User talk:Miles of SmashWiki/Archive14

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

so uh

How are we supposed to get move names if we don't make them up? Nintendo has an awful track record of normal attack localizations (heck, only SSB64 has names for full movesets even in Japanese). Toomai Glittershine The Xanthic 23:28, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

Normal attacks shouldn't have names anywhere. I'm baffled why people keep inventing them. Miles (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

SSB64 movesets have names. Stuff like the Knee Smash, Lightning Kicks, and Cover Fire (from SSB4-3DS trophy) have names. The SSBM player's guide has names (most were pretty bad, but they're there); dunno if other guides do. What are we gonna do, have movesets full of half-named (unchanged from previous games) and half-unnamed moves? Toomai Glittershine The Golden 23:37, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

Give the names for SSB64 and Melee from the sources you listed, and for individual moves that have names in trophy descriptions like Knee Smash we can give those names too. Beyond that, though, I'd say Brawl and SSB4 movelists shouldn't try to invent names. Miles (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2014 (EDT)

It just occured to me - why are you so against moves having names when you didn't even bat an eye at things like "spaceshifting wormhole", "amaranthine gas", "thorn helix", or even the Coin Launcher enemies? Toomai Glittershine The Metroid 11:09, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

Because elements that warrant a page of their own have to have a concise title for purposes of navigation. Elements that don't, like individual A moves, don't need that. The only pages we make for those are algorithmically named as part of the moveset subpage project. Miles (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2014 (EDT)

Glitch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1Lr-plMW4 i'm sure it's a giltch. Igor The Mii (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

Yes? Why are you posting about it on my talk page? Just go ahead and add appropriately to the Counter page regarding this glitch. Miles (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2014 (EDT)

Metroid item collect theme

The music starts completely differently. The NES version has one note held out before the shared parts, while the FDS version has multiple, shorter notes. I don't believe that's very minor, as they start completely differently. PikaSamus (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

I'm not sure I can ever hear the distinction you're making. Miles (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

I messed up there. The NES version has a long note at the beginning while the FDS version has a shorter note. PikaSamus (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

One tone being very slightly longer is not a major difference. Miles (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

In the second note, it goes down in pitch in the NES but up in pitch in the FDS. PikaSamus (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

It sounds like you're fishing for differences in inconsequentially different versions of the same jingle. Miles (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

I still stand by my belief that they are different. Sure, they may end the same, but they start differently. PikaSamus (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2014 (EDT)

Information on Coil page

Adding Robot Master weaknesses isn't a major part of history. It's just a piece a trivia you add for someone who's interested. 184.44.3.106 12:33, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

The rock-paper-scissors nature of Mega Man boss weapons is a major element of the gameplay of the series, and by far the most important usage of most boss weapons is against other Robot Masters who are vulnerable to them. It's a very notable element of the weapon's history. Miles (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

It's tacked on. Just adding "Oh and this is his weakness" is pretty bad editing. If you want to add that kind of stuff make a history section or something. 184.44.3.106 13:07, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

What do you think the "Origin" section is? It's to talk about the subject's history in its source series. Miles (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

Ugh I have terrible eyesight. Still, if you think weaknesses are important enough to note then you have to do it in a much better way. 184.44.3.106 13:27, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

"Ω Forms"

I mixed up the buttons, sorry. I forgot that "Y" switches the Boxing Ring's theme between Smash Bros. and Punch-Out!!. 68.119.28.72 22:53, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

No worries. It was a small fix. Miles (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2014 (EDT)

Rosalina & Luma is the final name

I just got the game. It's Rosalina & Luma. Please rename. RoyboyX Talk 16:14, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

When are you going to rename her? I'm the guy who got people waiting over a LEGO Pirates incident and now I want Rosalina to be renamed. It's time to rename her. Otherwise, we might keep bugging you. SeanWheeler (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Do you want to rename Rosalina (SSB4) right now? You don't have to but it's dead clear now. Dots (talk) The Republic 20:21, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

I still think it's up for debate myself which we should use, but I've changed the protection level. Admins aren't kings, you know. Sometimes the consensus is what it is. Miles (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

I myself wonder why the name hasn't changed, even though it's been proven multiple times. Not trying to come off sounding like an ass, I'm just making a point. Aidan the Gamer 20:43, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

The page Rosalina & Luma (SSB4) needs to be deleted before anyone can move it. Someone? ...a new Nuttais approaching... 20:44, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Actually...the "Rosalina & Luma (SSB4)" page is, by extension, a redirect page; if we can copy all the text from the current SSB4 page for Rosalina and paste it over on the other page (albeit with a few changes here and there), that might get us what we want in shorter time. Aidan the Gamer 20:49, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Alright, I moved the page (finally). Now I just gotta archive the talk page. Rtzxy Smashing! 21:15, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

I'd like to begin contributing to SSB4 character pages

I've noticed that a lot of characters have numbers for damage listed as ?%. I created a new account to contribute, but new pages are currently protected against edits. How can I begin to help?

XenoXilus (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2014 (EDT)

SSB4 character pages are currently protected and require a user to be autoconfirmed to edit them. Miles (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2014 (EDT)

Help?

How does one deal with vandalism (clear vandalism) on a talk page? Because, if you look at the history of mine...it definitely looks like I have a troll coming for me. Aidan the Gamer 13:28, 19 October 2014 (EDT)

If it is indeed clear spam or vandalism, you may remove it and report it. Toomai Glittershine The Irrepressible 13:49, 19 October 2014 (EDT)

That stage in the latest Miiverse post

"Do we know what stage that is for Pause Function with Kirby on the beach.....? Leave me something on my talk page if you can identify it, or else I'll probably make a "Beach stage" generic page during the day"

It is definitely from the Wuhu Island part of the Pilotwings. I'm not sure why it would be taken from the ground, though. Compare the angle of that image between this image of Wuhu Island. The camera position is just past the right side of the second image, on the sandy beach, facing left towards the palms and cliff behind them. Here is an alternative view, facing in that direction from high up.

• 
• 

Dracyoshi (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2014 (EDT)

I considered that possibility, but a) there's no umbrellas on Wuhu Island to my knowledge and b) we saw a lot of footage of that stage at E3 and characters never stand on the ground. Miles (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2014 (EDT)

Bowser Jr. and Jigglypuff screenshot?

The news said Bowser Jr. and Jigglypuff were visible in a SSBU screenshot, but I don't see any in the minus.com gallery. Would you happen to know where they are? Blue Ninjakoopa 10:07, 22 October 2014 (EDT)

It wasn't the press pack, it was this picture from the amiibo page on the official website. Miles (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2014 (EDT)

'ey

Don't worry about Mario Circuit, I got this. XL 18:58, 23 October 2014 (EDT)

Worked well last time, so that's good to hear. Miles (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2014 (EDT)

Regarding Reshiram1105

Hey Miles, sorry to bother you, but I've noticed that there has been an increased problem with the user Reshiram1105. Mainly I've noticed repeated talking to him about improper wiki usage on his talk page. I was wondering if their was a specific way to track just his edits in order to keep up with any problems he/she may be causing. I'd like to help as much I can to determine if this guy is a troll or just inept at using this wiki. Again, thanks for your time. Gpev96 (SHAZAM!) (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2014 (EDT)

You can always just use his contributions page. Toomai Glittershine The Brass 12:19, 24 October 2014 (EDT)

Thanks Toomai, I appreciate it. Gpev96 (SHAZAM!) (talk) 13:54, 24 October 2014 (EDT)

Proof that Duck Hunt (the dog) is male

In the Tips page, one of Duck Hunt's tips is Duck Hunt: Duck Jump – The duck grabs the dog and carries him through the air. Once started, this move can't be stopped.

