|
NOTE: When commenting on my talk page, please keep in mind the following:
|
Solid Snake
What?! That was so true. Just play Metal Gear Solid 5 and you'll know I'm right. Big Boss in the original Metal Gear is Venom Snake, and the ending reveals that. Skuchi037 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2018 (EDT)
SW:OWNERSHIP
Nowhere in the policy does it say that an edit summary must be included when removing personal information. Awesome Cardinal 2000 23:56, 20 March 2018 (EDT)
- Not a policy but Help:Edit summary suggests leaving edit summaries for removal of information, and I would tend to agree. Serpent
King 00:05, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- Yeah, turns out I had the wrong article. But even so, leaving edit summaries, no matter the circumstances, is something we actively enforce as if it is a policy, and that's what I was doing. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:09, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- It suggests it but does not say "must," and it does not say to revert a player's removal of their real name if they request to. And regardless of what the policy says, can't we at least respect the desires of players to hide their personal info? The player has already attempted to remove the name multiple times. Consider that there are many people who play smash on a competitive level just for fun, and would rather not have their personal info posted on some site on the Internet. Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:14, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- I'm pretty sure SK will side with me on this one, and I understand your concerns, but given that we ALWAYS revert no-summary removals, I honestly don't think it would be fair for us to make an exception for this bloke, because he has inadequately disclosed his intentions. There are actually quite a lot of things in the Help guides that we enforce as a policy, and this is one of those things. If you think there should be a change, take it up with administration. My hands are tied. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:24, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- Well SW:OWNERSHIP doesn't say that you must revert it every single time it happens. And the player even left a deletion tag saying "this page was made about me and I would no longer like it to be available on the internet." Is that not a reasonable enough attempt at communication at least suggesting that at least their real name should be removed? Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:32, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- I'll discuss it on Discord and see what we say. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:42, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- Well the policy basically says that a reason should be included when removing personal content. If you're going to continue to insist that after the player removed his multiple times and left an explanation in the deletion tag, that his name still be kept on the page, that's just being completely stubborn and unreasonable. Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:52, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- Do not harass me. These are unusual circumstances and while the solution might be clear in your eyes, I do not want to do anything else without conferring with others. Be patient. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:54, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- I frankly do not understand how a user removing their name several times and posting a delete tag with an explanation count as "unusual circumstances" that leads to their name being kept on the page. Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:58, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- Do not harass me. These are unusual circumstances and while the solution might be clear in your eyes, I do not want to do anything else without conferring with others. Be patient. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:54, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- Well the policy basically says that a reason should be included when removing personal content. If you're going to continue to insist that after the player removed his multiple times and left an explanation in the deletion tag, that his name still be kept on the page, that's just being completely stubborn and unreasonable. Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:52, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- I'll discuss it on Discord and see what we say. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:42, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- Well SW:OWNERSHIP doesn't say that you must revert it every single time it happens. And the player even left a deletion tag saying "this page was made about me and I would no longer like it to be available on the internet." Is that not a reasonable enough attempt at communication at least suggesting that at least their real name should be removed? Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:32, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- I'm pretty sure SK will side with me on this one, and I understand your concerns, but given that we ALWAYS revert no-summary removals, I honestly don't think it would be fair for us to make an exception for this bloke, because he has inadequately disclosed his intentions. There are actually quite a lot of things in the Help guides that we enforce as a policy, and this is one of those things. If you think there should be a change, take it up with administration. My hands are tied. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:24, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- It suggests it but does not say "must," and it does not say to revert a player's removal of their real name if they request to. And regardless of what the policy says, can't we at least respect the desires of players to hide their personal info? The player has already attempted to remove the name multiple times. Consider that there are many people who play smash on a competitive level just for fun, and would rather not have their personal info posted on some site on the Internet. Awesome Cardinal 2000 00:14, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
- Yeah, turns out I had the wrong article. But even so, leaving edit summaries, no matter the circumstances, is something we actively enforce as if it is a policy, and that's what I was doing. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:09, 21 March 2018 (EDT)
REVISON
Being in two games is NOT a veteran? Looks like Diddy's not a veteran then.... User:RatedMforMario. Let's-a-go!~ 14:01, 22 March 2018 (EDT)
- Do you not read edit summaries? I said in the very next one that was a screw-up on my part, and I also said not to message me about it. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 16:12, 22 March 2018 (EDT)
Hey man
Can I use your userbox? Iron Reggie, the Easter Bunny Warrior 23:24, 27 March 2018 (EDT)
- Yes, you can. You don't need to ask. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 00:00, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
- Meh. I just thought it would be polite I guess. Iron Reggie, the Easter Bunny Warrior 00:36, 28 March 2018 (EDT)
A little help?
Hey, I've noticed that most people have their own pages, but I go to my page and see that I can't edit it, what's the problem? UltraNessDX (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
- It could be because you’re not autoconfirmed, which requires membership for 7 days and a minimum of 10 edits on the wiki. When not autoconfirmed, you cannot, among other things, create pages. However if memory serves me right, you should still be able to create your own page, so I don’t know what the problem there is. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 15:57, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
- Userspace editing is limited to autoconfirmed users when the Wiki status is yellow. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:21, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
- Well, there you go. In double checking this I found that the page is not up to date. I’ll fix that. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 17:18, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
- Userspace editing is limited to autoconfirmed users when the Wiki status is yellow. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:21, 24 April 2018 (EDT)
Concern
I know that there's no way to delete comments or accounts, and I know you you're frustrated with me, but why is it a part of the policy? I just want my posts to not be on Toomai's talk page anymore because I don't want anyone to possibly identify my name. If this can't be a fair exception to the policy, can you please explain why no deletion included in it? I also want my user page deleted please. Thank you. Stefiroth (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
- I am not an administrator, so I cannot help you with any of your concerns. Contact one of our active administrators for further assistance. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 21:34, 2 May 2018 (EDT)
- Your userpages have been deleted, but I will not make an exception for talk page posts. Serpent King 03:34, 3 May 2018 (EDT)
how exactly is "literal" against SW:TONE?
