User talk:Epsilon

The Preview Button

Use it. Otherwise you flood the recent changes with continuous edits to the same page. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:43, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

This is not a suggestion. Start using the preview button, and stop making six consecutive edits to the same article. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 12:51, 2 April 2014 (EDT)

Epsilon : Alright I won't keep doing consecutive edits alright ? my bad . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsilon (talk • contribs) 13:58, 2 April 2014

No problem, thanks for taking note. Also, when you post on a talk page, don't put it inside another user's comments, as it moves their signature from the comment. And please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:25, 2 April 2014 (EDT)

Epsilon : Yeah sure . Hey do you think you can teach me how to properly write down buffs and nerfs properly rather then just triyng to copy and apste something ? because I want to post professionally .

1. Use the Preview button. You're still not doing it, and its getting frustrating as its flooding the recent changes.
2. Sign your comments with ~~~~
3. As for properly adding buffs/nerfs, if they're not things that the PM team explicitly stated, I would hesitate from listing them under buffs/nerfs. If it's a very obvious change, list it under neutral, but even things that seem like buffs (i.e. attack has more knockback) might not be (i.e. the increased knockback removes the potential for certain followups, which are the real killing move). Don't guess at buffs/nerfs; they need to be pro tested. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:56, 6 April 2014 (EDT)

Oh my bad , I'll make sure to do that next time . But haven't you seen the work i've done ? I'm such a trooper aren't I ? Epsilon (talk) so i press show preview then save and im good ?

That and not making six consecutive edits to the same page. The preview button lets you see what your edit looks like. If you then need to make more edits, don't hit save until you've made them all. That way you only make one edit. And please start signing your comments. You've done it exactly once, and that time you only used three tildes, not the requisite four. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:08, 7 April 2014 (EDT)

Did six edits again with Charizard this time. You are also adding on information that is mostly irrelevant which makes it look very unprofessional. I'm fixing up the page. When you preview it, look over any mistakes. Just because you are contributing doesn't exactly mean you are doing right; you have to make meaningful edits and abide by the rules. I thought that would be pretty obvious. All these small edits are a little annoying. Thankfully I'm not a big enough jerk to just undo all of them since there are a few things worth mentioning. I see this has been going on for well over a week. As a fellow member I really hope you learn. Contributions are always welcome here, but there's always a better way to do so. Dragon5 (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (EDT)

Your right, the Charizard page wasn't my best one . But check out my Ike one . I'm sure you will be impressed with that one . It only took two edits this time ! Epsilon (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2014 (EDT)

Hey Dragon5, I really took what you said to heart, and inspired me to try harder, so I did Lucas today too ! And the max edits are only 2 from now on , I promise !

I don't like what you did with Ivysaur and, twice, I told you not to do what you did with Dedede and you did it again away. I can't fix the articles because I don't have time with college and it kills me. Allow me to be blunt since you didn't seem to understand: STOP ADDING MINOR THINGS SUCH AS "Increased by % now doing %" and using "kill" instead of KO. If people change it, WHY ARE YOU ADDING MORE LIKE THAT? Wouldn't that imply some common sense? You don't need to state things like how much damage they do; readers can look at the damage list, especially if they are familiar with their original incarnations. This doesn't matter to casual players either. Dragon5 (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2014 (EDT)

Alright fine I won't be so specific with damage . Epsilon (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2014 (EDT)

From now on you will see the real deal changes though they won't be so specific , and I will use better terms. Thanks for the inspiration . Epsilon (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2014 (EDT)

Project M character revisions

For the record, all of the changes listed in the revisions sections are taken directly from the changelogs posted by the PMBR. It's not what we have observed. It's what we've been told, and while there may have been changes that weren't listed by the PMBR, it's somewhat speculative to add to those lists. So just be careful with those and double check. Ryxis (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2014 (EDT)

…

Why, pray tell, do you appear to have three accounts? Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:12, 7 April 2014 (EDT)

X move does slightly more damage

Hi, I've noticed that you seem to add several lines to the "changes from Melee to PM" sections on Project M character pages about how "X move does slightly more damage." You've already been told not to add such minor details en masse a couple months back. The changes section details how the transition from past games affected the competitive viability of the character in question. It doesn't detail every little tweak to the character. Things like "move does slightly more damage" are irrelevant to the character's performance in competitive play unless there are other changes at play with the increased damage that do affect the character (such as changes in launch angle, move speed, or ending/landing lag). Of course, if a move does way more damage than before, that's worth mentioning. But stuff like Fox's up aerial, which appears to do only 1% more damage (keep in mind that the percentage values on Project M pages are mostly tentative and were done empirically), are not worth giving their own line to.