Mr. Game&Watch SSB4

Hello! I'd just joined this particular wiki today. I noticed Game and Watch's page is actually protected, so, of course, I couldn't edit it. I know I just joined so I'm not trusted, but is there anything I can do to edit that page? I noticed some information was missing and saw the dair had the wrong percentage (unless I'm something). Thank you! ^^ -GuitraSchlong

In the case of a protected page you're unable to edit, request an edit to be made on that article's talk page. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Thanks. Miles (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2014 (EDT)

The Rollback Here

May I ask why you did that? Nothing seems wrong here. Are capitalization redirects supposed to be deleted or not? Just curious here. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 14:57, 9 November 2014 (EST)

Furthermore, are you reverting my edits to facilitate moving the Copy Ability articles? If so, keep on. If not, I'll have you know that "Copy Ability" (with the 'a' capitalized in "ability") is the official name, and I'm prepared to undo your reverts. Blue Ninjakoopa 14:59, 9 November 2014 (EST)

BNK, the reason your edits were rollbacked was because you moved them incorrectly. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 15:01, 9 November 2014 (EST)

I was resetting the whole situation because it was implemented badly. If you want to move that many pages, it should have a talk page discussion first. Miles (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2014 (EST)

All right. We can have a talk page discussion. I support the move; the "a" in "abilities" is capitalized officially, so it would only seem right to capitalize it. Also, this may be the wrong place to do this, but whatever. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 15:05, 9 November 2014 (EST)

You're confusing quantity with quality, Miles. The reason we're discussing "Pit's Smash Taunt" vs. "Palutena's Guidance" is because those titles are legitimate and unique, while one is consistent with other Smash Taunt articles and the other is presumably the official name. I didn't think discussion was required for the Copy Ability pages because all I'm doing is capitalizing the first letter in the second word (which is how it's stylized officially; the change overall isn't significant to the degree of my earlier example). I didn't discuss anything when I moved it to the incorrect title over 3 years ago, so I figure that since I'm the one who made the error, I should be able to fix it without complications. Blue Ninjakoopa 15:12, 9 November 2014 (EST)

Not only is discussion almost always necessary for moving more than one page (and even usually for one page), but your implementation was absolutely wrong. Pages should never be moved by copy-paste because it severs the connection with the page history. Miles (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2014 (EST)

All right, I'm just going to flat-out ask this: can you delete the Copy Ability redirects so we can move the original pages to the redirects? Rtzxy Reflect!!! 15:26, 9 November 2014 (EST)

I admit I executed the moves poorly. What I'm trying to illustrate is the justification for them. I moved those pages so long ago to the improper titles without discussion, so why do I need support to fix my own mistake? "You're moving pages" isn't a good enough reason. Blue Ninjakoopa 15:33, 9 November 2014 (EST)

Given our rules on capitalization, it might not be an improper title. Is there a Smash source that capitalizes the function that way? That's the kind of thing we need to discuss. Miles (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2014 (EST)

I didn't mean to write over your comment, Rtzxy. I copied what I said, refreshed the talk page, and pasted it, unaware that I accidentally highlighted what you wrote and removed your comment.

Miles, the DOJO!! refers to them as "copy abilities," and the Melee trophy for Kirby Hat 1 apparently only capitalizes the 'c' in "Copy", but not the 'a' in "ability." Since "Copy Ability" is a term applied to Kirby that originates outside of Smash Bros., I figure that's enough to warrant referring to them as such here. Blue Ninjakoopa 15:57, 9 November 2014 (EST)

All right, that's understandable. I do that, too, sometimes, so I get the situation. Rtzxy Reflect!!! 15:59, 9 November 2014 (EST)

Yeah, lol. Also, I should note that the DOJO!! profile uses the term "copy abilities" to refer to Kirby's ability to copy characters; it doesn't refer to the powers Kirby gets as "Copy Abilities". Blue Ninjakoopa 16:07, 9 November 2014 (EST)

That looks like two Smash sources that treat it not as a proper noun the way Kirby does, which would imply we shouldn't move it. This is the kind of thing that needs a discussion (and preferably on a more appropriate talk page). Miles (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2014 (EST)

Move the Palette Swap pages

There's been a discussion over this for a significant amount of time and we have 7 supports and two opposes. Could you please move them to Alternate Costume, or at least delete those redirects so that I or someone else can? ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 16:05, 12 November 2014 (EST)

editing japanese translations

I don't mean to come off as some sort of superior, but I would appreciate it if you didn't edit my Japanese translations without at least checking with me (or Toomai, since he seems to know Japanese as well) first, since you don't seem to know quite as much about the language as I do, leading to things becoming less accurate. Thanks. ♡FirstaLasto♥ 16:06, 20 November 2014 (EST)

I tried to keep my tinkering to a minimum as I'm not very knowledgeable about the language. It's a fair point, and I'll be a bit more cautious going forward. Miles (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Rename

Can you rename some of the unnamed Final Smash Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.218.64 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 November 2014 (EST)

Can you provide a source for these names? Rtzxy Reflect! 18:47, 20 November 2014 (EST)

"SSBU"

Remember earlier on my talk page when you said that "SSBU" and "SSBWU" gives the same result? Well, I looked into it further; as it turns out, they don't wield the same result. "SSBU" will actually link to Super Smash Bros. University, and not Super Smash Bros. for Wii U. Just thought I'd let you know. Rtzxy Reflect! 23:21, 23 November 2014 (EST)

Palutena's Guidance

Looking through the edits, I noticed it was you who reverted my edits to clean up the Palutena's Guidance page. However, I don't understand why you did it. Listing the same character twice or more in a row just looks really messy and, frankly, unprofessional. Despite your claims, it can't have anything to do with "seperate dialogue boxes" because the "Snake's Codec" page merges multiple dialogue boxes and yet is completely untouched. I fixed it again, though. 85.210.188.121 07:02, 26 November 2014 (EST)

Just FYI

I'm gonna be offline for a while, something kinda just blew up in my family, and the family member who started this had access to this account, so if I come online in the next, say, week, assume bad faith and watch my edits. (And yes, I did change my password, but I'm not sure if they have a key-logger on this computer or not) Also, I'm telling you this since you're the only admin online. Laikue (talk | contribs) 22:25, 3 December 2014 (EST)

Noted, and sorry to hear about the bad news. Keep in mind that Special:ChangePassword exists, though. Miles (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2014 (EST)

M rated.

