User talk:Glowsquid/Archive 6

Tasty Flame

I should have said "potentate" instead of "thing". :P 3D, WANT SOME MORE?

Oh yes, I like when users are honest with me, which doesn't usually happen. i would be most pleased if you and Mr. Uniju would stop hypocritical praising me and then flame me the next day, Tank you.

Glowsquid

ME?! PRAISE YOU?!

WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, when have I ever praised you? 3D, WHEN?!

"Gofer: A good guy. A random guy. An itellectual guy. A sarcastic guy. A good guy. "

This was on your userpage before the abolition of the cool users list. There is also that nonsense on how I make such a great chat-operator, on this very page. Glowsquid

That's what a really do think of you. I NEVER say what I don't mean. 3D, HA!

I don't understand you.

Glowsquid

What I Think Of You In Full

You are a sarcastic, intellectual, witty guy with bad grammr and good taste. That is it. 3D, WELL?

OK, fine, I don't believe a word of what you said.

Glowsquid

You should. Now go to your room. 3D, AAAAAARGH

Stop spamming my talk-page, I don't give a flying shnitzel about what you and other users may think about me.

Glowsquid

Whatever you say, dear flying alien of sarcasam. 3D, auf wiedestein!

PM

I PM you on the forums.F g

WHY?

WHY DO YOU OPPOSE IF YOU ARE A LAZY B****RD AND DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT THE GAMES? WHY? Marionic. WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

WOW

How come you're so clever especially at your age, that you know words like exasperate, priority, perspective, incumbent, circumstances,etc. just to name a few and did you take lots of lesson during your lifetime?F g

I fear I can't respond to this.

Glowsquid

Yes I Know...

What I said to YoshiFan's talk page was NOT NICE taking ideas from other users...F g

Max2

You just missed the whole incident thing...F g

Yep... Plumber told me the whole tihng on the chat, must congrat you for warning Plumber about this.

Glowsquid

Smash Bros. Series

Hey are you a super smash bros. fan?F g

I have both games relaes so far and I am obbsessed over Ashley (And Shockwave) inclusions in Brawl, Smashboard.com want me to kill msyelf, thought. So I can say yes, I think.

Glowsquid

So do you mind signing up for this story? User:Supertroopa/StoryF g

Bleh, not interresed.

Glowsquid

You're Proposal

You're proposal has been accepted. A note that work should begin has been added to Category talk:Implied. -- Chris 01:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Gofer Glowsquid Blitzwing is a Proposal? Or what do you mean with "You're Proposal"? :þ Anyways, aren't we just deciding on limiting name changes? - Cobold (talk · contribs) 16:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Yep, Wayoshi told me we would all start on a clean line after his proposal is passed, thought.

Blitzwing

Name

I'm going to beat Fg to saying this. :P "Blitzwing? you don't sound like the Glowsquid I know" :P Xzelion^ETC

Aww why did you changed your name? I liked Glowsquid better...F g

Why? Squid's jokes, way too freaking many squid's jokes.

Blitzwing

List of Implied Guys

I love the list. I'm sorry I ever opposed it, but for the record I hope to even be working on it in the future! Kudos... GLOWSQUID!!! <-- don't worry... I'll start calling you your new name after a while, but you'll have to put up with me for a little while... just like "Great Gonzo" Xzelion, who is complaining about the name change above did! :3 Anyway, good luck with your new name, although the old one was amazing! Stumpers! 19:08, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Thank you! However, I missed two articles during the merge, also, most of the impleids are full of overly stupid speculation based on their names, which could deffinately use a cleanup, I think I could use some help on that matter.

Blitzwing

I'll help when I can! Stumpers! 20:09, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Cool

Like the new name! Better than the last. Btw, are you a patroller? Cause I heard somewhere. Oh wait, am I bothering you? *slaps self silly* (Toadbert101||Give a yell|Sez:Lol,internet.) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Yesterday in the chat, Pokemon DP said I would be a Patroller if I was "more active". That's about it.

Blitzwing

Canon/Non-Canon

I had a question for you, since you are a more involved user and you seem to share my general angst regarding the whole "It's non-caon because it's from Phillips/whatever" thing that seems so prevalent in the Mario community. I've been throwing an idea around for a while that perhaps our separation of storylines into games, TV, books, etc. is completely uncalled for. I don't know what the argument for the games being one supreme storyline is, and that all the others are just knock-offs that should not be considered. It seems rather fan-boyish to me.

We make concessions in order to establish continuity between the games. For example, is Baby Mario in the sports titles? We don't call that canon even though it is unexplainable... without adding too much speculation. So, what's the difference between that and something like the Super Mario Bros. Super Show, which shows the brothers in Brooklyn? We don't have proof against the bros. spending some time in the Real World, but still the storyline is abandoned to the "other media" section.