Also, I'll give you a reminder that "forward" is not spelled "foward." (That's a thing I've noticed around the articles.) Thanks! --Timson622222 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

Epsilon: If there is something that is different from Melee or Brawl to Project M , I must show it . But you are right , when it comes to showing ever seperate thing , I will summerize things like if throws do more damage , ill write "all throws deal more damage" if something deals more damage then it really is a buff because racking up damage is important . Thanks again . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsilon (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

Epsilon: I'm normally a good speller, but forward is something I have trouble with . Thanks for that . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsilon (talk • contribs) 22:13, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

I don't think you're really paying attention to what people are telling you...no, you don't need to add every single little minor detail about every character. A move doing 1% more damage isn't a noticeable difference. Only noticeable differences are worthy of being listed as buffs and nerfs. Racking up damage is important, but you're acting as if the concept has hugely changed from Melee/Brawl to Project M. Listing minor damage changes as buffs/nerfs is useless and just clogs up the section, and I'm sure people are tired of it by now. Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:16, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

Epsilon: I'm not acting like their huge changes . But they are changes . I'll focus on playing more prominate changes too . Epsilon (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

They are changes, but they're not important. A move doing only a bit more damage doesn't really affect the character's metagame in any way. Listing them in conjunction with more prominent changes is unnecessary. Scr7(talk · contribs) 17:26, 1 July 2014 (EDT)

All of that information

is valid. Just because the section is laid out differently than most other SSB4 character pages doesn't mean it's automatically bad information. Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:48, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Its too LONG ! My version is simplified and looks more professional !

You don't need to explain things like this:

• Something has been buffed
• It does more damage
• It has more range
• However it has more start up

It should be like this:

• This attack does more damage and has a higher range
  • It has more start up.

Also IT IS good information . If you actually read what I wrote , you would see I included everything you said . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsilon (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

You're just removing the references and information that go into detail rather than trying to clean it up in a more professional way, despite it all being valid. While the way the information is laid out is questionable, just flat out removing it isn't helpful.

Also, you constantly add unnecessary crap like "this move does 1% more damage" to pointlessly inflate the sections with fluff. What you've been adding to a lot of SSB4 character pages is definitely not "more professional", even if it's laid out more consistently.

And sign your comments with four tildes. It's basic stuff that is listed at the top of this page. Scr7(talk · contribs) 16:00, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Epsilon (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2014 (EDT)But the guy who wrote that page wrote the same damage increase or decrease stuff too . It doesn't pointlessly inflate it . If its a real change then its real . But you have a good point about the references .

Epsilon (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2014 (EDT)I'll include all the little extra details he wrote about while including references and summerizing it .

Please leave the informations the way they are. Seeing your previous edits, I do not believe you will include all references, links and informations that go into detail. Besides, don't you think listing each buff and nerf individually is more professional than a large paragraph of text? You could bring this topic to the discussion page of Peach (SSB4) if you really want to make a change to the way the informations are presented. --ZeroBlindDragon (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Epsilon (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2014 (EDT)I promise to take my time and include every little thing he said , and I will keep every reference . This I promise :)

It is difficult to believe someone that states "In the past I used to troll on wikis and get banned all the time" on his main page... The page appears fine and presentable the way it is. So why try to edit it? You could try to edit it nonetheless... However, if it's not convincing enough, it will be reverted to the previous version immediately. On an unrelated note, your signature needs to be at the end of your post. Also, don't forget to indent your post when replying to someone to make it easier to read. --ZeroBlindDragon (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

I would appreciate it if you read my following SSB4 Peach edit before putting it back . This post is EXTREMELY faithful to the original . So PLEASE just read it and compare to the original it will be fine . And me being a troll in the past is why I am inspired to be a better wiki user now . --Epsilon

I hope you all like it. --Epsilon

WHY DID YOU CHANGE IT ?! MY version is much better ! --Epsilon

Ok, first of all: four tildes go at the end of your comment, not the beginning. Just a heads up.

