User talk:MuteSpittah

Hi there!

Welcome!

Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.

Read this first as it provides many great resources designed to help users get oriented with the wiki and become part of the community.

Visit the recent changes to see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help.

Questions? You can ask at the help desk or on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page!

Need help? The community portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit.

I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you!

Poultry(talk) the fluffy 06:25, 19 February 2016 (EST)

Da preview button.

Reminder: Please use the Show preview button located next to the Save page button to preview your edits. This prevents consecutive edits to the same page from clogging up the recent changes list.

Penro ...that's all. 17:55, 19 February 2016 (EST)

K MuteSpittah (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2016 (EST)

Going to give you a quick reminder of this. Serpent King 17:50, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what's the problem with clogging the Recent changes page? Minor inconvenience? MuteSpittah (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

Yeah, plus it can block out some other edits from being seen on it. Penro 17:53, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

Right, ok. Ah, and you also can't scroll past 500! MuteSpittah (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2016 (EDT)

Misunderstanding

Since I really don't think it's important enough to bring up on that page, the point of mentioning that Marth's sword is missing from the cover artwork is not so that someone would see it on the cover, but that they made the effort to draw his entire body (which isn't visible on the cover), and they didn't bother drawing his sword. Also, I'm not sure what happened, but when I made my edit, there were two trivia points that stated the sound effect inconsistency, thus the comment. ScizorSteelix 04:54, 22 February 2016 (EST)

No, I get what you're saying. I think I was put off by it starting with "Oddly enough," and I don't think it's really isn't all that odd. Weird about the two trivia points though. MuteSpittah (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2016 (EST)

If you think about it, it's not all that odd. Like it would have been a waste of effort to draw his sword and sheath when it was just going to be hidden. And it's not like it's clothing or a body part. MuteSpittah (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2016 (EST)

SW:1RV

Please adhere to SW:1RV. You just broke it twice. Also, I'm about to upload the image, so the undo wasn't needed in the first place. Disaster Flare (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2016 (EST)

Ok. But it woulda been great had you told me you were going to upload it; also you should not take people's word for things and undo things in response. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2016 (EST)

I feel like it should be a screen of Corrin because that GIF is of Kana. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2016 (EST)

I don't even know if Corrin has that ability. My brother never saw Corrin do that animation, which is why he thought the animation wasn't present. Disaster Flare (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2016 (EST)

It's an animation from a Critical Hit with Dragon Fang skill. Kana is Corrin's kid, and also has Dragon Fang. In the GIF the green circular symbol on the top left is the Dragon Fang skill. Also, Kana and Corrin are both Nohr Prince/Princess classes from the getgo. I'm certain Corrin has the same animation as well, and I'm sure I've seen it in videos; I just don't own the game lol MuteSpittah (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2016 (EST)

Regardless, Dragon Lunge is in FE Fates and that's all we need! MuteSpittah (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2016 (EST)

SW:1RV (again)

You'll note that the policy specifically states not to revert an edit because it is in violation of 1RV. Serpent King 20:47, 12 March 2016 (EST)

If you examine closely, you'll see that I didn't undo it, but inserted a new trivia point in a more appropriate spot with mostly different wording. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Rewording it slightly doesn't excuse the reinsertion of the point. Just saying. Serpent King 20:50, 12 March 2016 (EST)

It's also changed in a sense of its direction? Like it said Snake is the only in the Smash series out of the blue, whereas this one says it's of these characters with unused helpless states, his is the only without the overlay effect. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Whatever. I don't even know if the point's legit anyways. Sorry. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Not a problem. :) Serpent King 20:55, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Not saying that I'm wondering why I got nailed and not the other two, but I'm gonna say that I'm wondering why I got nailed and not the other two. MuteSpittah (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2016 (EST)

Leaving?