It's not even listed as one of the example bad words. It adds clarity to an otherwise confusingly-phrased trivia point. SW:TONE specifically refers to skewing towards a certain POV -- words like "best" and "worst". Also... it's been repealed. Its replacement, SW:NPOV, also refers solely to POV words, which literal is not one. TheNuttyOne 22:41, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
- The more relevant page, SW:WTW, is A) a guideline, so not mandatory, and B) also contains nothing that would include "literal", as far as I can tell. TheNuttyOne 22:46, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
- I was not aware that TONE was repealed. However, I still believe that words such as 'literal' should be used with care. Considering it a bad word to use would indeed be a bit of a stretch - I will admit this. But in this case, I do believe that its use here, albeit minorly, falls under editorialising. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 23:00, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
- um... no? Literal is not, by any definition, the same as "interestingly", "notably", or "unusually". Editorialism is described as giving something "inadvertent focus". Literal means "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory"; honestly, I'd say this is the exact opposite of editorialism, as it creates a sense of normality rather than unique terminology.
- The trivia point in question is on a page that uses the word clone to mean "a character in a fighting game who is identical, or similar with only a few key differences, to another character". By specifying "literal", we clarify that Dark Pit is a clone of Pit meaning "an identical copy". TheNuttyOne 23:28, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
- I still disagree with using the word literal. However, you have given me an idea on an alternative word to use, which I will go and implement now. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 23:33, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
- You... you do realize that true is a synonym of literal, right? TheNuttyOne 15:59, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- And you do realize that words have both official and implicit definitions, right? The word literal when used in this context implies a sarcastic or critical undertone to the statement. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:10, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- How so? How could the statement "a literal clone" be sarcastic or critical? TheNuttyOne 16:12, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- Because the words literal and literally when used as adjectives are generally used in that manner, and hence have developed these connotations over time. If there's one useful thing I learned from english at GCSE, it's that not all synonyms are equal. Some imply different emotions or undertones than others, either by virtue of how they sound when spoken, or how they are commonly used in conversation. As such, when writing it is important to choose the wording that best suits the message you are trying to get across, as different synonyms have subtle connotations to them that will cause phrases to be interpreted differently. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:16, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- The interpretation a word may connote only applies if that interpretation is relevant to or possible in the situation at hand. The sentence "Dark Pit is also the first moveset clone in Super Smash Bros. to also be a true clone of the character he shares moves with in his source game" cannot be sarcastic or critical. It is a literal, straightforward sentence.
- I don't have a problem with the current phrasing, seeing as it truly has the same meaning (that statement, by the way, also demonstrates that "true"/"truly" may carry the same sarcastic or critical implication if used correctly), so I see no reason to continue the argument. However, regardless of your personal uncomfort with a certain word, there's no policy against using "literal" when it is used properly. TheNuttyOne 16:21, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- Yes, that sentence is fine, but when you replace true with literal it sounds critical. As you stated yourself, interpretations of a word apply when it is relevant to the situation, and since clones, particularly clones as blatant as Dark Pit and generally seen as lazy and annoying, using literal in this context would have this effect. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:24, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- Because the words literal and literally when used as adjectives are generally used in that manner, and hence have developed these connotations over time. If there's one useful thing I learned from english at GCSE, it's that not all synonyms are equal. Some imply different emotions or undertones than others, either by virtue of how they sound when spoken, or how they are commonly used in conversation. As such, when writing it is important to choose the wording that best suits the message you are trying to get across, as different synonyms have subtle connotations to them that will cause phrases to be interpreted differently. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:16, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- How so? How could the statement "a literal clone" be sarcastic or critical? TheNuttyOne 16:12, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- And you do realize that words have both official and implicit definitions, right? The word literal when used in this context implies a sarcastic or critical undertone to the statement. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:10, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- You... you do realize that true is a synonym of literal, right? TheNuttyOne 15:59, 7 May 2018 (EDT)
- I still disagree with using the word literal. However, you have given me an idea on an alternative word to use, which I will go and implement now. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 23:33, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
- I was not aware that TONE was repealed. However, I still believe that words such as 'literal' should be used with care. Considering it a bad word to use would indeed be a bit of a stretch - I will admit this. But in this case, I do believe that its use here, albeit minorly, falls under editorialising. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 23:00, 6 May 2018 (EDT)
(reset indent) I, quite frankly, have no problem with the usage of the word "literal"; a "clone" in the fighting game series is used to refer to someone with a similar moveset as another character; Ken to Ryu, Fukua to Filia, Lucina to Marth. Dark Pit is the only moveset clone in Smash to also be a literal, physical clone of the character he's based on, as he was created as a clone of Pit in Kid Icarus Uprising via the Mirror of Truth. I fail to see the problem here. Aidan, the College-Bound Rurouni 22:32, 7 May 2018 (EDT)