I know, that's why I wrote NINTENDO franchises. Not third party franchise, like Metal Gear (Fatal Frame is second party since Nintendo owns the publishing rights, which is why I mentioned it).64.237.230.122 20:02, 20 December 2014 (EST)

If you're referring to this, I specified my reason for removing it in the edit summary. A trivia point where you have to start making extra exceptions in order to keep it valid probably isn't that notable. Miles (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2014 (EST)

Question

what is t3h ph1re? Just curious. (Smashworker101 (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2014 (EST))

A rather silly old joke indicating "fiery" user rights. In other words, nothing particularly important. Miles (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2014 (EST)

oh I get it, t3h ph1re meaning the fire. The reason I asked this question because many rollbackers, sysops, bureaucrats, and aministrators have this. (Smashworker101 (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2014 (EST))

Account

Please block this account, I don't mind going back to being an IP to edit pages. --MichaelxYoshi36 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2015 (EST)

Is there a particular reason? If you don't want to use the account, simply don't use it. Miles (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2015 (EST)

Please...

...block this user. He's becoming a real pain in the ass. ...And all these reverted edits are clogging up the recent changes. BlueStreak Speeds By 23:14, 18 January 2015 (EST)

He's still vandalizing after your warning. Smashworker101 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2015 (EST)

When did we ever give users a warning before blocking them for vandalizing pages?Awesome Cardinal 2000 08:59, 19 January 2015 (EST)

A brief inspection had suggested the user had made some passable good-faith edits in the past, and I thought it better to be lenient in the hopes they would be easily convinced to stop. Obviously that didn't work as I had hoped. Miles (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2015 (EST)

Would you mind...

...talking to this user? Because I notified them about their behavior, but I've received no sign of recognition, and the user has continued to do what they have been doing. Aidan the Aura Master 14:56, 29 January 2015 (EST)

They seem to have only made one more such edit afterwards. If the pattern persists, inform me again. Miles (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2015 (EST)

Will do. Aidan the Aura Master 15:17, 29 January 2015 (EST)

I believe it's worth mentioning that, in addition to Kirbyte, this user has had a fair share of edits on the same userpage. Figured I'd let you know about this considering how this rule exists. Aidan the Aura Master 12:00, 2 February 2015 (EST)

I have noticed this myself and am about to do something about it. Toomai Glittershine The Keymaster 12:01, 2 February 2015 (EST)

Why are you removing all my edits?

I update those pages so they'd all be in line with each other. Some pages have Unlock requirements at the top, some have them at the bottom. Some have the SSB3DS and SSBWU labels and some do not. I am updating them so that there is one standard format. Why are you removing them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywellens (talk • contribs) 15:13, 30 January 2015

I was not undoing all of them. However, for the four characters that are unlockable in the 3DS version and starters in the Wii U version, having subheaders for both is pointless because there is only one set of unlock criteria. Also, the other edits were to standardize the correct capitalization "How to unlock" for the header. Additionally, please sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Miles (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2015 (EST)

Kirby Down Taunt Glitch

So, I've found out a glitch exists with Kirby in SSB4. The glitch is as follows:

1. Go into Training Mode.
2. Select Kirby as the player character.
3. Select Mr. Game & Watch, Donkey Kong, Falco, or Wii Fit Trainer as the CPU opponent.
4. Select any stage.
5. Inhale and copy the opponent.
6. Pull out a Smash Ball, and grab it.
7. Perform a down taunt.

Kirby should have the Smash Ball aura, but he shouldn't have glowing eyes.

The thing is, I don't know where I should put this information. Should I put it here, here, or here? Aidan the Aura Master 11:48, 10 February 2015 (EST)

It seems to have the most to do with Kirby himself losing the glowing eye effect, so I suppose his SSB4 page makes the most sense. Miles (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Alrighty, thanks. Aidan the Aura Master 13:07, 10 February 2015 (EST)

What's the point of improvement

if you never notice? 108.194.146.62 19:59, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Deletion of Game Theorists

His video have millions of views and many of them are about Super Smash Bros. Besides, if there's a page for CrappyCaptureDevice, there should definitely be a page for GT.--Dinodomain (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2015 (EST)

CCD was a solely Smash-centered channel and he was the definitive name in Smash history videos for a long time. Game Theorists are a "variety" channel with a ton of very diverse content and are not as prominent in the community from what I've seen. They're not really the same. Miles (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2015 (EST)

Okay maybe it isn't the most notable thing in the community, but it is notable. For instance, one of the videos was on the front page of smashboards: [1]--Dinodomain (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2015 (EST)

I don't think we have hard criteria for this, but I don't think one video getting a Smashboards feature like that makes the whole channel noteworthy. Miles (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2015 (EST)

Make a

Quotes page for all games and a page showcasing,all playable, Assist,Side,Summonable,Boss,Trophy, Target,Sticker,and Misc.Non-Playable character in all games. Signature:Unnamed User.

If I may...don't you think that that may be a bit much? Or, more importantly, why do you want this?

Also, sign your comments with ~~~~. Aidan the Aura Master 11:44, 18 February 2015 (EST)

Okay then,plz make da pages. (Add sig here).

I'm not the actual user. I'm just a passerby who is just stating his opinion. Also: sign your comments with ~~~~. Aidan the Aura Master 13:17, 18 February 2015 (EST)

There's no particular reason to implement either of these. Also, please sign posts with ~~~~. Miles (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2015 (EST)

followup on robin page

Just to be clear, by "the official site also uses it on the character list page now." I meant http://www.smashbros.com/us/#CharacterList this. Mario and Robin both use different artwork here than on their individual pages, being their default costumes in the games, so I think it makes sense to use those on their character pages. If you still disagree, alright then, although I'm wondering if maybe we should get a community consensus on which artwork to use or something, since this is the first time that the css artwork has differed from the official artwork (unless you count ssb64s use of models). ♡FirstaLasto♥ 21:32, 19 February 2015 (EST)

I understood what you meant, but the dual-Robin art was used on the wider newcomer banner for a long time, and is still used on the Robin character page (and neither solo version appears there). Also, the fireless Mario art is only used on the CSS; every other instance (even his amiibo) uses the fire design. Miles (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2015 (EST)

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the Fireball Mario artwork is not used at all in the actual games. Isn't that reason enough to use the Fireless as his main image? Laikue (talk | contribs) 22:11, 19 February 2015 (EST)

um Miles (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2015 (EST)

3DS trophy does not use the flames, however. They probably changed it in the Wii U version because the amiibo had the flame. I'm not gonna argue it further, but I still think the alt and main should be swapped. Laikue (talk | contribs) 02:21, 20 February 2015 (EST)

double um Miles (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2015 (EST)

Daaaaamn Aidan the Aura Master 07:05, 20 February 2015 (EST)

I could freking swear it wasn't like that when I got that trophy. I don' know. My memory just keeps getting worse.... Laikue (talk | contribs) 12:28, 20 February 2015 (EST)

Hi again

When I was at Miiverse, I found a post that had an Easter egg or something Link: http://miiverse.nintendo.net/posts/AYQHAAABAACXVHhhI7avRA

Smashworker101 (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2015 (EST)

I'd write that off as pareidolia. Looks more like a random bit of metal texture to me. Miles (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2015 (EST)

ello

so I heard you like names STM (t) 18:53, 6 March 2015 (EST)

