58,359
edits
User talk:Alex the weeb/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "{{unsigned|" to "{{SUBST:Unsigned|"
m (Text replacement - "{{unsigned|" to "{{SUBST:Unsigned|") |
|||
| (36 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{archive | {{archive}} | ||
== Huh == | == Huh == | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
Please stop undoing my edits without a good reason. | Please stop undoing my edits without a good reason. <small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:69.113.179.47|69.113.179.47]] ([[User talk:69.113.179.47|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.113.179.47|contribs]]) </small> | ||
:You have been warned multiple times not to violate policy and have ignored all of these warnings. The edit you made violates [[SW:CONSENSUS]], and therefore cannot be permitted. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 12:25, 25 August 2018 (EDT) | :You have been warned multiple times not to violate policy and have ignored all of these warnings. The edit you made violates [[SW:CONSENSUS]], and therefore cannot be permitted. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 12:25, 25 August 2018 (EDT) | ||
You ignored my statement that I don't have time to read the stuff. | You ignored my statement that I don't have time to read the stuff. <small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:69.113.179.47|69.113.179.47]] ([[User talk:69.113.179.47|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.113.179.47|contribs]]) </small> | ||
:That is NOT an excuse. If you have time to edit pages you have time to read the policies. If you really do not have enough time to read over policies, particularly the ones that it has been pointed out that you are in violation of, then you should not be editing here. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 12:30, 25 August 2018 (EDT) | :That is NOT an excuse. If you have time to edit pages you have time to read the policies. If you really do not have enough time to read over policies, particularly the ones that it has been pointed out that you are in violation of, then you should not be editing here. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 12:30, 25 August 2018 (EDT) | ||
:::It's not my fault that the thing is too long. If you want me to read them, I humbly request you make them shorter. | :::It's not my fault that the thing is too long. If you want me to read them, I humbly request you make them shorter.<small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:69.113.179.47|69.113.179.47]] ([[User talk:69.113.179.47|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.113.179.47|contribs]]) </small> | ||
Do you have any idea how hurtful you're being?! | Do you have any idea how hurtful you're being?!<small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:69.113.179.47|69.113.179.47]] ([[User talk:69.113.179.47|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.113.179.47|contribs]]) </small> | ||
:I'm sorry if the idea of rules upsets you, but that doesn't make you exempt from them. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 12:44, 25 August 2018 (EDT) | :I'm sorry if the idea of rules upsets you, but that doesn't make you exempt from them. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 12:44, 25 August 2018 (EDT) | ||
And you aren't breaking a rule? You're harassing me! | And you aren't breaking a rule? You're harassing me!<small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:69.113.179.47|69.113.179.47]] ([[User talk:69.113.179.47|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.113.179.47|contribs]]) </small> | ||
:Enforcing policy and warning you against breaking them is not harassment. And for the record, if you don't stop edit warring on that page, you will most likely be blocked. If you do not want that to happen, I suggest you stop. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 12:47, 25 August 2018 (EDT) | :Enforcing policy and warning you against breaking them is not harassment. And for the record, if you don't stop edit warring on that page, you will most likely be blocked. If you do not want that to happen, I suggest you stop. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 12:47, 25 August 2018 (EDT) | ||
ALso you're doing the same thing I am. | ALso you're doing the same thing I am.<small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:69.113.179.47|69.113.179.47]] ([[User talk:69.113.179.47|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.113.179.47|contribs]]) </small> | ||
What do you mean by blocked? | What do you mean by blocked? | ||
== This Richter business == | |||
I'm seeing you misuse rollback here. These edits were not vandalism, and the whole edit war could have been prevented with an edit summary or a talk page post. <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 18:05, 26 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
