User talk:92.23.120.66

Writing Standards
Greetings! I've noticed you making various edits on Paper Mario-related articles, such as Shadow Sirens. However, I must tell you that you've been writing far too flowery. According to wiki rule, one must write in a simple, easy-to-understand syntax, and not as though they're attempting to write an epic. Thank you, and have a nice day. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2017 (EDT)

Must be some IP confusion, I haven't edited the Shadow Sirens article. 92.23.120.66 10:53, 10 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I believe he was referring to your edit on Ms. Mowz, which contained a lot of flowery writing. Please read Good writing for more information. -- 11:07, 10 September 2017 (EDT)

My edit to Ms Mowz contained no such flowery writing and significantly improved the article in several respects. It's likely that due to confusion with another IP the editor is being overzealous and not checking for consistency. Regardless, if another editor would like to highlight what he believes to be examples then he can bring them up in discussion. 92.23.120.66 11:10, 10 September 2017 (EDT)

I'm taking the time to read through the edits made by another to the Shadow Sirens page, and my suspicions prove correct. Although I wouldn't describe much of what that user added to the article as "flowery" at all, there's a lot of irrelevant detail added that doesn't develop the article. It bears no resemblance to the sole edit made by myself to Ms. Mowz's page.

I understand that IP confusion occurs, and skim reading and editing when trying to clearup happens and is forgiveable. 92.23.120.66 11:22, 10 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Regardless, you are edit warring, which will lead to a ban if it keeps up. Please discuss this with the other users involved. 11:26, 10 September 2017 (EDT)

An offer for a discussion has been extended in the edit notes of the page. No more edits or revertions have occurred within the following 24 minutes or so - I'll keep an eye on the page, and will assume the issue is resolved if neither a discussion nor another reversion occur. 92.23.120.66 11:35, 10 September 2017 (EDT)

Grubba
The rewrite template is mostly there for getting rid of flowery writing. I don't really see this with your edit, hence why I reverted it. 14:15, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

At first I thought you simply meant you undid my removal of the tag, which is okay. However on review you undid my entire edit, which I have since reverted given the improvement in writing standards and accuracy it brought to the article. No flowery language present, the text is plain and entirely in line with the game's contents. 92.23.120.66 11:00, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * Listen, no one wants to read all of that frill, it just makes people disinterested if they have to read through dramatic flair to get to the relevant information. "Eventually, Grubba's research bore fruit." That is a figure of speech, and as such has no place on here. "Affable Texan mannerisms." Just making something a bit more difficult for the masses to understand, nothing more. And resemblance to a Stone Spike? Minorly in that they're blue spikes, but should Kolorado's Wife be noted to look like Mad Koopa because they're both pinkish-orange-skinned Troopas? I don't think so. Good writing is straight to the point, and more importantly, easy for the masses to read. Thank you for your time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * In terms of writing for MarioWiki, less is more, and if you can describe the same subject using less words, it's better for our readers and for our purpose. I also suggest you read this to get a better idea on what writing should be like on MarioWiki. Your revision is something I didn't find palatable, so I went ahead and rewrote this myself. 14:41, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

And the frill to which you refer being...? Every bit of content added to the article by my edits is relevant and accurate. My edits actually removed several items of redundant info, which I am prepared to search for as well if you so please, and further more many sentences prior to editing were, in the most direct sense, poor english diction. I challenge you, in all honestly, to itemise any changes you find otherwise. Out of respect from editor to another, I will entertain any and all specific disputes in the writing of the article and come to a meaningful understanding. The assertion that the edits constitute "flowery writing", by real standards, is one I will continue to find absurd until some evidence is forthwith. The other points you raise here are pure opinion. The idea that "research bore fruit" is in any way an unusual, difficult to parse or taxing statement is not one supported by any standard of writing. Common english idiom, in specific or in general, may not suit you personally, but you will find it in abundance in professionally written encyclopedia and historic accounts, and it absolutely fine here. I do not object to rewriting a sentence as that with "Eventually, Grubba's research had successful results" - but that replacement is *precisely the definition of overly-bloated language*, which actually is important to avoid. I could go on for examples like "affable" as a difficult word - last I checked this is not some obscure piece of jargon, antiquated or mystifying, but plain english. I'll note again the confusion of my edits with those of authors prior. The piece about resemblance to Stones was in the article before I ever editted it, myself having no aware of said enemy prior to clicking the link myself. I actually considered the comparison a little needless, but decided against removing it as it was ultimately fairly harmless. If you decide that you don't think it belongs, remove it, and next time do some research on how it entered the article before sundering your argument with incorrect claims. In closing this brief response, I will note the importance of comprehensiveness within the scale and scope of a given encyclopedic project. Concision is exactly as important as comprehension, and the two come together in a balance depending on the scale of the article. This is Super Mario Wiki. It is a specialty wiki designed to house all knowledge relevant to Mario as a video game series. Bear that in mind when advocating for "less is more", given the nature of detail that is relevant to its content. 92.23.120.66 15:16, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