Prima isn't reputable. Even remotely. Miles (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (EST)

but Knee Smash, Cover Fire, Justice Sword? (last one's cut off but it still fits) no way they invent the same names that ssb4's allstar trophies use later by accident STM (t) 18:59, 6 March 2015 (EST)

Correlation ≠ official. Miles (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2015 (EST)

Nintendo has actually called the Knee Smash (along with this) by name. That is why we use it. Same goes for all of Mega Man's moves, before you ask. Aidan the Aura Master 19:46, 6 March 2015 (EST)

This is my opinion on this shindig: if two strategy guides call a move by the same name, chances are they're getting the names from a source as opposed to making it up themselves. This would especially be the case if we see the same names in two guides for different games. The Brawl guide doesn't seem to include names (if the recent posts I've seen on reddit are any indication), but a few recent edits have suggested the SSB4 one does. If we can compare the SSBM and SSB4 guides, and all the same moves have the same names, that's a very strong indicator of officialness to me. Toomai Glittershine The Polychromatic 22:35, 6 March 2015 (EST)

I'm relatively inclined to discount 100% of what Prima has to say, honestly. If there were some Nintendo-originated resource we could see to back it up, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case. Miles (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2015 (EST)

I mean I guess it depends on how trustworthy they are with lesser-known official names in general, across all games for all platforms. If they have a reputation for being poor at keeping official names straight, as opposed to just being bad at strategy or gameplay, then I can see your point. Toomai Glittershine The Multifaceted 23:46, 6 March 2015 (EST)

I don't have examples handy, but Prima has a reputation for being notoriously inaccurate in general. Miles (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2015 (EST)

Just FYI

I'll be posting Forum:Codifying an official wiki character order shortly. Toomai Glittershine The Researcher 23:02, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

Alright. I kinda did jump the gun on that, sorry. Miles (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2015 (EDT)

Sonic (PM) Moveset

So I noticed you reverted the edits I made where I named many of Sonic's moves. You told me they do not belong without a source from the PMDT, which is entirely valid, but at the same time, the names I edited were not imagined and were the official move names from Sonic Battle and Sonic the Fighters, both of which Sonic's moveset is heavily based after. You even deleted "Sonic Eagle" as the name of his forward air even though it refers to the move as such in the "changes from brawl section". Obviously I respect your right as a moderator to manage content, but I was only hoping to shed some light on the origins of Sonic's moves for those such as myself who would be curious.Lemonworm (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2015 (EDT)

While it's reasonable to note what move they're based on from Sonic's home games, the move name column is for official sources only and should be treated as such. The other reference to the name in the changes section should be removed as well; I wasn't looking for it there. Miles (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2015 (EDT)

Fair EnoughLemonworm (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2015 (EDT)

Waking ban?

I don't think he deserved banned. His "removal of information" actually appears to be rephrasing to seem more professional- on Shulk's page, the information is rather excessive, while on everyone else's page it uses strange phrasing such as having the Wii Fit Trainer "knee" someone, which he changed to be "a jab with the knee". It seems perfectly good-faith. ---Preceding unsigned comment added by you. Or maybe Nutta. 20:27, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

Except the user in question was ignoring repeated warnings to stop removing information in the process of rewriting. If you check the involved edits, a great deal of crucial information (such as damage %) was removed, and many of the rewrites did nothing but rephrase existing content. I still agree it was good faith, but counter-productive good faith after repeated ignored warnings deserves something a little more attention-grabbing. I explained as much on their talk page. Miles (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

The edit was clearly in good faith. Maybe he thought that there was an overwhelming amount of information on the page and wanted to make it easier to read. Explain it on his talk page why you're not supposed to remove stuff on pages before you unnecessarily block him. You can block him if he doesn't listen to you and keeps removing stuff without saying anything about it. Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:47, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

Toom already did that several days ago, and I reminded them the same day after they continued in the same pattern. Miles (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

Good job. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:03, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

"Speculation"

When you report on widespread beliefs about a particular subject, it is considered a notable fact about the Smash community. How many times do you have to be told this? In all the times that you've been confronted about this, I have never once seen you attempt to refute this statement. You clearly have no idea what you're doing if you think that an opinion held by a large amount of the Smash community is "speculation," and you should stay out of any articles here that have to do with the community. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:14, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

I'll also point out that the members of this Wiki who have been going against what I wrote on the policy have been refusing to respond to any opposing viewpoints on it. The ideas of what I wrote were already in the policy anyway; I just reworded it to make it easier to understand. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:18, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

"We report what the community says" is like fifteen steps lower on the priority list than "no speculation". This has been the policy here for ages for good reason. Stop insisting that it be changed, and for that matter stop assuming that I'm clueless. Trust me: I'm not. Miles (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

Once again, you completely ignored what I said and didn't respond to what I wrote about how when you report on widespread beliefs about a particular subject, it is considered a notable fact about the Smash community. If you don't like it being in the "no speculation" policy, then we can create a new policy called "SmashWiki reports on what the community thinks."

This is one of the reasons why many people here have a negative view of you; you actively refuse to discuss and support your viewpoints while still asserting that you're right and then doing it all your way. If you want me to think that you're not clueless, prove it to me by showing that you can handle yourself properly when debating your viewpoint on a subject. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:27, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

The logic behind "community opinion" works well for certain things and not for others. Tier lists established by a known committee of specific professional players are a known entity in the community, so we report on them. Scandals that affect hundreds of tourney players and spectators beyond that warrant being covered. However, when you start attempting to dig deeper, you quickly run into ambiguities and much heavier levels of opinionated content. For example, in the last few months, it would have been grossly inappropriate to speculate as to why VGBC and GIMR were avoiding the subject of Project M, even if there was a certain group in the community that had their theories. Since he explained his and thus VGBC's stance on the subject publicly, it is appropriate to link to it and cite that as the reason.

As to your other point: you have an extraordinary tendency to assume your opinion is representative of the whole community, it seems. Not just on the subject of the Smash community supposedly believing things, but also in terms of what the wiki's userbase supposedly thinks. Consider for a moment that others (shockingly!) might not share your perspective. As with the tier list article, you are brazenly attempting to claim your personal thoughts of "what the community says" as factual and authoritative. They are not and will not be treated as such on SmashWiki. Miles (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

The people who believe in these opinions are also professional players, or at least knowledgeable players who are active members of the community. Take the VGBootCamp incident for example. Ask pretty much any community member and they will tell you that GimR dropped Project M either because Nintendo forced them to or GimR didn't want to hurt his business; he didn't need to make an official statement for anyone to figure that out. That's an example of a widespread belief. Ask any Brawl player and they will tell you that random tripping was added to Brawl because Sakurai is a casual scrub who wants to ruin competitive gameplay or something like that. Nintendo has never made an official statement on that, yet everyone in the community still has this opinion on the issue, and leaving it out would be excluding important information about the topic. Sure there's no real objective way to measure this kind of stuff, but we don't need numbers to measure that this is significant.

"However, when you start attempting to dig deeper, you quickly run into ambiguities and much heavier levels of opinionated content. "

What "heavier levels of opinionated content?" If people's opinions are really scattered all over the place, then it probably isn't worth mentioning in the article because there's no widespread belief. In many cases, though, there is a widespread belief amongst the whole community about a certain topic.