:It's not misuse of rollback though. Rollback is frequently used when a warning about making a particular edit has already been issued to a user, particularly if that edit violates policy (which this one does, as it violates [[SW:NOT]]). The user in question has been given more than enough warnings not to make these speculative edits, and yet has chosen to ignore every single one of them. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 20:20, 26 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Please don't argue with me here. Don't use rollback this way. These are cases where an edit summary is necessary. <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 20:22, 26 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
::Use of rollback is only excused for edits explained with a prior edit summary (that is immediately apparent, that wasn’t the case here) or a talk page post. You may be thinking of 1RV, where an exception applies if making the edit to enforce policies OTHER than 1RV itself. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|'''Furry Nation''']]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 00:12, 27 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::Listen, I'm sorry if this comes off as arguing but I'd like to defend my position. Memoryman's edits were in violation of [[SW:NOT]], and he had made the exact same edits on multiple occasions. I, along with other users, had warned him not to make these edits, yet he continued to do so. Making edits that violate policy after having been warned that those exact edits are in violation of policy constitutes as bad faith as far as I'm concerned, as there is absolutely no way he did not realize that his edits violate policy. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 06:01, 27 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
::::Truth be told, I don't see what the speculation is. He had a source, and provided it - what more do you want? [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|'''Furry Nation''']]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 06:20, 27 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::::No, the sources he provided effectively stated he has the same basic moveset, something we already knew. He has twisted this into an unrelated and unconfirmed statement about the attack properties being the same, something which has NOT been demonstrated. Furthermore he has continued to violate [[SW:NOT]] even after this conversation begun, which in my eyes is further proof that he has no regard for policy or warnings from other users, and therefore has crossed the line into bad faith. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 06:26, 27 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
::::::Maybe to you it's unreasonable to believe he is good faith, but not to me. There've been plenty of examples to me where there has been good intention, even if a single policy has been broken repeatedly. Most people don't intentionally do it, even repeatedly like here - many just don't know the rules. And frankly, it really bothers me that you would forgo this caution and [[SW:AGF|immediately assume bad faith]] without anything being clear cut. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|'''Furry Nation''']]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 06:53, 27 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::::::The problem isn't that he's repeatedly violating policies. The problem is that he has repeatedly violated the same policy in the exact same way multiple times, while repeatedly being warned about it and even responding in ways that demonstrates that he is aware he has been warned about it. I'd imagine you haven't witnessed the full story, but believe me, he is well aware of what he is doing. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 06:57, 27 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
::::::::Again, I don't think so. Yes, it's unlikely, but it's not impossible and certainly not unreasonable that he may firmly believe that he has every right to add that info, because again, it's reasonable to believe that it's not speculative. I'm sure he firmly believes this to be true.<br>Putting all that aside however, remember that "Assuming bad faith creates suspicion and conflict between users, and impedes progress, as well as undermining community spirit. '''Assume other editors are working toward the betterment of SmashWiki, and assist them when necessary.''' Assuming bad faith has a profoundly negative effect on the entire wiki." Let's say for a moment that he is deliberately ignoring SW:NOT - I can easily see why he might think it's not speculative. If we are to follow this logic, it's possible he was ignoring SW:NOT because it's not speculative, therefore that policy doesn't apply. Even so though, deliberately ignoring policy or not, he's still at least trying to help, even if his attempts are woefully misguided. By treating him in this manner, you're engaging in very harmful behaviour towards an otherwise valuable member. I think we can agree this is bad overall. [[User:Black Vulpine|<span style="color: black;">'''Black Vulpine'''</span>]] of the [[User talk:Black Vulpine|'''Furry Nation''']]. [[Special:Contributions/Black Vulpine|<span style="color: #CC5500">'''Furries make the internets go! :3'''</span>]] 07:07, 27 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
