User talk:Lou Cena

Infoboxes

Infoboxes should generally only have one image in them. Please do not try to add more than one. Toomai Glittershine The Aurum 12:33, 2 February 2019 (EST)

(moved from User talk:Toomai)

Is there anything wrong with it? I apologize for not asking permission to do so beforehand. Lou Cena (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2019 (EST)

It's simply a standard that most infoboxes should present only the most relevant image. I wouldn't say there's anything particularly wrong with having two, but you would need to get a fair bit of consensus somewhere before doing it. And in any case, you seem a bit too inexperienced to be making such a change (you were editing the infobox's information page instead of the infobox itself, for example). Toomai Glittershine The Xanthic 12:39, 2 February 2019 (EST)

Fighter Numbers

There is a reason for character numbers to be in the fighter battle array : so the users can sort them back to the official figthers order after sorting them by names without having to refresh the page. Sorting the array by clicking at the top of a column is a client side task while refreshing the page is a server side task.
Also the wiki policy says that undo should only be done once, and that if you disagree with with someone undoing your changes, you're supposed to start a talk about it in the discussion page. So, please undo you removal of the fighter numbers, and if you're still not convinced, please start a talk so we can get more opinions on the matter. YoshiRyu (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2019 (EST)

The reason why I removed them was because it would cause confusion over if the haractwrd were unlocked in that order. Besides, they’re already sorted numerically anyways. Lou Cena (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2019 (EST)

I don't think anyone would be confused by the character official numbers, everybody knows about it. Their locations are also specified in the "Location" column, so nobody could be confuse about an unlocking number. Plus you just have to play WoL 5 seconds to know that youo get Kirby first. About the array already being in the right order, as I said, you would be able to sort them back. If you sort them by names, or power, or anything else, you can't put them back in the official order without refreshing the page. It's better to be able to put the array back in the right order without making a request to the server. And finally, the wiki policy still applies : don't undo an undo, and start a talk directly on the WoL page, if you think I'm wrong, you need to start a public conversation, a private talk between the two of us won't be enough. YoshiRyu (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2019 (EST)

Archiving

I really appreciate you archiving the talk page at Template talk:Symbol/Archive 1, but next time please follow the procedure for archiving talk pages here. Thanks! SugarCookie 420 12:02, 9 February 2019 (EST)

SW:1RV

Hi, just wanted to let you know that this edit, violates the policy 1RV, a policy designed to help prevent edit warring. If you disagree with Serpent King reverting your edits, instead of re-reverting it, please use the talk page to lay out your reasons for disagreement. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:56, 10 February 2019 (EST)

I thought that was only reverting once. Or is it supposed to be all users can only revert a specific section once, and not all users get one chance before having to take it to the talk page. Lou Cena (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2019 (EST)

I reverted and then you did, so it was reverted twice. It's not a big deal, just try not to do that. Serpent  King 17:01, 10 February 2019 (EST)

Your general attitude

I'm not sure how to put this in better words, but you need to calm down. Continuing to debate on closed discussion is disruptive. Copy-pasting large amounts of text on various admins' talk pages to ask if it's "consensus" is disruptive. You seem entirely too eager to change a lot of things at once by drumming up a bit of support for your opinion and trying to get it cemented as "consensus" quickly. Please be more patient. Toomai Glittershine The Resolute 19:31, 13 February 2019 (EST)

Yes in general if an idea lines up with the wiki's general opinion, you don't need to do the extra leg work. Serpent  King 19:34, 13 February 2019 (EST)

I apologize and will try not to do either of those as often. I just saw a few holes in the consensus of the symbol fisasco, and panicked over a tiny detail that didn’t make any sense to me. About the infobx “consensus”, I mostly just wanted to be safe. To be honest, i don’t know if there is a consensus. I just wanted to be 100% certain if it was OK to change since it was such a widely used template. Lou Cena (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (EST)

About closed discussions, is there ever a time when it is safe to reopen them? Lou Cena (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (EST)

Usually depends, but anything that has been archived can no longer be edited (though the system allows such edits, they will be immediately undone by other users). ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 19:59, 13 February 2019 (EST)

The infobox deal will require more talk and a bit of planning because it requires an extension we don't have. In general, we do not reopen discussion unless circumstances change. Serpent  King 20:02, 13 February 2019 (EST)

Would the passage of time count as a changed circumstance. For example, if I reopened the symbol discussion in 2 months, would that immediately put me on the block log, or would that be enough time for somebody to warm up to a proposal that they denied in the past. Lou Cena (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2019 (EST)