"For example, in the last few months, it would have been grossly inappropriate to speculate as to why VGBC and GIMR were avoiding the subject of Project M, even if there was a certain group in the community that had their theories. Since he explained his and thus VGBC's stance on the subject publicly, it is appropriate to link to it and cite that as the reason."

Even if the statement is released by someone who has complete authority over a subject, that doesn't stop the opinions from existing. Community members were also asking GimR whether Nintendo forced him to shut down PM or if it was his own decision, until he released a statement concerning this later. People can lie in their reasonings and cover up important details, and if everyone's suspecting something deep inside, then that's an important fact about the Smash community. What if there's no official statement for an action being done, such as when Nintendo shut down EVO 2013? It's not appropriate to just leave the section blank without stating what people think happened. Would it be appropriate to cover a historical event full of unanswered questions such as 9/11 or Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 without listing why people think it happened?

"As to your other point: you have an extraordinary tendency to assume your opinion is representative of the whole community, it seems. Not just on the subject of the Smash community supposedly believing things, but also in terms of what the wiki's userbase supposedly thinks. Consider for a moment that others (shockingly!) might not share your perspective. As with the tier list article, you are brazenly attempting to claim your personal thoughts of "what the community says" as factual and authoritative. They are not and will not be treated as such on SmashWiki."

Why don't you apply this logic to yourself then? What if you're one of the only people who thinks that it's a stupid idea to report on what the community thinks, and what if you're one of the only people who thinks it's okay to abuse their admin powers and go around doing whatever you want without properly discussing the topic at hand? You say that we should consider what the wiki userbase supposedly thinks, but doesn't the wiki userbase supposedly say that we report on what the community thinks? I can tell you that I'm not one of the very few people who has my opinions. I believe that Smash is enjoyable when played competitively, that Melee is the best Smash game, and that Sakurai should gear the game more towards competitive players, while the casual players can still have fun with a "competitive" game by turning on items, etc. This opinion of Smash is shared by thousands of other players involved in the competitive community, including many of your so-called "professionals." Not only do I share beliefs with a group of people who are "a known entity in the community," but these people also believe that Diddy Kong is one of the best characters in Smash 4, and that Sakurai removed hitstun in Brawl to make the game less fun for competitive players. If you consider the beliefs of the professional players to be important, then these opinions should be included in the wiki as well. If you don't believe that the community has a widespread opinion on certain controversial topics, read what people say on the Internet. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:53, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

If you'd rather not argue with me, why don't you look at the Ridley talk page and see everything OT said about reporting what the community thinks? If you're not going to listen to me, I'm sure you'll listen to a mighty powerful admin over a lowly unimportant regular user. Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:01, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

Where on earth does it say in SmashWiki's policies that we prioritize "community opinion" over facts? I don't believe such a rule exists anywhere but in your own delusions. As has been stated to you before: guesses, theories, and speculation aren't appropriate content. Facts are. If you are equating something to the effect of "we report tier lists" or "we report widespread tournament rules" with "we report community opinion as fact", then you are quite thoroughly mistaken.

Also, if you're going to sarcastically spout debate advice at me, here's some back at you: walls of text make you look like a blowhard, not somebody with a well thought-out argument; making wild comparisons to 9/11 in an unrelated context is Godwin's Law 2.0 and makes you sound foolish; and a flat appeal to "people say so!" is massively unconvincing even when relevant. Miles (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

"Where on earth does it say in SmashWiki's policies that we prioritize "community opinion" over facts?"

It appears to me that you're the only user who's removing anything that has to deal with community opinion.

"If you are equating something to the effect of "we report tier lists" or "we report widespread tournament rules" with "we report community opinion as fact", then you are quite thoroughly mistaken."

It is certainly not a fact that what the community says is definitely true. It's not a fact that Sakurai removed hitstun because he wanted to make the game more casual. I don't think anyone on the wiki would disagree with that. It is a fact, however, that there are many people who think that Sakurai removed hitstun because he wanted to make the game more casual. It's not a fact that what the community says is true. It is a fact that the community holds a widespread belief on some topic, and that belief may or may not be true. In the section about EVO 2013, I did not say, "Nintendo shut down EVO because it was opposed to the Smash Bros. games being played competitively," I said, "A commonly stated reason is that Nintendo was opposed to the Smash Bros. games being played competitively."

"walls of text make you look like a blowhard"

Why should you expect the result of this to go in your favor if you're not going to respond to what I say? Did you know that those who work hard are the most successful in life? People who call others "blowhards" or "try-hards" are usually people who are jealous that they're not as successful in life.

"and a flat appeal to "people say so!" is massively unconvincing even when relevant"

Except the topic at hand deals nearly entirely with what people say. "Community opinions that the wiki reports on" would not exist if there were no people who believed that way. Read the other stuff people have told you if you want more convincing reasons.

"making wild comparisons to 9/11 in an unrelated context is Godwin's Law 2.0 and makes you sound foolish;"

I use 9/11 as an example because it is an extremely notable and well-known event in history that has a lot of unsolved questions and mysteries, like many events in the Smash community. Why is making a comparison to 9/11 "wild" in this case? Am I using 9/11 to insult you in a derogatory manner?

Saying "xxx is true because the community believes it" is different from saying "a large amount of the community believes that xxx is true." Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:42, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

"It appears to me that you're the only user who's removing anything that has to deal with community opinion."

It appears to me that you're the only user who's pushing it so vehemently. Pointless argument.

"It is a fact, however, that there are many people who think..."

Uh-huh, and your sources for statement like that are...? This is what I mean by blindly appealing to "the community" as some monolithic opinion is pointless. Facts are things you can cite. Do you have a means of demonstrating that "many people" is notable? Do you have a means of demonstrating that they say so in the first place? In contrast to something like a ruleset which is demonstrably used in major tournaments, which are demonstrably major in numerical terms like attendees, pot size, and viewer count? Do I have to spell it out in even more basic terms?

"Did you know that those who work hard are the most successful in life? People who call others "blowhards" or "try-hards" are usually people who are jealous that they're not as successful in life."

Am I actually reading this drivel? Is this some sort of satire I'm not getting? Because honestly, this is sounding less and less like "I am trying to have a reasonable discussion of wiki policy" and more like you're just trying to be an annoyance. It's rather tiring. And I know what's going to happen. You're going to see this post and do a point-by-point rebuttal, again and again, until I stop replying because of the sheer redundancy of it. And then you'll say you "won" because I stopped arguing, or whine at me again for not debating you the way you want. To me, that is proof positive that you are more interested in your own words than in their content. Miles (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

"It appears to me that you're the only user who's pushing it so vehemently. Pointless argument."

Read all the shit OT (the best player on this wiki) has laid out for you if you want someone else's input on this. Several other users interested in the competitive scene have added information regarding the community's opinion on things. Meanwhile, you continue to be the only user here vehemently trying to shut this down.

"Facts are things you can cite. Do you have a means of demonstrating that "many people" is notable? Do you have a means of demonstrating that they say so in the first place?"