:::::::::Even that is not really applicable here, as he has been told that since what he is adding is unconfirmed, it qualifies as speculation. He is choosing to not heed these warnings, and that is his issue. Also, please do not patronise me by repeatedly talking about assume good faith, I am familiar with this policy. The problem is that he has been given the benefit of the doubt too many times at this stage, and you can only turn a blind eye and assume good faith so many times before it becomes clear that a user is not interested in listening. I assumed good faith the first few times and he continued to defy warnings. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 07:13, 27 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
<small>(Reset indent) </small> What I see from this situation is two clear sides to the argument: | |||
*BV is stating that the editor should be given the benefit of the doubt, and should be guided in the right way to not have conflicting edits. | |||
*Alex is stating that the editor has gone off the hook before, and is adding information that is outright false, despite being told not to. | |||
The wording from the Direct is "though his strengths are the same". I do have to agree that this has been misconstrued by the editor to mean that they have no differences at all, which is a speculative statement. But I cannot fully say whether or not Alex's accusations towards the user are out of place or not, as I have unfortunately not held enough of a presence on the wiki as of late. But as of right now, the only clear thing is that the editor is adding a speculative statement, and should be confronted about it (in a mature fashion; not yelling at them outright). If that does not work, then another solution can be reached. [[User:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''Aidan'''</span>]], [[User talk:Aidanzapunk|<span style="color: blue;">'''the Rurouni'''</span>]] 10:27, 27 August 2018 (EDT) | |||
== It is incorrect to say Yeti Kong was at all influenced by DKCR's Super Kong == | |||
Hi, Alex. I've noticed your revisions to the SSB4 and SSBU alternate pages concerning Donkey Kong's white alt, and I saw your justification: "''Seems like we've been through this before.....anyway that doesn't say anything of the resemblance, the decision to carry over the costume means its appearance in each game can be treated separately''". With all due respect, I completely disagree. While yes, it is technically possible that the white alt was included in SSB4 and Ultimate because of Super Kong's presence in DKCR, it's a completely unsubstantiated claim that you can't prove. As with most characters, ''all'' of Donkey Kong's alts from Brawl were carried over into SSB4. It would have been unusual for Yeti Kong to ''not'' be in the game, regardless of whether or not Super Kong was a thing. If they really wanted to make a connection, surely they would have made the tie blue. Instead, everything was kept the same. The most conservative claim we can make is that the source of the white costume is the same as it was in Brawl. This is especially evident by the fact that Sakurai cites the same sources of inspirations for Samus' returning alts in ''SSB4'' that he cited on the original ''Smash 64'' Dojo site - and there was an even longer gap between 64 and Smash 4 than their was between Brawl and SSB4. [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:54, 12 September 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Launch rate move == | |||
In your opinion, have their been enough [[Talk:Damage ratio|responses]] to constitute consensus? And if so, would using a speedy deletion template on the redirect, with the consensus as justification, be appropriate? [[User:SuperFalconBros|SuperFalconBros]] ([[User talk:SuperFalconBros|talk]]) 12:25, 20 September 2018 (EDT) | |||
:Yes, I'd say so. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 15:32, 20 September 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Tabuu HP Values == | |||
Got a question about the HP values in the [[Tabuu#HP and damage taken|Tabuu]] article. I've been going through Boss Battles with memory watch to get all the HP values for all the bosses, and I've noticed a couple discrepancies. For example, I also got 160 for Normal, but I got 111 for Easy instead of 110, and 212.5 for Hard instead of 210. How did you determine the values that are in the article currently? [[User:SuperFalconBros|SuperFalconBros]] ([[User talk:SuperFalconBros|talk]]) 09:54, 18 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
== Sonic in Ultimate == | |||
How do you know Sonic's up smash isn't stronger and his nair doesn't have less knockback...? <span style="font-family:Corbel; font-size:12pt">[[User:Smash Master|<span style="color:darkblue">'''Smash''']] [[User talk:Smash Master|<span style="color:darkgreen">'''Master'''</span>]]</span></span> 14:57, 29 December 2018 (EST) | |||
== [https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Classic_Mode_(SSBU)&diff=next&oldid=1187428 instead of rolling back] == | |||
Have a discussion with them. This is not vandalism, rollback is not appropriate. <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 18:00, 10 February 2019 (EST) | |||