Secondly, all of your edits past the first were flat out bad. You added reasons why your edit was good to the page, some of them in all caps, which could have very well gone in your edit summary. Never do that ever.

Third of all, I think you're missing the point. We came to a decison that we should organize the changes by type, rather than buff-nerf-change. And we talk|also came to an agreement that adding 'damage reduced, from 10% to 7%' is a bad idea, unless the damage change is really that notable.

Anything ya don't get out of this? Qwerty (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Epsilon (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2014 (EDT)So what ? We change everything people have worked so hard on ?Epsilon (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2014 (EDT) Epsilon

Don't sign your comments three times. Four tildes at the end, that's it. And, yes, even though you worked hard on it, we have to remove it, to keep the page in a better state. Qwerty (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Ok . Jeez why does THIS have to be so complicated . Fine . just know that my peach page is much better , and you know it . also don't mess with the other pages me and so many other smash brothers fan worked our butts off for . EpsilonEpsilon (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2014 (EDT)

Hey. While I do personally think Brian has been a little harsh with the edit summaries, you should listen to what users are trying to tell you. People are trying to tell you that you are inserting wrong changes into the SSB4 character pages and your refusing to learn why they were removed. Read what others wrote above too please. Dots (talk) The Goldeneye 16:36, 3 November 2014 (EST)

That dickbag brian has no right to get rid of the truth ! Those changes on marth are fucking true and I am fucking livid ! Epsilon (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2014 (EST)Epsilon

Instead of reacting in anger to a semi-pro-level player overriding your edits, how about finding sources from multiple other high-level players that agree with your position? So far you've only provided a single video as proof of your claims, and it's in the style of "yeah Marth is bad, but I don't want to talk that bad about him because it's early and I'm not a mean guy". Toomai Glittershine The Irrepressible 23:57, 8 November 2014 (EST)

You lack the tournament credentials for any of us to take you seriously. You have never given frame data to back up your claims. Given all your edits, you have failed to demonstrate understanding of competitive play either. What you claim to be the "truth" is universally agreed to be false by anyone who is good at competitive smash. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:03, 9 November 2014 (EST)

Also, calling Brian a "dickbag" could be considered a personal attack, which isn't allowed. Just saying. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 00:09, 9 November 2014 (EST)

Believe me , I know more than you think . I am a good player and from now I'll give more proof to my edits . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsilon (talk • contribs) 12:59, 15 November 2014 (EST)

That's a lofty claim to make. What are your tournament results dude? To my knowledge you are not the Epsilon from Virginia who has the Youtube account UsuperKingZant.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 22:53, 15 November 2014 (EST)

I don't have or need tournament results to contribute . What I am saying is that I am not just some scrub . I know how to play smash , I'm not the best player but I would say I'm pretty good . I am not that Epsilon . I don't want any more messages from now on . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epsilon (talk • contribs) 12:08, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Make sure you sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Rtzxy Reflect! 00:39, 16 November 2014 (EST)

You don't need tournament results to contribute, but you do need them to backup the claim that you are good. All good players have good tournament results. Nobody takes lip service, kid. The rule of thumb is that if you think you're good, you aren't. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 03:31, 16 November 2014 (EST)

I'm not listening to your bullshit Brian . Now stop talking to me . I don't like you . Epsilon (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2014 (EST)Epsilon

I've never seen a high level smash player with that attitude.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 16:46, 16 November 2014 (EST)

Then you haven't seen many high level smashers . High level smashers aren't all the same by the way , also I don't consider myself to that good , just pretty knowledgable . So Seriously , stop talking to me . I'm just trying to do my own thing and contribute here . I don't need to hearing your bullshit . Epsilon (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2014 (EST)Epsilon