User talk:Spyspotter/Archive α< User talk:Spyspotter
| This is a talk page archive.
It contains old discussions of topics relating to the user. Please do not add or remove any content from it.
|Welcome to Bulbapedia, Spyspotter!|
By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:
Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
The Preview Button
Instead of editing a page several times in a row, try using the preview button to make sure your edit looks the way you want it to. It's right next to the Save Changes button. Please try it out, so as not to clog up the Recent Changes. Thanks! --ForceFire 01:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Again, please use the preview button. Even when making large scale edits. Thank you.--ForceFire 22:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- If I'm not using the preview button, that means that I'm using my slow as heck computer that takes 5 seconds to process a command typed on the keyboard, 30 seconds to load a page, and that is constantly crashing rather than my iPad's Internet browser. The above comment is supported by Spyspotter. 03:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
For the record
There seems to be a problem with it. Is that a custom signature you've placed in your preferences or are you attempting to use a signature template (which is against the Signature Policy)? To sign, all you do is type out four tildes like this: ~~~~.--ForceFire 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
A Small Note
If you see a user with a possible username violation, you should contact a staff member directly instead of posting on the user's talk page. The user's talk page is not the place for that. Please keep this in mind during the future. Thank you. --Pokemaster97 03:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
About your editing of the Appendix:Metagame terminology article. Now, my involvement with this mess of an article has mainly consisted of cleaning up, but I do see a few issues with your revisions, and their edit summaries. This revision removes the "Goodstuff" section, with the explanation "removed foolish term. FYI, this is more commonly called a "powerhouse"." What matters here is whether this term is used among players, not whether it is "foolish". Your FYI-note is off the mark, as "powerhouse" is a general term used to describe any number of things considered strong, not at all a substitute for what the "goodstuff" term is meant to cover, as specified in its section entry (otherwise, try google.com). It may be foolish, I don't use it myself, but the only reason that would justify its removal is that the term did not at one point achieve notable usage in the fandom (which may be the case). This was apparently not your rationale for removing it, so I'm restoring it. Your second revision ("Removed foolish/outdated/unused terms. Seriously, half this stuff isn't used in the metagame, and I know what's going on there. I will add more and remove more later.") shows a lacking understanding of the purpose of the article; the article does not attempt to collect today's hottest strategy lingo, rather it provides explanations of terms that at one point or another in the history of the metagame saw notable usage among players. Again, "foolish" doesn't enter into it and "outdated" I just explained. "Unused" is a legitimate reason for removal, if it considers that the term may have been used significantly at an earlier time. Currently, most of the information you removed has been restored by users Turtwig-A and SnorlaxMonster, but I'll restore the rest, except for the "Atmacune" section, which I'm not going to defend, so you can remove any of these anew if you have a legitimate complaint. In your third revision you undo the changes of another user, which were similar to my intended changes, providing the explanation "I'm a top-level player, so I could be wrong about this. However, if you see anything that should be put back in, do it individually instead of undoing this entire edit. Some of these are just plain goofy." You are wrong about most of these, mistaking the purpose of the article, so it should rather be you who remove entries individually. Again, "goofy", like "foolish", is not relevant. If the fandom uses goofy/foolish terms, an article listing the terms used within the fandom will include goofy/foolish terms. Making an out-of-place statement praising yourself as "a top-level player" (like most metagame players believe themselves to be) also does little more than question/insult the hard work of others, and clearly backfires when it is apparent from your editing that you have not been one for huge parts of the history of the metagame, dismissing terms that have been very central as "foolish/outdated/unused". I'd prefer it if you do not make a face-saving retaliation after reading this, as I'm merely informing you of your mistakes, on a topic that isn't really a matter of opinion (article's subject matter). Yvnr (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Care to explain the reasoning behind reverting my walkthrough updates? The single paltry summary ("Undid so I could undo the previous edit.") does nothing to justify undoing it all at once. — KC 01:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- These are not Prima guides. We have different manuals of style. The way you edited the walkthrough was against our MoS. - unsigned comment from Spyspotter (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I know that, but these are walkthroughs, after all. It's not always possible for these pages to be as polished as the normal articles without being awkwardly-worded. As I understand it, these pages are bound less tightly to the manual because of this. Otherwise, it stands to reason that the admins would have taken issue with this ages ago. — KC 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