Go on the internet and read the articles of your professional smashers or other community members. The opinions of someone who is knowledgeable about the subject are valid citations. Places like Wikipedia and other news publications use this. If you want evidence on something like the VGBC incident read this article on Smashboards, and look at how the comments section has exploded. Look up some more on places like reddit if you want to look deeper into this. Why should we believe anything on the internet if numbers are the only valid citations?

"Am I actually reading this drivel? Is this some sort of satire I'm not getting? Because honestly, this is sounding less and less like "I am trying to have a reasonable discussion of wiki policy" and more like you're just trying to be an annoyance."

If you're going to say that I'm being a "blow-hard," then I'm going to defend myself for my actions. If you don't want me to do that, you don't have to accuse me of being a blow-hard. Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:35, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

If the extent of your argument is "read comments sections on SmashBoards and Reddit", that's not even close to convincing. That's just a pile of opinions, some by people who are relevant but overwhelmingly by people whose opinions are generally speaking inconsequential to this wiki. Let me know if you have any actual citations to back yourself up that have factual credibility. Otherwise you are wasting your time and mine. Miles (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

"That's just a pile of opinions, some by people who are relevant but overwhelmingly by people whose opinions are generally speaking inconsequential to this wiki."

It's okay if only a small amount of the people's opinions matter. Scientists make up a very small percentage of the world population, yet they are still most trusted sources for knowledge in the community. Plus isn't it still notable to list the opinions of the general public as well when significant?

If you really want a bunch of sources, here they are. Read them to your leisure. Mew2King's Opinions on Smash 4 ZeRo's Ask Me Anything Juggleguy's opinions on RoM M2K's opinions on a bunch of Smash 4 issues Mang0's AMA M2K on Brawl

Seriously dude, just look up a news article or YouTube video featuring an interview of a pro player. Read through an Ask Me Anything on reddit and you'll find a lot of opinions by prominent members of the community. Awesome Cardinal 2000 01:29, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

And those aren't unanimous enough to warrant mention in the mainspace. But thank you for providing actual evidence for once. Miles (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

Why does it have to be unanimous? Just because not 100% of the community agrees on a topic, doesn't mean that it's not significant and shouldn't be mentioned. Perhaps the community is divided into two or three different opinions on something, yet that can still be considered a widespread belief. Is this really the argument you have for shutting this down? If you were actually part of the community and knew what you were doing, you would know about this "evidence" created by pro players and I wouldn't have to go digging through everything myself. Your actions have still proven to me that you do not know much about the competitive community, so please don't edit things you don't know much about. We've told this to plenty of users who were adding a bunch of dumb trivia to every article, as well as users who kept adding people to the "notable players" section when they weren't really that notable after all. Why can't you be like them for a change? Awesome Cardinal 2000 07:34, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

Please thoroughly read through the Ridley discussion and see what happened there. Awesome Cardinal 2000 07:44, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

If we're talking about this edit, then I agree that it's too speculatory, as I do not recall "block Melee and feature Brawl because Nintendo hates competitives" as being the primary sentiment at the time of that controversy. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but it sure seems too much. Toomai Glittershine The Glow 21:47, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

If you think there's not enough widespread community opinion on a certain topic, that would be an acceptable reason not to list community opinion in an article. Fair enough. Awesome Cardinal 2000 22:53, 13 March 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, if your going to cite "community opinion" as a source, make sure it's actually community opinion (and also reasonable). There's a variety of reasons Nintendo could have tried to shut the game's streaming down, including the fact that it was a video of their game they didn't receive money from or that they didn't want their characters portrayed in such a violent way in the mainstream, both of which are just as if not more common theories in the community from what I've heard. There's too many "theories" to call one "community consensus" in this case and none have enough evidence to even be considered reporting here. DoctorPain99 00:06, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

Stay out of stuff you know absolutely nothing about.

Your edits to these articles have shown to me that you have terrible judgmental skills and know nothing about the Smash community. Your preferred version of the paragraph is vague and unspecific, leaving out lots of important details. Saying "Diddy Kong is considered the best character in the game" is much more clear and specific than saying "Diddy Kong is a dominant force in the metagame." You completely removed the line about Diddy Kong being dominant in tournaments, when he has taken top spots at Apex 2015 and several other nationals. You also completely removed the part about people wanting Diddy Kong to be banned, saying that "people aren't being serious about it." To me this shows that you have absolutely no idea what's been going on in the community. Here's some nice information for you to show you how big of a deal this has become, and that it's a widespread belief that Diddy is the best character in the game and there's a ton of controversy over banning him. You can find similar stuff for people saying Sheik is one of the best characters. You also removed a ton of information, claiming that the new version was "more neutral," yet the previous version was written in a neutral tone and point of view. What was the old version being biased towards? Am I missing something here? If you ask me, the newer versions have the same level of "neutrality" as the old version, as they both claim the characters are really good and dominant, yet your versions are just a lot less specific with fewer detail and encyclopedic content. Dots' version is definitely a lot better than yours, as he clarifies that these results are only preliminary and the metagame could change over time, while you just made the page less specific while removing a bunch of 100% true information.

If you really know a lot about the community, I shouldn't be having to show you all the evidence to "prove" to you widespread and common opinions in the Smash scene. You have been told this many times, and you completely ignored my last comment about this as well. Please stay out of the competitive sections of this wiki, because you keep fucking things up whenever you make an edit. Several users have called you out on this already; can you please do some self-reflection? If you want people to stop berating you, then change actions to show that you've improved and know what you're talking about. Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:50, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

Why report on opinions when we can describe the same information with a factual basis? I've made it clear to you countless times: the wiki does not prioritize community opinion over facts. If you are unwilling to comprehend this incredibly basic fact and would rather dump walls of text on my talk page repeatedly, you have no place editing this wiki. Miles (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

You know, community opinion ≠ fact. Something that is widespread and believed by a lot of people doesn't mean it's written in stone. Reading through all you've had to say, it honestly seems like you are the only one who holds these opinions. Aidan the Aura Master 20:34, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

You are once again completely misunderstanding what I say. Reporting on the community's opinion is fact. Stating the reaction of the community, without clearly stating which side of the community you agree with, is a fact and is definitely not an opinion. Aidan you clearly did not read what I wrote either. It is not a fact that Diddy Kong is the best character in the game. It is a fact that many people in the community think that Diddy Kong is the best character in the game. There is definitely a "factual basis," get your facts by looking at what people in the community are saying. My previous version of the article is not only 100% fact, it provides much more detail and specificity than your version. Several other prominent members of the wiki, including OT, the best Smash player here, have written tons of content featuring the community's opinion on everything. How many times have I told you this? You once again completely ignored the whole paragraph at the bottom I wrote about ignoring what people say to you. Did you even read the Ridley discussion or that whole time last year when you laughably came crying to Toomai complaining that OT was being "mean?" Why are you so fucking dense? Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:51, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

You know what I love about your arguments? You never actually seem to have your own proof. You're always saying, "hey, look at what _______ has to say, and believe it, because they are higher up than you". And plus, who has time to read what you have to say, when you just type up a wall of text for you to hide behind?

