User talk:Toomai/Archive 8

26/11/08 – 05/05/10

41,932

07/05/10 – 28/09/10

38,676

29/09/10 – 22/02/11

40,916

07/03/11 – 23/06/11

39,845

25/06/11 – 09/10/11

48,940

09/10/11 – 21/02/12

47,636

03/03/12 – 03/11/12

40,731

08/11/12 – 19/05/13

11,319

25/05/13 – 27/08/13

45,090

27/08/13 – 23/11/13

46,614

26/11/13 – 23/02/14

41,931

01/03/14 – 06/06/14

51,753

11/06/14 – 08/08/14

51,697

14/08/14 – 03/11/14

46,557

03/11/14 – 13/01/15

46,342

14/01/15 – 08/04/15

47,396

11/04/15 – 15/06/15

36,186

29/04/15 – 14/09/15

47,549

18/09/15 – 05/11/15

54,252

07/11/15 – 04/12/15

38,669

07/12/15 – 15/04/16

51,044

20/04/16 – 16/12/16

39,885

17/12/16 – 26/06/18

36,408

28/06/18 – 31/04/20

53,765

01/04/20 – 23/11/24

33,222

Socks

How soon do you think the new policy will be ready? --RoyboyX Talk 20:14, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Could be now, could be a few more weeks. Hard to say. Toomai Glittershine The Sharp 20:30, 8 November 2012 (EST)

Opinion?

Rename the page? Talk:Space_animal_slayer Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:19, 13 November 2012 (EST)

Yes I am aware of that. Toomai Glittershine The Trumpeteer 07:38, 13 November 2012 (EST)

So...Support? Oppose? which 1? --Brian^{Don't try me!} 08:08, 13 November 2012 (EST)

What makes you think my opinion is applicable and/or I am inclined to care? Toomai Glittershine Da Bomb 11:56, 13 November 2012 (EST)

hey man

If a normal/new user making such an edit summary would immediately/eventually be scolded, questioned, or blocked, how is it that you can get away with undoing edits because they don't favor your opinions (note that here your undoing was just, since the piece of information added by Peepo was extremely superficial, but the reason you stated should not ever be a reason to undo an edit, at least not without discussion) or you're "not a fan" of them? I didn't revert your edit because I've found myself breaking 1RV a few times in the last two years and I wanted to actually discuss with you why I replaced "Banning of Meta Knight" with "Banishment" (to be fair, it could be "Meta Knight's Banishment" or "Banishment from Tournaments," especially if specificity is what you're looking for): I did so to sort of conform with the manual of style which states that articles should not have titles like "Jump" and should instead have the title "Jumping," to provide one example, and section titles should not be exempt from this. As far as I know, "Ban" → "Banning" → "Banishment" for that specific verb (since "Jumpment" doesn't exactly exist), so my edit is correct in nature, but not the most correct available. I instead think it should simply be "Ban." Hear me out: Imagine reading an article on, say, Luigi, and a subsection under a section called "Attributes" is "Jump." "Jump" means "jumping ability" or "how significant Luigi's jump is," or perhaps "how high Luigi can jump and how this effects gameplay" just as "Ban" would mean "Banning of Meta Knight," etc. It is not my opinion that the wording is simpler (I assume in this case simplicity is the goal so long as it's not misleading), but fact, especially in accordance to the definition of the word 'simple.' "Jumping" could be correct, but that would allude to something like "how to jump with Luigi," which, since all characters can jump, is covered in the actual "Jump" and the X/C-button pages; where you would see "Jumping" as a section title on an article called "Character abilities" since it is the most correct there, "Jump" is more fitting in the situation I described, and therefore "Ban" is more fitting than "Banning of Meta Knight;" at least the "of" keeps it from being "Banning Meta Knight," which would allude to the process of banning Meta Knight (which can be covered by "Ban"/"Banishment") or instructions on how to ban him. The "Meta Knight" in there is redundant anyway given the article title. If we're going to go with only "Banning," then according to MoS, "Banishment" is more correct, which puts us right back where we started. Blue Ninjakoopa^(Talk) 22:19, 6 December 2012 (EST)

I punted "banishment" for two reasons:

1. It sounds rather pretentious as a section title; while maybe technically correct it comes across as a bit informal and almost seems like a non-neutral point of view. Just my opinion of course.
2. Its root is "banish", not "ban"; while they're certainly similar in meaning I don't think they're close enough that you can just use one for the other.

