to the censorship policy instead of ignoring all discussion on the subject altogether. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:28, March 9, 2021 (EST)

Also, you protected the page to keep a revision that you like, while completely ignoring previously decided consensus? Do you not remember the Marth incident that you were a part of and directly complained about? Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:30, March 9, 2021 (EST)

I searched it like you said and found that the first page of results were: 1 in 2019, 1 in 2016, 2 in 2015, and 2 in 2013. From this we can conclude that the term hasn't been used often at all recently, and for good reason.

And despite what you claim, I do find your reversion to be in violation of 1rv. Serpent  King 18:34, March 9, 2021 (EST)

The top 9 results for "rapetent smash bros" on Google for me, disregarding Google Images and suggested questions, gives even more dated results (in order, 2010, 2015, 2013, 2015, 2010, 2013, 2009, 2012, and the most recent result of them, 2017), so I'm also not exactly sure how you think it's "not an uncommonly used phrase". Aidan, the Rurouni 18:36, March 9, 2021 (EST)

SmashWiki goes by a "once notable always notable" policy, just because a term is not used as frequently now doesn't mean it wasn't relevant in the past. And just because a term was used more frequently in the early 2000s and 2010s, when the Internet was significantly less developed now, does not mean that it isn't as encyclopedic as something that gets used today. Also, SW:1RV states that an exception to the rule is made "In the event of a user making an edit which goes against decisions arrived upon in previous discussions." The previous discussions made it clear that the word "Rapetent" would remain in the article, and even put in a notice saying to not remove it, and you went and deleted the page completely ignoring that consensus. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:54, March 9, 2021 (EST)

Have you maybe considered that the wiki isn't...static? That policies and mentalities change over time? That something that was once acceptable can suddenly become not acceptable? Get off your god damn high horse already, Cardinal. Aidan, the Rurouni 19:03, March 9, 2021 (EST)

Is SmashWiki supposed to be encyclopedic or not? Do encyclopedias stop covering things that happened ten years ago? Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:06, March 9, 2021 (EST)

If the thing was still happening over ten years later, then no. If it's effectively been dropped from the community, then yes. While not to the same extent, note how we quickly flipped from "RockCrocking" to "Tech Checking". Aidan, the Rurouni 19:09, March 9, 2021 (EST)

I don't see how removing an offensive term which is hardly even used anymore would make the wiki stop being "encyclopedic". What policy even states "Once notable, always notable"? As far as I know, none of them. If it were an actual written rule however, it would be intended for Smasher articles, not mainspace text. Señor Mexicano (talk) 19:13, March 9, 2021 (EST)

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If you take a moment to look at the two most popular sources of competitive Smash 64 discussions, the Discord and the Facebook group, you will notice that the term "rape tent" or "rapetent" are hardly used. In particular the Discord server only has about 14 mentions of the term, most of which have been by one user who has seemingly been banned. The Facebook group on the other hand has a bit more usage, but as of 2017 the group administrators started working against this toxic type of behavior. The term is dead and any mention of it will certainly raise some eyebrows towards you. Señor Mexicano (talk) 19:13, March 9, 2021 (EST)

Disregarding the offensive part for a moment here, would you agree in principle that an encyclopedia should do its best to cover in detail about things that were notable in the past but not as notable now, and that it's unencyclopedic to remove information on things just because no one uses them anymore? Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:43, March 9, 2021 (EST)

The concept of "Once notable, always notable" is directly referenced in SW:SMASHER, and indeed the wiki enforces it in regards to covering historical competitive content, such as the aforementioned smasher articles and tournament articles. What it is not supposed to be for is a reason for the wiki to keep covering outdated terms the community has made an active effort to move away from using. Language evolves and all that.

That said, keeping the redirect should be fine, the average reader doesn't even know what a redirect is, and the people searching by that term aren't going to be the ones that will get offended by it. Omega Tyrant 20:36, March 9, 2021 (EST)

It does seem to me that the most encyclopedic solution would be to acknowledge the name's existence and state that the community has intentionally moved away from using it because it is offensive. It clearly demonstrates the wiki's stance on the title while not attempting to "erase history" or whatever exaggerative term you want to use. TheNuttyOne 20:42, March 9, 2021 (EST)