DiscussDelete on User and User_talk pages
Hello, I have noticed that you have been placing delete tags on user/talk pages on blocked users, many vandals. While we usually delete user/talk pages of blocked users, the older ones we don't worry about as it is just not worth the time going over. Thank you for reading.--ForceFire 05:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Glitch pokémon names
Please abstain from moving pages for glitch pokémon with a dubious name before asking an expert (in this case, SnorlaxMonster, the leader of Project GlitchDex). We can't be sure of the name being 4"4Hy or 4!4Hy because, as you may notice in the future, we can't always rely on a single name: it may be variable, being the used version the most common one (tough sometimes a variation is accidentaly used). This page was reviewed so many times, and 4"4Hy wasn't the first name to be given in Bulbapedia... there are more obvious cases here. But this one is so tricky that it would be good if you had asked first. Don't undo your edits, as I'm already waiting for an answer from him. Thanks. TheOriginalOne 21:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Another thing: when I said you shouldn't do anything more about it, I really meant it. You (along with other people) accidentaly created a web of problems, because the redirects are still there, and can just be deleted by staff members; the web also exists because SnorlaxMonster still isn't noticing my conversation, that has meanwhile been changed many times, because of more issues.
But the most important here is this: that thing isn't an equal sign. It's good to be creative, but not too much: it is a glitch block and, for it to be that, it would need to be really clear. Two oversized horizontal and parallel lines with a green block in the middle won't fit in the definition. Also, sorry for not having been very clear with you at the beginning: the reason why we shouldn't always thrust the glitch name image is the fact that it isn't always made according to the convention, which is the in-battle name. I have a feeling that the one from there was cropped from the status screen or something. Anyway, we can't be sure, so the best thing we can do is waiting for SM. TheOriginalOne 20:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
When replying to comments...
As I quite clearly stated here, anyone who would revert the edit would be blocked. You didn't read it, so you are being blocked. Regardless of that warning, you have contested that information over a half dozen times, which in itself is edit warring, and you probably should have been blocked for it back on July 8th. If you find yourself in a position of questioned edits, DO NOT EDIT WAR. Take the discussion to a talk page, be it the article's talk page, or the user in question.
That being said, I have described my personal feelings about the information in the edit summary (that you didn't read). It is our public stance on vandalism. The quotes in question are by evkl, the founding Editor-in-Chief of Bulbapedia, and myself, the 2010-2012 Editor-in-Chief of Bulbapedia. I'm pretty sure we know what we want on our pages. Moreover, you edit warred with Force Fire, an Administrator of Bulbapedia. There was really no reason to go any further than that with the issue in the first place when so many people involved in the site have said otherwise to you. Pay more attention to staff, read what people say, and if you find yourself in a position where you greatly disagree with something, even a staff member, take it to a talk page. -- MAGNEDETH 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Before you get the idea, no, I'm not picking on you. I even discussed with the staff about the "first Pokémon wiki" line and we decided it wasn't necessary. Thing is, I originally blocked you for edit warring, and the very first thing you do upon having your block lifted WAS EDIT WAR AGAIN. I made a comment about you not being able to read in my edit summary of the original reversion, and I admit, it might have been a little harsh, however, you're not doing yourself any favors by blatantly ignoring my words. It's simple. If you find yourself in a situation where you and another user disagree on subject matter, be it staff or not, take it to the talk page.
- This block is a second offense. If you edit war again upon your return you will be blocked for a significantly longer time. If you come back from that block and edit war again, it is a permanent block from the site. I'd like to think you're a good strong editor, but you absolutely can not edit war. -- MAGNEDETH 04:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)