Is there a specific reason why? Serpent King 23:56, 30 April 2016 (EDT)

Basic reasons. Life happened, busyness ensued, hence I'm cutting out the non-essentials. I also find Smashwiki being the cause of unnecessary stress - I can be a bit too caring, obsessive, meticulous, and have a tendency to zero in on one thing for a prolonged amount time, as well as have a sense of ownership over what I do, and I don't think it's worth choosing to channel all that into Smashwiki over the more important and desirable things in my life currently. MuteSpittah (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

I just did an off the wall hunch check on you and found that this account is a sock of User:Aardvarkian and User:Papayazzi (who is also a known sock of User:Smashedpotatoes. Please do explain why this is. Per SW:SOCK, there should be no more than one account per person except for special circumstances. Serpent King 00:20, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

It's me and few friends who share accounts sometimes. Kinda thought this would happen. MuteSpittah (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

Is that against policy to share accounts? MuteSpittah (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

To share IPs you mean? Nah, but it can easily be confused as sockpuppetry, so it is discouraged. It's fine as long as you truly are different people. Serpent King 00:27, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

Yeah, ok. We've all kind of had to drop out of here...MuteSpittah (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

Welcome back

What brought you back? Penro 19:42, 10 July 2016 (EDT)

This

Whether or not what you claim is true, it is irrelevant in this case. You are still heavily violating SW:1RV and I've been monitoring you doing this all day. I request that you cease and bring any further dispute up on a talk page before I have to take action. Disaster Flare (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

Cool, but tell that to Miles too. MuteSpittah (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

SW:1RV (yet again...)

Welp, you just broke SW:1RV yet again. I'm not undoing your edit since I would break it too, so I'll just leave this here so an admin sees it ASAP. You should've discussed the theme with me at either my talk page or the page's talk to avoid this. -- BeepYou: is he leaving the wiki? (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2016 (EDT)

That's just great but can you provide proof of what you're trying to accomplish with the alt costume page? Don't put the blame just on me when you had all the power to discuss it too and you still broke it as well. We both broke a rule, great, but don't come in here pointing a finger when you haven't rightly pointed one at yourself. MuteSpittah (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2016 (EDT)

Then again, what you were putting was blatantly false information, and you made no attempt to provide reasons to support your reasoning, so I was actually right to revert your edits. It's indisputable that black is not green and white is not green? MuteSpittah (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2016 (EDT)

Be that as it may, justifying yourself isn't gonna fly by me. Whether it was blatantly false or not, BeepYou had no malicious intentions, therefore, you should've still discussed it nonetheless (I'm talking to both of you here). You've been reminded about SW:1RV a number of times now and it still doesn't seem to quite stick in your head. Quite frankly, I'm getting somewhat sick of seeing issues like this occur with you, so I'm here to issue a warning: if I catch you edit warring again, you will be blocked for it, as you're still violating rules regardless of whether or not you're right. Disaster Flare (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2016 (EDT)

Eh, AFAIK, SW:1RV only applies after the second time you undo an edit and revert it to your version. Also, I have played the three games, so I know exactly what I'm stating and what I'm removing. There's no blatantly false info whatsoever. -- BeepYou: is he leaving the wiki? (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2016 (EDT)

Here's what I see happening here: Mute, I really need you to start using talk pages. If you believe an edit to be incorrect or whatever, revert it then go to the user's talk. Beep, edits like those (controversial/opinionated) should probably also be discussed (and proven) before being made. Serpent King 21:29, 10 August 2016 (EDT)

Got it. -- BeepYou: is he leaving the wiki? (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2016 (EDT)

I got it, but I wasn't trying to justify myself, I was referring to the part in SW:1RV that says there is an exception "For obviously false information, such as a user adding Mewtwo as a character in Brawl, this rule does not apply." I know there were times where I was being stupid, but this is one instance where I can say with confidence that this was definitely false information. It's like saying that that the sun doesn't shine, or that pigs fly, or that computers are live creatures. White and black are green? Blatantly false, right. Don't you understand how that's obviously false? MuteSpittah (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

But regardless, I shoulda saw it coming that he wasn't willing to prove it or talk it out and I should have initiated talking on my own accord, even when if I was in line with the exception. Sorry guys. MuteSpittah (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