Keep up this edit warring and I will make sure someone gets banned or warned. Instead of pointlessly reverting and re-reverting the revisions, talk about it before making the change. I'm reverting the page back to how it was before, and I don't want to see another similar rewrite on this or another page again until a discussion on what should happen takes place, whether it be here or on the page's talk page, and comes to a decision. To this anonymous user, the descriptions you are adding are very over the top, and in some cases unnecessary. The information about Jolene, for example, specifically her role in helping Mario under "X", is irrelevant to Grubba and would better fit on her own page. And the backstory of Grubba seems very speculative, he says very little about what he does in his past. Your edits may be in good-faith, but at the same time, you are ignoring the advice given to you by other users. Since due to policy I can't stick a template on an anonymous user's talk page, consider this an informal warning and learn to work with others. The users here are trying to help you come to grasps with how this wiki is run, so please respect them. And to the users involved (including me), please try to understand what this anon is trying to say. 15:44, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

No, your writing is not entirely relevant when multiple editors dispute over it and you get into an edit war with many others myself included; maybe it's accurate, but it dwlelves into serious flowery writing that is not acceptable in MarioWiki.

I'll get the easy stuff out of the way first, the section "Duties as owner of the Glitz Pit" is completely unnecessary to the entire article. It's just a restatement of what the earlier paragraphs have stated without adding anything new to the article. His personality and history section covers literally everything that paragraph has to say about what he does in the Glitz Pit. It can be scrapped entirely without compromising anything.

"By his own account, Grubba was poor in his youth, and did not care for "fancy, big-city ways." He fought his way to becoming a prized martial artist, and in encountering fame and fortune, his views began to change. Surviving controversies such as some of his wrestling moves being made illegal, Grubba became a recognized champion fighter and earned enough money to live comfortably for the rest of his life."

I've changed the first phrase to "according to Grubba", because it's easier to read that way and it's less wordy than "by his own account", in that case, less is more. The term "Surviving controversies" is far too flowerly for my liking, it draws connections that possibly aren't there and the term "controversy" is an incredibly loaded term, and it's better to say "Though some of his moves were made illegal" for encyclopedic purposes.

"At an unknown point in the past, Grubba attained the Gold Star, one of the legendary seven Crystal Stars and one with the ability to increase the user's physical power via Power Lift. Aging and forced to retire, Grubba was content to become a fight promoter at Glitzville, but secretly he harbored a desire to remain fit and powerful, retaining the strength of a champion if only he himself knows it. Grubba began researching into the star to find more potent ways to enhance his strength. He learned how to make a convincing replica of the Gold Star, which he had affixed on the Champ's Belt of the Glitz Pit. "

We don't need to describe the Gold Star as "one of the legendary seven Crystal Stars". My revision simply says that "At some point, Grubba attained the Gold Star, a Crystal Star with the ability to increase one's power by enabling its possessor to use Power Lift." The next sentence that talks about aging is also written too flowerly. Just say "Over time, age deteriorates Grubba where he retires from fighting and becomes a fight promoter at Glitzville. Despite his inability to fight, Grubba remains nostalgic about his past and secretly desires to regain what he once was." For Grubba conducting research, this draws connections that are not stated in the game, and the sentence can be removed entirely without compromising connections. Just say, "He creates a fake Gold Star for the Champ's Belt and he uses the real Gold Star to power his energy draining machine." That's it. We don't need more details than that, and readers know what is going on.

"Eventually Grubba's research bore fruit, and he developed a power-draining machine that harnesses the Gold Star to suck the might out of fighters, in order to bestow it onto another. Grubba proceeded to abuse his trusted authority as the arena's promoter to lure promising fighters to the machine, where he drained their essence and used it to grant himself unnatural youth and longevity. He even learned to power himself more dramatically than with the standard Power Lift, resulting in his transforming into Macho Grubba."

This is all flowerly writing. Encylopedias don't use idioms and metaphors to describe events. Again, we don't need to know the details of Grubba conducting research and whether it "bore fruit" or not. Just say that he made the fake Gold Star and get rid of all that unecessary cruft. "Suck the might out of fighters" is again, an incredibly loaded and flowerly phrase: just say, "Transfer energy from one user to another". The following sentences are written so badly that I don't really feel like pointing out how much they violate our Good Writing standards I linked to you.

I'm not done yet. I want to do something else right now but there's so much more left to speak that I can't do this all in one go. 15:59, 17 September 2017 (EDT)


 * "Affable" isn't common language. The absolute most important thing to remember is that kids browse this site. I discovered Mariowiki in the 4th Grade, and didn't learn that the word "affable" even existed until high school, and I took all honor's classes, so I'm a highly intelligent person. A better word is "friendly." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
 * I'd actually argue that I accept the term "affable" for use in personality sections as the term is fairly neutral enough to see use in this wiki. I'd also argue that it's good that kids learn vocabulary. There's so much other stuff to pick on this article, however, so I think this is a minor point compared to everything else. 16:06, 17 September 2017 (EDT)