I honestly don't want to get into a huge ass argument. All I'm trying to say is "hey, some people don't believe what you think, so buck up and face the facts for once." Aidan the Aura Master 20:54, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

I just want to make sure that you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. I also use evidence the professional players because these are the only people that Miles seems to trust and believe in. People who are knowledgeable about a subject are usually trusted in terms of information about that subject. The fact that people have different ideas compared to me is completely irrelevant to whether their views are correct or not, and that shouldn't stop from trying to defend and undo a dumb decision made by and administrator. You can criticize me for using wall of text if you want. However, don't expect things to go in your favor if your opponent has a ton of points to say about the subject, and you refuse to refute anything he says. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:02, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

You know, a user just made this edit, in which he edited a section stating that Mario is considered the most famous video game character. The section that the user edited was entirely concerned about the community's opinion on video game characters. If SmashWiki is to completely disregard the community's opinion on everything, why didn't you remove that section of the article as well? You are quick to remove anything that has to do with the competitive scene, yet you're completely okay with something dealing with the casual fanbase; to me, this shows that you only want to remove anything to do with competitive Smash from the wiki, and you only apply your "rules" and "policies" to things that you don't like. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:02, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

You didn't read the entire section. It states, and I quote:

"...he is more popular to Americans than other very well known characters like Sonic, Mega Man, Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and Captain America."

That's not the community. That's a survey conducted by someone other than a Smash player.

"The fact that people have different ideas compared to me is completely irrelevant to whether their views are correct or not."

Are you really that errogant? You're basically saying "they have different opinions, but they're wrong because it's not what I think." I really have nothing to say about that. Aidan the Aura Master 21:07, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

"That's not the community. That's a survey conducted by someone other than a Smash player."

If you're going to use a survey as a source, the survey must be done reliably and you need a link to it.

"Are you really that errogant? You're basically saying "they have different opinions, but they're wrong because it's not what I think." I really have nothing to say about that."

That is not what I meant at all. Read about the fallacy I'm entitled to my opinion. You can have your opinion about something, but saying "I'm entitled to my opinion" has nothing to do with the validity of your opinion. You can claim "Miles has his own opinion so leave him alone," but that is irrelevant to whether Miles' opinion is correct or incorrect. Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:12, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

My opinion also happens to align with SmashWiki's policy on style and content. If your opinion is so radically different that you find the two incompatible, you're free to take your efforts elsewhere. Miles (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

So now you're going to cry "I'm entitled to my own opinion! Too bad!" without even presenting any arguments or discussing anything else I said? You've failed to respond this whole "we report on what the community thinks" debate multiple times now. I presented an argument comparing this to historical events, where it's helpful to present information about the public's reaction, and you went on to ignore what I said and tried to make me look like a bad person for using 9/11 as an example. That shows to me that you haven't responded to what I said. During the Ridley discussion, after OT presented a bunch of arguments, you ignored everything he said and started asking everyone else for their input instead of attempting to refute his points.

Once again, you completely ignored what I said about staying away from topics you don't know much about. Do you see why people think you're a bad admin? A good admin should hold themselves responsible for their own mistakes. Don't be a coward. Either own up to what you did wrong and don't do it again, or improve your knowledge of the competitive scene before you start touching this section of the wiki again.

It's true that you're entitled to your opinion. But seeing how the talk page discussions have gone against you and you're refusing to debate the issue anymore, you are not the one who gets to make the final decision and do it all your way. Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:15, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

Since you still don't seem to get it: "we report on what the community thinks" is not a primary goal of SmashWiki and you need to stop treating it as such. There have been times I have made mistakes in regard to this wiki's competitive content, but this is not one of them. I have made a concerted effort to keep myself informed. You are over the line in terms of SW:NPA and are clogging my talk page and recent changes with pointless bickering. This will be my last reply to you on the subject, since I have no intention of encouraging your endless desire for baseless criticism. Miles (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

What reasoning do you have to support the notion that "we report on what the community thinks" is not a primary goal of SmashWiki? Haven't you debated this issue already and clearly came out on the bottom on multiple occasions? Are you just supporting this because it's been the "status quo?" There's a reason why the SmashWiki policies can be changed, you know. Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:33, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

(Reset indent) You know, that's what sets opinions apart from facts: they're neither wrong nor right. That's what makes them opinions. Aidan the Aura Master 21:21, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

You can have your opinion, but that doesn't always mean your opinion is the right one. Look up more information about the fallacy if Wikipedia is too hard to understand. I'll make up an example to show you what the fallacy is. Suppose that there's a group of people who believe that all rocks are living, breathing organisms. They continue to believe that rocks are living no matter what anyone tells them. Scientists all over the globe come up with new research and examination of the structure of rock and conclude that there are no signs of living organisms or cells in rocks. The living-rock people see all this information and what everyone is telling them, but they continue to shrug them off, saying things like, "I just believe that rocks are living creatures," or "I'm entitled to my opinion on whether rocks are living or not. Leave me alone." Even though it's pretty clear in this case that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the fact that rocks are not living, they still continue to say, "I'm entitled to my opinion." That's basically the fallacy right there. Although it's true that the believers can have their opinion on the issue if they want, saying "I'm entitled to my opinion" does nothing to support their argument and prove their point. Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:15, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

I will not deny that fallacy is a mistaken belief. But what I also won't deny is that opinions, at its true definition, are not meant to be factual. People believe what they want to believe. And you believe that Miles has no background knowledge on the competitive community, when, in actuality, he knows damn well what he's doing.

This isn't SmashBoards. This is an encyclopedia. If people want knowledge about competitive crap, then sure, they can find stuff here, but if they want all the widespread opinions in the community, then they can drag themselves over here.

I'm not taking Miles's side in this argument, nor am I taking yours, Ac2k; I'm just trying to settle this argument by acting as a third party candidate. Aidan the Aura Master 23:29, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

"But what I also won't deny is that opinions, at its true definition, are not meant to be factual."

It's true that opinions aren't supposed to be factual. But you can advocate your opinion to show why it is the better opinion. Do you know what a debate is?

"And you believe that Miles has no background knowledge on the competitive community, when, in actuality, he knows damn well what he's doing."

You are clearly mistaken if you believe this. On the Diddy Kong edit summary, he said that "people weren't serious about banning Diddy Kong," when the truth is, this is a major issue in the Smash 4 community. I linked a bunch of discussions on the internet in this section showing how this has blown up in the community. If you look at past archives of his talk page, you can see that he once refused to allow the creation of an article that was important to the competitive Smash 64 community because he thought the name was inappropriate, when SmashWiki is not censored. There are countless other examples showing his incompetence.

"This isn't SmashBoards. This is an encyclopedia. If people want knowledge about competitive crap, then sure, they can find stuff here, but if they want all the widespread opinions in the community, then they can drag themselves over here."

Reception and reaction from the community has always been an important part of an encyclopedic article. Nearly every article about a product or historical event on Wikipedia has one. Smashboards has always been notoriously difficult to find information from, since the search engines there are broken and you have to dig through so much unrelated content to find what you actually need.

