User talk:Cookies and Creme/Archive 2

current talk page

Archive

1. 1

NOTE: I respond to almost all messages posted on my talk page. If you posted something, expect an answer from me.

Hi

Don't know if your still active on Wikibound but I left a little present on your talk page if you want to see it. (And yes I took your userbox if you don't mind, if you want mine then you take it) SupαToαd64, the Best 20:12, September 24, 2019 (EDT)

Hello! Yes, I saw it a while back ago, so thanks for welcoming me! I'm mostly active on SmashWiki for the competitive stuff, but I try to help out on WikiBound from time to time. (Also enjoy the user box, tbh it isn't that great). CookiesCreme 20:15, September 24, 2019 (EDT)

Nickelodeon SSB

What other Nick characters would you think be the other SSB characters? Maybe Squidward as Inkling? 174.55.24.64 21:50, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Ooh the speculation would be fun... unfortunately they aren't actually on the image. Maybe I could do a separate section dedicated to such speculation? And yes, Squidward as Inkling would work, I also thought Swiper as Joker. CookiesCreme 21:52, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

• You should make that a sandbox. And you can add Sans too. 174.55.24.64 21:54, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Maybe in the near future, but not now. CookiesCreme 21:57, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

IP talk page discussion

Remember to quietly deal with proven vandals, which includes keeping discussion to a minimum. This avoids needlessly bloating a discussion, especially if it's made clear that a resolution won't ever be reasonably reached. Nokii — 00:28, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

Here's the thing, I truly believed he was doing it in some sort of good faith and still is. I don't necessarily think it's vandalism, per se, just stubbornness. Anyways, yes I did get carried away at some points, I'll just be more careful. CookiesCreme 00:29, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

If I may put up a defense, Cookies is right. The IP was not a vandal and meant good faith, but at the same time the IP did not read the policy and was stubborn to listen to our warnings, and so was edit warring and trying to push his opinion about Shadow. We were basically trying to explain how he was going against the policies, and telling him why his edit was unacceptable while showing false points he added, but he wasn't listening, and at the same time he was taking our responses the wrong way. In a way yes his edit would be considered vandalism, but he was inexperienced and didn't intentionally mean bad faith, so the rule doesn't fully apply for this instance.SupαToαd64, the Best 07:16, September 29, 2019 (EDT)

Agreed: the IP clearly wasn't stupid. They knew exactly what the warnings meant, but decided that they didn't matter because they were "right". They were just extremely biased and ignorant, hence why I thought it would be "fun" to entertain them (I actually had a response to their last post typed out, but the page was archived before I could post it). In my defense, I had completely forgotten that I reported this IP for vandalism over a month ago (granted I didn't bother reading what they actually posted back then), although the fact that they was willing to respond to the people reminding them about policy (in their own twisted way) partially renders that moot. Though frankly, considering he can still post on their talk page, I don't really know why they stopped. - EndGenuity (talk) 09:55, September 29, 2019 (EDT)

SW:QDV

This kinda flies in the face of QDV. Attempting to converse with people like DBF is generally counter-productive. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 13:11, September 30, 2019 (EDT)