:Oh, it looked like it was vandalism since the user had been warned against removing large chunks of information. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 09:32, 11 February 2019 (EST) | |||
== What stages did you test the Ridley thing on? == | |||
[https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Ridley_(SSBU)&curid=83064&diff=1187949&oldid=1187876] So far, every stage I've tested has the fighters land above solid ground, so no KOs. [[User:Unowninator|¿¡Unowninator?!]] ([[User talk:Unowninator|talk]]) 21:16, 11 February 2019 (EST) | |||
:It is possible on the following stages: Rainbow Cruise, Mushroomy Kingdom, 3D Land, Frigate Orpheon (albeit with difficulty), Dream Land GB. | |||
:In addition, on some stages such as Norfair it is possible to knock opponents into other stage hazards for KOs, which is only possible if the opponent takes enough knockback from the initial attack. | |||
:I know these things seem small, but since there is no tangible drawbacks to the knockback increase, but there are tangible benefits, it should be classified as a buff, as this is how we classify changes, even incredibly minor ones. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 03:44, 12 February 2019 (EST) | |||
== SSBU hitstun == | |||
Since [https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Hitstun&diff=1188331&oldid=1188030 your edit summary here] got cut off, what were you going to say? [[File:034.png|20px]] '''<span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:DracoRexKing|<font color="red">DracoRex,]]</font> [[User talk:DracoRexKing|<font color="olive">Creator of the Land]]</font></span>''' 11:45, 13 February 2019 (EST) | |||
:Yes, I was going to say that Link would actually have a down tilt -> forward air kill confirm if hitstun behaved normally, as his Fair is a mere 2 frames too slow at percent ranges where he can land it after dtilt out of a full-hop. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 11:48, 13 February 2019 (EST) | |||
::Oh. Well, what you changed in the hitstun page is true for the most part, but that specific example doesn't really work. Link's dtilt and fair [[Link (SSBU)#Changes from Super Smash Bros. 4|were both nerfed in frame data]], so they're the true culprits here; if they were unchanged from ''SSB4'', that kill confirm would work even with the altered hitstun, since you would have 5 more frames of advantage. Just pointing that out. [[File:034.png|20px]] '''<span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:DracoRexKing|<font color="red">DracoRex,]]</font> [[User talk:DracoRexKing|<font color="olive">Creator of the Land]]</font></span>''' 13:15, 13 February 2019 (EST) | |||
:::No, that's a factor, but so is the reduced hitstun. Were hitstun kept the same the only way in which this kill confirm wouldn't work would have been if the nerf to the frame data of those moves was completely unreasonable. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 13:21, 13 February 2019 (EST) | |||
== I'm not going to rail you too hard on this but == | |||
[https://www.ssbwiki.com/index.php?title=Hitstun_canceling&curid=84799&diff=1195838&oldid=1195837 this] should not have been a use of rollback, as it was in good faith and an edit summary is necessary. <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 12:01, 26 February 2019 (EST) | |||
:Yeah, sorry about that. I quickly hit it assuming it was the same guy who tried that before and was told why he was wrong for doing so, but when I checked it turned out to be a different user. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 12:03, 26 February 2019 (EST) | |||
::No big deal, have a great day! <span style="font-family:Algerian;font-size:10pt;background:#000;border:outset #083 2px;padding:1px 3px">'''[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083">Serpent</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|12px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0">King</span>]]'''</span> 12:06, 26 February 2019 (EST) | |||
== Can you help me with something? == | |||
I can't play Brawl atm, and I remembered you like testing stuff; can you check what happens if you try hitting a character with a paralyzing move more than once before they land (or grab a ledge)? Because in Smash 4, the move in such case only damages them (no knockback or paralysis), but in Ultimate it was changed so it also deals knockback (still without paralysis). Does any of the two happen, or something different altogether? [[File:034.png|20px]] '''<span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:DracoRexKing|<font color="red">DracoRex,]]</font> [[User talk:DracoRexKing|<font color="olive">Creator of the Land]]</font></span>''' 14:21, 9 March 2019 (EST) | |||
:Ah...I actually don't have my Wii with me right now (I left it at my mum's house because I didn't think I'd need it). Sorry... ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 14:31, 9 March 2019 (EST) | |||
::Oh okay. Thanks either way. [[File:034.png|20px]] '''<span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:DracoRexKing|<font color="red">DracoRex,]]</font> [[User talk:DracoRexKing|<font color="olive">Creator of the Land]]</font></span>''' 14:34, 9 March 2019 (EST) | |||