"I'm not taking Miles's side in this argument, nor am I taking yours, Ac2k; I'm just trying to settle this argument by acting as a third party candidate. "

Saying "It's okay for you guys to both have different opinions, so leave each other alone," is the worst way to "settle" an argument. If we use that mentality all the time, nothing will ever get changed here if the administrators can do whatever they want since nobody's allowed to argue with them. Awesome Cardinal 2000 09:07, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

You know what, Ac2k? It seems to me that you think that you're the only one who's right here. And you know what? You're wrong. People don't have to do what you say because you think it's wrong. I don't even know why I wanted to bring myself into this argument, and considering how I played a fair role in this long discussion, I do not want a repeat. I don't see what it will take for you to see that not everyone has to agree with you. Aidan the Aura Master 10:58, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

Why are you going to tell me that I'm wrong without providing any reasoning for it? Saying "He can have is own opinion so leave him alone!" and baselessly telling people "You're wrong so shut up!" is a poor form of moderating a dispute that adds nothing constructive and will lead to you getting dragged into a discussion that you don't need to get involved in. If your going to tell me that I'm wrong about this, respond to some of points I said.

You don't have to agree with me if you don't want to. But you don't get to decide the outcome if you don't respond to the points people say. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:28, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

I'm not really going to take any side here (and hopefully I don't want to see this discussion ever again in my personal opinion) but I noticed that you've been kinda quite rude lately in discussions. Sure Miles maybe ignorant about the competitive play and other true information but he's trying to do his job. So no, I wouldn't say Miles is completely at fault here. Dots (talk) The Penguin 11:27, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

You should only moderate a section of this wiki if you are knowledgable about that subject. I think that there are better people to be in charge of edits regarding the competitive scene. OT has the best knowledge about the competitive community by far out of all the admins, and thus he should be in charge of moderating the competitive scene here. If he's inactive, that should be the responsibility of someone like you, me, Brian, PMJ3, or other users knowledgeable about the competitive scene. I hate to keep bringing up this issue, but Miles hasn't shown much improvement in areas he was criticized for over a year ago. He continues to make big decisions, yet refuses to respond to anyone when they discuss it with him. He still messes with information dealing with the competitive community, yet hasn't shown much improvement in knowledge of the scene. Awesome Cardinal 2000 13:28, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

(Reset indent) *points finger* And there's your flaw. Right there.

"OT has the best knowledge about the competitive community by far out of all the admins, and thus he should be in charge of moderating the competitive scene here."

Yes, he may have the best knowledge on the subject, but to me, that sounds like "all information has to be run by OT before it's put up". And the reason why it's a flaw for you is because no one "owns" an article. Aidan the Aura Master 13:41, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

That's how moderation works. When someone makes an edit on the wiki, the people in charge read through the article and remove any information that's incorrect or they disagree with. But if you don't know much about a subject and can't be trusted to verify the accuracy of certain content, you leave it to someone who is more knowledgable and can give a better analysis. That's part of working a job; leave things you don't understand to someone who can do it for you. Awesome Cardinal 2000 14:28, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

@Ack2k: Even if if someone is not an expert on the scene, they can still fix obviously wrong things. Some of your edits that Miles reverted were beyond obviously speculatory to everyone I've talked to or simply did not belong on the page in question. Stop acting like Miles is the big bad admin who's against everyone else who's "knowledgeable" about competitive play when thats not even the issue here and there's people perfectly "knowledgeable" who do not share your side on this issue. DoctorPain99 13:47, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

If I made mistakes on the article, fine. I added a bunch of stuff that was really speculatory and shouldn't be there. Maybe I shouldn't be editing the competitive sections of the wiki. But Miles should not be touching things like "Many people think that Diddy should be banned" when anyone who is competitively knowledgeable knows that's true. Miles' idea that "SmashWiki does not prioritize community opinions" is unhealthy for the wiki. Awesome Cardinal 2000 14:28, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

"Miles' idea that "SmashWiki does not prioritize community opinions" is unhealthy for the wiki."

Ok, that's a personal attack if I ever saw one. Knock it off. Aidan the Aura Master 14:39, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

You clearly have no idea what constitutes a personal attack or what our policy on personal attacks is. A personal attack is when you call someone an offensive or derogatory name to insult them. Criticizing another user or their abilities or their opinion of something is definitely not a personal attack. Sure I criticized his opinions, but did I use an offensive term to insult him? No. If I said something like, "Miles is a moron because he believes that we shouldn't report on the community's reaction," that would definitely be a personal attack because I called him a moron. That was not the case here. Read the policy before you accuse anyone of using a personal attack, and make sure you thoroughly understand the wiki's policies before accusing anyone of violating them. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:08, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

Don't forget to read through the Miiverse posts argument as well as the Ridley debate. Awesome Cardinal 2000 18:42, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

It has personally come to my attention that you think that Miles is the main antagonist of SmashWiki and despite being an admin, he is unintentionally trying to make it a worse place. Miles was simply trying to remove things that weren't necessarily true, so quite honestly, he isn't always wrong and was trying to simply do what's right. Also, you seem to treat OT as "the main protagonist of SmashWiki" and that everything on SmashWiki should centralize on what he or the top professionals say in terms of their thoughts and not on facts. Dots (talk) The Windows 19:28, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

I know that Miles isn't intentionally trying to harm the wiki, but when he reverts edits saying things like "People aren't serious about banning Diddy Kong," it appears to me that his edits to the competitive scene overall do more bad than good. I look up to OT and other top professionals for competitive information because they are knowledgeable about the competitive scene, and out of all the admins on this wiki, OT is the most knowledgeable about the competitive community. People who know a lot about a subject are generally trusted for information regarding that subject, and OT should be trusted for moderating SmashWiki's articles on the competitive community because he knows most about it. If you want your facts, the other information unrelated to the competitive community can still be on the page; I just think that it's important to cover the community's response to certain events and topics, in addition to what else is already there in the article. I hope that Miles will listen to what people have been telling him about his responsibilities as a staff member. Awesome Cardinal 2000 19:59, 15 March 2015 (EDT)

Something to keep in mind...

...You might wanna archive this page soon. Just saying. Aidan the Aura Master 20:58, 14 March 2015 (EDT)

What are you doing?

You have just been involved in a long discussion that you now refuse to comment on, and are debating an issue that was brought multiple times already, and now you are going still revert the changes anyways? And your reason for removing the content was "inapplicable," what kind of bullshit is that? You are truly a terrible, awful admin. Someone who's held this position for over six years should know better than this. Look, if you're not going to comment on the discussion, you do not get to make the decision on the final outcome. How dense and stubborn can you be? What kind of wiki is this where we let admins go around doing whatever they want with no one being allowed to challenge them? Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:44, 17 March 2015 (EDT)

There is unanimous opposition to your edits by both the administration and the rest of the userbase. Stop assuming you get priority over everyone else. Miles (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2015 (EDT)

At least tell me that then, instead of saying things like "your edit is inapplicable." When did a pure vote count decide the outcome of things on here anyways? Awesome Cardinal 2000 20:48, 17 March 2015 (EDT)

I do not assume I have to tell you how to read the discussion you are part of. I assume you are smart enough to realize things like "everybody here disagrees with me". And wikis are not a pure voting-based system, but if there is unanimous consensus aside from one vocal user, that is more than sufficient to come to a conclusion. Miles (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2015 (EDT)