Talk:Double jump

do we really need speculation on how characters double jump? we dont have an article on how kirby holds items without having fingers. --The Anonymous--

Read. Confirmed is not equal to speculation. Think about it; do we really need IPs with an IQ equivalent in number to my fingers sharing their half-brained opinions? Semicolon (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ips have feelings too. and this ip has been a member on other wikis, and knows a little bit about harassment. im asking you nicely to leave me alone, please. --The Anonymous--

if you make an account, then he wont bother you. JtM =^] (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

prejudice strikes at unexpected moments i suppose --The Anonymous--

Nothing prejudiced about it. I made an edit. You reverted it. Your revert was ill advised. I then judged you. It's not because you're an IP that I found your edit silly, it's because the edit was silly and that I judged you. You can become a valued user on this wiki as an IP. But what was I supposed to refer to you as, a user? That you may be, but a user is a term with semantic complications generally referring to those who have user pages and screen names. You're obviously a person, but to make such a distinction is foolish. The most salient detail was that you operate as an IP. Thus, that is what I called you. Semicolon (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

prejudice=prejudge. meaning u "prejudged" me by calling me dumb.--The Anonymous--

What's the point of just using IP anyway? Cheezperson {talk}stuff 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

it's a crime to humanity. o i thought u said "what's wrong" --The Anonymous--

Ugh. No. Take this vocab lesson. Prejudice is when you have an opinion about someone based on a content-less characteristic, such as race, religion, gender, etc. This is entirely different from a judgment based on something you've done. If I call you an idiot because you're Scientologist or something, even if you aren't an idiot, that's prejudice. If I call you an idiot because you say that, to take an utterly random example, that a fair judgment is prejudice when I've clearly established that there was a contentful reason for the judgment, then that's a fair judgment. Semicolon (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

that doesn't mean you can call people you dont even know a thing about personally idiots. --The Anonymous--

This is now an entirely different argument. I'm using a process called logical induction where I induce a quality about you based on limited data. This, unlike deduction, can be wrong, this much is admitted, but it is a logical conclusion nonetheless. I've seen some of the edits you've made; in fact, I've traced an awful lot of them. What I've seen is something very close to trolling, so I have an unfavorable opinion of you. Don't try and blame that on me; it's you who's given me that impression. Fault me for using induction, but don't fault me for the conclusion I've derived based on the data in front of me. You've been the ever-so-generous provider. Semicolon (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

all i want is an apology, which u have yet to have posted anything about give me one. --The Anonymous--

Apology for what? Semicolon (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

calling me stupid. --The Anonymous--

Fine. It was a bit uncalled for. I'm sorry. But do me a favor, if you would. Start contributing positively or find something better to do, because we've enough trolls as it stands. Semicolon (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

that was all i needed this entire time. --The Anonymous--

Hopefully you've taken something away from this experience as well. You'll learn something about me over time, Mr. IP. It's that I'm a giver. Semicolon (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"--The Anonymous--"

and when did i say i was a guy or girl? --The Anonymous--

Let it die. --The Anonymous--

Deletion of "How Characters Double Jump"

If this was a section that someone added and no one paid attention to, I would destroy it immediately. But since it looks like some people have worked on it a bit, I'm nominating it for deletion. Reason? It's in-game speculation; something that's fine on fansites but not so much on a factual encyclopedia. Toomai (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I vote Keep. I think it's fine, and speculation isn't that bad.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 18:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I vote delete. This needs to be decided soon, because it is messy. Gutripper^{Speak if you are worthy}

I vote keep. That section isn't speculation, it's explaination, because they definitely use this invisible platform. Malefix (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

How do we know it's a platform? Yes, the special effect looks somewhat like a platform. But it could be a gust of air for all we know. And a good deal of double jump animations don't look like the character is jumping off something. Besides, if we explained double jumps by saying there's an invisible platform, we then have to explain where this platform comes form.

And I guess speculation is okay, provided it's clear that it is such (which it is). Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy 02:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're right, so let'sa add the "this section contains unverified claims" template.