Given your reasoning I do think that "Banning of Meta Knight" could be improved on, though I'm not sure in what way. Maybe "Ban from competitive play"?

As for your opening, people get blocked for multiple rude edit summaries, not opinionated ones. Toomai Glittershine The Ghostbuster 22:52, 6 December 2012 (EST)

Mafia

Unfortunately, I will not be able to make it to Mafia today. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me the logs of the game somehow after it is done. Could you do this for me somehow? Air Conditioner No time for losers! 18:54, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Assuming enough players show up, yeah I'll figure something out. Toomai Glittershine The Emissary 18:57, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Is a pastebin good enough for you? Toomai Glittershine The Frivolous 21:38, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see your message here. I already sent you a message through Special:EmailUser, but if a Pastebin is more convenient for you, please do so. Air Conditioner is a certified whack-job 14:24, 15 December 2012 (EST)

What was that?

I have no idea what just happened. It scared the daylight out of me. Smash Master 19:11, 14 December 2012 (EST)

Victory pose images

The last three pic names were accidental. It was close to midnight and my brain was mush from all the work I was doing. --RoyboyX Talk 10:23, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Uh...

Not to bother you with unimportant stuff, but it's already Sunday and the Smash Arena still hasn't been updated. Air Conditioner We were talking about the space between us all. 09:06, 23 December 2012 (EST)

Sidenotice

Since we already removed the unnecessary categories from pages, there is no use for the current sidenotice to be showing when users log in. You can remove the current one. Dots The Mew 14:29, 30 December 2012 (EST)

Demote Pikamander2?

I think it would be best to remove admin powers from Pikamander. He came back once two years ago for a two day period, where all he did was just ask for his adminship back (he did post in the browser poll six months later, but that's pretty irrelevant when it's the only thing he did). Besides it being bad form to just come back briefly to ensure he still has adminship, he would be hopelessly out of touch if he ever does come back. Nearly every user here wouldn't know him (and vice versa), and the Wiki has underwent some major changes in the time he was gone (such as new policies, different ideologies and standards). One of the most important things for an admin is that they know the community they're administrating, and that the community knows them. If Pikamander ever did came back and is serious about contributing and administrating, he could always get back in touch, make another RfA, and show to the community that he would be a capable admin. Until then, he should have his administer powers stripped, as he would not be a capable admin off the bat if he ever did return. Omega Tyrant 22:18, 4 January 2013 (EST)

This is not a bad idea and I will certainly give it a think. Poke this if it's still hanging undecided after about a week. Toomai Glittershine The Bold 22:31, 4 January 2013 (EST)

Would this be a good opportunity to test a deadminship process (if only to shut up possible complaints), or would it be needness cruft? Toomai Glittershine The Zesty 07:58, 5 January 2013 (EST)

I think it would be needless cruft, as he's not being demoted for offenses on the Wiki that people could defend, but for a very long absence and inevitable out of touchness should he return that cannot be disputed. Plus as pointed out earlier, almost no one on the Wiki actually knows him (hell even I don't know him beyond being some admin from the 08/09 era), so it's extremely doubtful anyone would really be interested and have something constructive to say about him. As for people that would complain, I don't see anyone disputing this outside someone who adamantly sticks to the "admin for life" idea, which as we can see with Pikamander (and with Randall should he ever try asking for his adminship back), is not actually a beneficial idea for the Wiki in actual practise. Omega Tyrant 09:14, 5 January 2013 (EST)