Smasher talk:Rayquaza07

To the people editing my page, stop editing it when you are unaware of things like the new PR or my brawl placements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.235.0.55 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 January 2016 (EST)

Feel free to add content if you feel we have done you injustice. Serpent King 21:08, 6 January 2016 (EST)

I would like to say though that you can't prevent people from editing. If you see a flaw, then either point it out or fix it. Don't forbid people from editing it at all. Disaster Flare (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2016 (EST)

I have fixed the mains and 2ndaries section along with the brawl section, but people continue to change it back. The new PR has also been out and I am not on it due to "inactivity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.235.0.55 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}

Ok? ...if you're not on the PR, why are you bringing it up? Not helping your case here. Serpent King 21:14, 6 January 2016 (EST)

I think it's because people keep adding it back saying he's on the PR. Disaster Flare (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2016 (EST)

If you truly feel you were a "top professional" for Brawl, can you provide any of your results from Brawl? You were good, yes, but I'm not feeling the "top professional" bit since you're not providing results. I also can't recall you going out-of-state much for Brawl as well, which is also why I'm hesitant for it to be listed. As for Smash 4, it would've helped if you had provided the PR earlier. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2016 (EST)

All right, I looked up some results, and I think the top professional bit can stay. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2016 (EST)

Notable tournament placements in Brawl? And any other in Smash 4 besides Big House? Being top professional is consistently placing good, not just one tournament. If he has those results, add them to the smasher page. We are unaware of your placements for a reason. Joaco (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2016 (EST)

Notable placings = I have placed 5th at a national (phoenix saga), beating keitaro and delux to get the placing. I also have won like every local I went to (besides one where I had to leave in Gfs) from Jan 2012 to the winter of 2012). I have a positive record vs basically all of the PR from jan 2012 to 2014 when i stopped playing brawl, including tech chase, mikey lentia, zinoto, loe1, lain, l-cancel, roller, tutu, etc. Also, if you want to see some of my smash 4 placings they are on the smashboards account (I have won many locals not listed on there also). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.235.0.55 (talk • contribs) 14:27, February 12, 2016

5th at Phoenix Saga 4 is good, but... a national? It only had 75 entrants with primarily Midwest players. This was definitely a regional. However, a positive record during that time period vs. all of those players (especially Zinoto and LOE1) seems sufficient enough to list you as a top player for Brawl. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2016 (EST)

For smash 4, I have dropped sheik as a 2ndary (I may still use her in dubz). I am also comaining corrin alongside bowser and rosa (I have won and placed at locals on 3ds and wii u using bowser (and he is still my best or 2nd best character) so why do people keep removing him from my mains?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.210.104 (talk • contribs) 14:42, February 15, 2016

You are clearly not the smasher in question, judging by the history of the talk page. Also, remember to sign your comments. Disaster Flare (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2016 (EST)

....Okay I can't even tell anymore what's going on. Disaster Flare (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2016 (EST)

Bowser

Compare my results with any of the other bowser mains in smash 4 and you will see I have the best overall/most consistent results with him. Simply because most people out of state do not know about my bowser compared to my rosa doesnt mean I lack the results with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayquaza07 (talk • contribs) 20:05, November 16, 2016

MW Pr

The MW pr has an awful criteria and should not be on my profile or anyone's. It is biased towards Chicago and is not accurate to results or skill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.235.0.55 (talk • contribs) 17:39, January 5, 2017

Serpent King

If the information wasn't important enough to be on there seven months ago, it is hardly relevant now. Also, preventing anyone from editing my profile for more than a week (especially when I update my results very frequently) seems like an abuse of admin power just because you disagree with my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayquaza07 (talk • contribs) 20:19, April 9, 2017

As this isn't your first offense I disagree. To be honest, I don't much care about the trivia point at all, it's more the manner you tried to take it down in (sneaky and without acknowledgement, then edit warring) that got my attention. Please try taking things like this to the talk page like you are supposed to next time. For now, the protection is over in a week, admins can add what needs to be added in the mean time. Thanks for your understanding. Serpent King 22:32, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

Other users besides me have taken it down because it is an obvious attempt at trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayquaza07 (talk • contribs) 20:42, April 9, 2017

Yeah no, not buying that either, especially because the same information is right here. Besides, you are straying from the point I am trying to make. You are not going to get anywhere by not following the rules on this site. There are rules against edit warring, rules about content disputing, rules about so-called "page ownership", and rules about signing your comments, and you choose not to follow any of them. Until you do so, your opinion is going to be ignored because you are presenting it in a way that is considered disrespectful to the other editors. Serpent King 22:46, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

You're the one who originally put up a protection against "excessive vandalism" back in October 2016 for people trying to post similar stuff about it in my profile. It is kinda hypocritical to prevent people from "vandalizing" and then posting basically the same info back in 7 months later. Also, if it already in the BH6 results page, why does it need to be on my profile (seems redundant)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayquaza07 (talk • contribs) 21:29, April 9, 2017

Except that this isn't vandalizing at all. In fact, your edit was the one that's in the wrong. And please sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end. MHStarCraft 23:43, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

No I am not, Flare did that. And that was for legitimate vandalism, which what we are dealing with is not. And I don't really see it redundant no, because the two articles are not strongly related, so information is expected to be shared to keep readers on the same track. Serpent King 23:44, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

