User talk:104.181.85.104

Paper Mario edit

Please stop edit warring over the Paper Mario fact, if you see it's not there for a reason don't add it again okay. I'm telling you in the most polite way to please stop. Two PM games start with a book, edit warring is a Level two offense, if you continue doing this I think I will have to get an Sysop involved thanks. The RPG Gamer (talk) (edits) 04:01, 24 July 2016 (EDT)

This isn't edit warring. This is changing it back to how it actually is, your reason isn't an applicable reason because you're making it sound like the Paper Mario games exist within an alternate timeline or pocket dimension of sorts because of Paper Jam's existence which both isn't true but it also defeats the entire point of having a Paper Mario (Character) article and siting Paper Jam as his first appearance, but you're also making an assumption of a past game's creators intent because of something that was made 11 years later. That's against wiki policy and it also isn't even it would work if Mario had an established timeline anyway. The first three games have continuity ties to the Main series such as Luigi's Diary mentioning the sports, Party, and Kart series, as well as setting up the plot to Luigi's Mansion and having connections to Sunshine and SuperStar Saga with the Delfinos and Beanish people being in the games. And it also has Goombario and Goombella's tattles mention that the Mario in the Paper Mario games is THE Mario from Super Mario Bros. 1. That is more valid than a game that came later that doesn't even have any continuity ties to the previous games other than Sticker Star anyway. And it was also only the second time. Edit warring is when you do it three times in a row. If there were days or weeks in between the edits it isn't an edit war. Secondly, You're making assumptions based on a book opening that is only used as a thematic and not as an actual world. The proposal was to use Paper Jam, not the Paper Mario games. If you get the admins involved they'll likely agree with me because they were the ones who put that into the article in the first place. You're the one who is in the wrong here, not me.