After reviewing the images, I am going to have to agree that this is nothing like her green swap. You can't say that something borrows the pallet of something else if that pallet is black and white. Serpent King 01:16, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

Hm, you're just saying that now? I hope you and Disaster actually gave this situation a proper analysis prior to jumping into this dilemma. MuteSpittah (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

The dilemma at hand in this conversation was the 1RV breach, not the subject of it. You may want to reconsider your rude words. Serpent King 01:40, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

I wasn't trying to be rude, I can see why you interpreted that way and I am sorry for not wording it better. If you don't understand the specifics of the situation, how can you properly and fairly deal with it? That's what I'm trying to say. MuteSpittah (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

Seems like you were insinuating you didn't look into it prior to talking here, and I was wondering if that was true or not. MuteSpittah (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

I did not cross compare the images before, no. Incidentally, the link you left for Palutena's desc4 is bad. Please replace it. Serpent King 02:01, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

Already done. Just try to get a solid idea of the problem before jumping in, okay? MuteSpittah (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

• "Don't put the blame just on me when you had all the power to discuss it too..."
  

I guess you're right, yet blaming people for the same actions you made is ironical, eh?

• "We both broke a rule, great, but don't come in here pointing a finger when you haven't rightly pointed one at yourself."
  

I don't have to, because I never broke the rule.

• "...what you were putting was blatantly false information..."
  

I realized it wasn't blatantly false, but rather false in a non-malicious way. It did look like dull green to me. Her vambraces, her lower dress, her hair.

• "...you made no attempt to provide reasons to support your reasoning..."
  

I did! They were on my edit summary!

• "I was actually right to revert your edits."
  

On one side, yes. If I was putting wrong info, you can. But on the other side, no. Because you broke the rule instead of just editing an old version of the page.

• "I was referring to the part in SW:1RV that says there is an exception "For obviously false information, such as a user adding Mewtwo as a character in Brawl, this rule does not apply.""
  

Like I said, it wasn't obviously false. It was false in a non-malicious way, like Disaster Flare said.

• "I know there were times where I was being stupid..."
  

Not stupid, but stubborn.

• "I shoulda saw it coming that he wasn't willing to prove it or talk it out..."
  

YES I WAS! That's why I initiated this conversation on your talk page! I just did it late, that's all!

• "I should have initiated talking on my own accord..."
  

When? When edit warring becomes noticeable and an admin points it out for both of us?

• "I hope you and Disaster actually gave this situation a proper analysis prior to jumping into this dilemma."
  

Wow, rude. -- BeepYou: is he leaving the wiki? (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

I may or may not be fueling the fire right now, and I'm not going to address everything you said above, but just to be clear, a statement can be both obviously false and non-malicious. Like a kid can say that Santa Claus / the Easter Bunny is real. Or if you're just learning about times tables and say that 3 times 9 is 12. Or, sometimes when you're cracking jokes or being sarcastic (at least when you're not trying to tear someone down). An obviously false and non-malicious statement usually comes about from some sort of misunderstanding or misconception, which I'd say is what happened here. MuteSpittah (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

You both are bending 1RV to your own benefit. Beep, if you want to prove that black possibly with a tint of green resembles Palu's green swap (which it doesn't by the way), you'll have to bring that to the talk page first. You also did break 1RV right here. Mute, while the information may have been false, talk first act later. Your first revert was fine, the second one not so much. A claim that silly (sorry beep) will not impress the rest of the userbase. If you had just done that, we'd have ended up with the same result but without all of this needless childish drama. Serpent King 18:11, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

I'm not trying to prove it anymore. I'll just deal with it... reluctantly, but I will. -- BeepYou: is he leaving the wiki? (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

Man you got it, Serpent. MuteSpittah (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2016 (EDT)

about that edit summary

Sorry, I am feeling a little tired and wasn't thinking correctly. Sorry again Kirby's Crazy Appetite ~ 01:28, 12 June 2017 (EDT)