You're supposed to be a famous smasher. If you want to be someone who is respected, carrying on like this is NOT the way to behave, and is only going to further tarnish your reputation. Black Vulpine (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

"Except that this isn't vandalizing at all." When the same info was being posted in October 2016, it was considered vandalizing. " And I don't really see it redundant no, because the two articles are not strongly related." What? You literally just posted: "[...] especially because the same information is right here."Rayquaza07 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

You seriously don't recognize the difference between this and this? The first example claims that you are most known for a failure during a crew battle which is obviously false. The second example simply mentions the incident. And a smasher article of a smasher who participated in a tournament is not strongly related to that tournament's article, because there are other smashers besides just you there. Serpent King 00:03, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

The second example you gave said "notorious for" and the first one says "is most known." They are not exactly the same, but they are very similar. The BH6 crew section specifically mentions me and gives a link to my profile: "but in the last match, Kie managed a three-stock comeback versus Rayquaza07." If a person wanted to see the results of the BH6 crew battle, then they would just look there. Putting it in my profile seems unneeded or like some troll attempt.Rayquaza07 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

It's not a troll attempt, merely a fact, although it could be worded better. But whether the article is about you or not, you cannot simply come on here and remove stuff as you so please, and you DEFINITELY cannot engage in repeatedly reverting an edit that someone already reverted. If you made a change, and someone reverses it, DO NOT keep trying to change it back. You talk about it on the talk page, like we're doing now, and you do so in a CIVIL manner, which is NOT what you're doing now, but rather being very argumentative. Do I make myself clear? Black Vulpine (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

Yeah, it is a fact, but does that mean the results of EVERY crew battle/side event should be in the trivia section? How it is written/what the intention seems to be is one of trolling/trying to be inflammatory. Of course I'm being argumentative, it is an argument lol.Rayquaza07 (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

"Of course I'm being argumentative, it is an argument lol." Then let me make something else clear: This is a Wiki, not a political firing range. We are not here to start or uphold arguments. We are here to present facts and NOTEWORTHY trivia. If all you want to do is argue with people, you're on the wrong site - it's as plain and simple as that. Black Vulpine (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

The argument only started because of a recent post(s) in the trivia section on something that hasn't been mentioned on here in MONTHS. So it was clearly not noteworthy enough because it was not mentioned on here since around the day it happened.Rayquaza07 (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

So it was clearly not noteworthy enough because it was not mentioned on here since around the day it happened.

So you wanna play by that card, huh? Then I guess your article's not notable, since it didn't get created the day you became notable. In fact, let's just delete everything on the wiki since it's clear that they aren't notable. It. Does. Not. Matter, if it was not included the day it happened. Noteworthy facts are still noteworthy, no matter how embarrassing, demeaning, or downright cruel to the smasher it may seem. You have legitimate facts that it's just a troll edit or that it's clearly not notable enough? We'll talk. But so far, all you've done is break rules and then as soon as an admin protects the article for a legitimate reason, you've just whined and complained while also trying to slander us. You're just making yourself look worse and worse right now, and if it's going to keep up, I am fully prepared to punish you accordingly. Keep complaining and claiming we're abusing power all you want, but we're just doing our jobs and quite frankly, we're sick of your sour behavior plaguing the place. I highly advise you shape up right here and now. Disaster Flare (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

And to play further on how "It took so long for people to get around to it", I have to repeat that this is a Wiki. You will have articles and sections that can go untouched for months or even years before someone comes along to add, remove or modify existing information, including information that could have been added from the very beginning. But as Disaster Flare says, the real problem is the way you're handling the situation. It's true that the trouble didn't start until someone recently brought it up again, but it's ALSO true that you're the one who started the argument by saying, "Hey, this is my page, I'll put whatever the hell I want on it!" Being argumentative, edit warring, and disruptive behaviour is pretty much everything contrary to what a Wiki is about. And you have committed multiple counts of each and every one of those infringements on just today alone. If I've read Disaster Flare's comment correctly, then it means that you have officially been given your final warning. I strongly suggest you heed it. I will not discuss this matter with you further. Black Vulpine (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

The fact that other people have dropped 3 stocks to 1 in crew battles yet I don't see it mentioned in their trivia section is evidence enough that it is just a troll attempt or there is malicious intent. Also, how do you decide what is noteworthy when it comes to trivia when it is purely subjective?Rayquaza07 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Idk, why do you feel you are above our reversion rules, consistently claim that the edit is malicious intent though we have proven it isn't, and continue arguing with us over a stupid trivia point? Serpent King 22:56, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

As far as I'm concerned, you haven't proven that it wasn't malicious. If you think it is just a stupid trivia point, then why go to such extremes in preventing any edits to the page?Rayquaza07 (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Because your attempts to cover up your embarrassment over the point have caused a breach in policy, and the fact that you don't seem to care tells me that I should have just blocked you and saved myself a headache. The edit is not malicious because A) it is elsewhere and no one is contesting it, B) you are the only one arguing against it, and this is especially a strong point being that you are the subject of the point, and C) It just...isn't. There is no language or slander in the point, it literally is just pointing out that the event happened.

Now then, the protection on this article ends in five days, if breach 1RV by reverting the point again at that point, I promise I will replace it with a month's block. Serpent King 23:19, 11 April 2017 (EDT)