User talk:Cookies and Creme/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Remember to [[SW:QDV|quietly deal with proven vandals]], which includes keeping discussion to a minimum. This avoids needlessly bloating a discussion, especially if it's made clear that a resolution won't ever be reasonably reached. [[File:NokiiSig.png|link=User_talk:Nokii]] '''[[User:Nokii|{{color|#89d|Nokii}}]]''' — 00:28, September 28, 2019 (EDT) | Remember to [[SW:QDV|quietly deal with proven vandals]], which includes keeping discussion to a minimum. This avoids needlessly bloating a discussion, especially if it's made clear that a resolution won't ever be reasonably reached. [[File:NokiiSig.png|link=User_talk:Nokii]] '''[[User:Nokii|{{color|#89d|Nokii}}]]''' — 00:28, September 28, 2019 (EDT) | ||
:Here's the thing, I truly believed he was doing it in some sort of good faith and still is. I don't necessarily think it's vandalism, per se, just stubbornness. Anyways, yes I did get carried away at some points, I'll just be more careful. [[User:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia;color: black;">Cookies</span>]][[File:CnC Signature.png|20px]][[User talk:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: black;">Creme</span>]] 00:29, September 28, 2019 (EDT) | :Here's the thing, I truly believed he was doing it in some sort of good faith and still is. I don't necessarily think it's vandalism, per se, just stubbornness. Anyways, yes I did get carried away at some points, I'll just be more careful. [[User:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia;color: black;">Cookies</span>]][[File:CnC Signature.png|20px]][[User talk:Cookies and Creme|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: black;">Creme</span>]] 00:29, September 28, 2019 (EDT) | ||
::If I may put up a defense, Cookies is right. The IP was not a vandal and meant good faith, but at the same time the IP did not read the policy and was stubborn to listen to our warnings, and so was edit warring and trying to push his opinion about Shadow. We were basically trying to explain how he was going against the policies, and telling him why his edit was unacceptable while showing false points he added, but he wasn't listening, and at the same time he was taking our responses the wrong way. In a way yes his edit ''would'' be considered vandalism, but he was inexperienced and didn't intentionally mean bad faith, so the rule doesn't fully apply for this instance.<span style="font-family:Algerian;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #2091ff">'''[[User:supatoad64|<span style="color:blue;">SupαToαd64,</span>]] [[User talk:supatoad64|<span style="color:lime;">the Best</span>]]'''</span> [[Image:001Toad.jpg|20px]] 07:16, September 29, 2019 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 06:16, September 29, 2019
|
NOTE: I respond to almost all messages posted on my talk page. If you posted something, expect an answer from me. |
Hi
Don't know if your still active on Wikibound but I left a little present on your talk page if you want to see it. (And yes I took your userbox if you don't mind, if you want mine then you take it) SupαToαd64, the Best 
20:12, September 24, 2019 (EDT)
- Hello! Yes, I saw it a while back ago, so thanks for welcoming me! I'm mostly active on SmashWiki for the competitive stuff, but I try to help out on WikiBound from time to time. (Also enjoy the user box, tbh it isn't that great). Cookies
Creme 20:15, September 24, 2019 (EDT)
Nickelodeon SSB
What other Nick characters would you think be the other SSB characters? Maybe Squidward as Inkling? 174.55.24.64 21:50, September 27, 2019 (EDT)
- Ooh the speculation would be fun... unfortunately they aren't actually on the image. Maybe I could do a separate section dedicated to such speculation? And yes, Squidward as Inkling would work, I also thought Swiper as Joker. CookiesCreme 21:52, September 27, 2019 (EDT)
- You should make that a sandbox. And you can add Sans too. 174.55.24.64 21:54, September 27, 2019 (EDT)
IP talk page discussion
Remember to quietly deal with proven vandals, which includes keeping discussion to a minimum. This avoids needlessly bloating a discussion, especially if it's made clear that a resolution won't ever be reasonably reached. 
Nokii — 00:28, September 28, 2019 (EDT)
- Here's the thing, I truly believed he was doing it in some sort of good faith and still is. I don't necessarily think it's vandalism, per se, just stubbornness. Anyways, yes I did get carried away at some points, I'll just be more careful. CookiesCreme 00:29, September 28, 2019 (EDT)
- If I may put up a defense, Cookies is right. The IP was not a vandal and meant good faith, but at the same time the IP did not read the policy and was stubborn to listen to our warnings, and so was edit warring and trying to push his opinion about Shadow. We were basically trying to explain how he was going against the policies, and telling him why his edit was unacceptable while showing false points he added, but he wasn't listening, and at the same time he was taking our responses the wrong way. In a way yes his edit would be considered vandalism, but he was inexperienced and didn't intentionally mean bad faith, so the rule doesn't fully apply for this instance.SupαToαd64, the Best
07:16, September 29, 2019 (EDT)
- If I may put up a defense, Cookies is right. The IP was not a vandal and meant good faith, but at the same time the IP did not read the policy and was stubborn to listen to our warnings, and so was edit warring and trying to push his opinion about Shadow. We were basically trying to explain how he was going against the policies, and telling him why his edit was unacceptable while showing false points he added, but he wasn't listening, and at the same time he was taking our responses the wrong way. In a way yes his edit would be considered vandalism, but he was inexperienced and didn't intentionally mean bad faith, so the rule doesn't fully apply for this instance.SupαToαd64, the Best
