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

4,718

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 – 30/11/24

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)