Do you think that it would be worth it to point this out? Does the thought even have standing given your knowledge? If you think so, I could probably get around to writing an argument to post on the main talk page in the near future. Stumpers! 23:16, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Meh, I agree that the D.I.C should be put in an alternate-continuity because of its numerous difference, like Mario talking and Bowser appearance. However, I am against the idea of labelling a game "non-canon" simply because it was released on another system and made by another compagny. A game should only be qualified "non-canon" when it bablantly disregard and contradict elements of the past games, or if God said so.

Blitzwing

Okey-dokey. I'm still not sure of how to accommodate the cartoons myself, but that seems reasonable. Thanks! Stumpers! 07:10, 28 November 2007 (EST)

0.o'

Nice new name, Blitz of Flaming Rabid Glorious Bad Grammar. Of course, now you're going to add this to your page. :P Nice to see you around; this place wouldn't be the same without you lurking in the shadows. How are things on the forum? 3D, OH NOES OH NOES

And what IS the Forum Game? And who ARE the new posters? 3D, and why do you REFUSE to post at the BOTTOM of my TALK PAGE?

I like things at the bottom because it's easier to notice, and since you didn't put it at the bottom, I didn't notice it until JUST NOW! I knew about Dodoman and Maka already; Maka's neat and Dodoman's weird. 3D, touche.

OH MY GOD! BLITZWING CORRECTED GRAMMAR! ARMAGEDDEON IS HERE!

Lulz. Anyhoo, I shall fix it... in 2035... 3D, oh, and read my new rules. Make a new header if you're not the one who made the one you're posting under.

Youtube

Hey. How did you be able to get Youtube on your userpage and why I got the feeling that name of yours is from Transformers?(Super F22 Pilot 04:50, 8 December 2007 (EST))

Oops.

Whoa. I didn't know that community-stuff-like-stuff was banned now. WHY WAS I NOT INFORMED?! :P THanks for doing that for me; you're a great help. 3D, I is in big trubbles now!

Boo Woods

Recently you put back up the part conjecture template on the Boo Woods article. It's making me thinking about our policy on drawing conclusions as a Wiki. Here's my problem, layed out in a very long-winded form... sorry about that!

No, E. Gadd doesn't say anything like, "Welcome to Boo Woods!" you're right. However, he made a comment in Partners in Time that he was moving to Boo Woods to study ghosts, and we know that he was been doing it there since he as young from his dialogue in Luigi's Mansion. I find it highly unlikely that Nintendo would put these two facts in the game an not expect for fans to connect them. However, high unlikeliness isn't suitable for an encyclopedia as we all know.

But, right now the only evidence against it being in Boo Woods is the fact that E. Gadd could possibly have moved to the location of Luigi's Mansion after moving to Boo Woods. We don't have this explicately written, but what else could it be? By placing the conjecture box there, it's like we're saying "Hey, we know that under certain circumstances Nintendo could destroy this assumption if they added more information. At the current point we have no reason to believe that E. Gadd moved from Boo Woods to another location before the events of LM, but Nintendo hasn't cemented the canon to a point where it couldn't have happened yet."

But neither have they killed, beyond a doubt, the idea Mario and Princess Peach had the "Baby Mario" seen in the Mario sports series. Still, there it is in our article that the same Baby Mario whom the Yoshi's rescued was there in the present, with no reasoning from Nintendo. Of course, we're going to assume they're the same because that makes sense. We're not going to say in the article, "It is possible that this is not the same Baby Mario that is today's Mario because Nintendo did not explicately say so in the game/instruction booklet." That would be pointless. We have no reason to believe otherwise.

But, having no indication that this is what happened, we are in fact conjecturing that E. Gadd could have moved to the location of LM after moving to Boo Woods with no information other than the fact that "Nintendo not explicitely call the woods Boo Woods in LM and has not explicitely discribed E. Gadd's youth." Of course, neither have they explicately said that the FLUDD was made by E. Gadd, yet we assume that it was because of the overwhelming connections to LM made in Super Mario Sunshine. There could be any number of "old [men] in a white coat", particularly if E. Gadd had a brother to name "Gadd Science, Inc." after himself. You see what I'm getting at? It's the same logic: Nintendo leads us to belive something in SMS, so we take the bait as we should and believe it's true. However, E. Gadd wasn't even mentioned in that game, as the professor's lab in Luigi's Mansion wasn't mentioned in PiT. Nintendo leads us to believe something across two main-series games In both senarios, Nintendo has made a reference to a previously released game, yet we are allowing ourselves to draw conclusions in one and not the other. To not draw the conclusion we did in SMS would be outrageous.

The creator of Super Mario Galaxy just said in an interview last week that the Mario franchise purposefully left possibilities open in the storylines so that the games did not have to worry about matching each other completely. Yet that's our job: to make a Wiki about the cohisive canon. When one of hte assumptions is proven false, such as the assumption that Tatanga worked independently of Wario (who wasn't even introduced when Super Mario Land came out). This assumption, had the Wiki existed when Super Mario Land II was released, would have been removed from the Wiki. It happens. With the information of the present, our assumptions still stand.

At what point can we make these connections to form a cohesive canon? I'm sorry for how long this was, but it might be very important to the Wiki in the end. I could see this changing a lot of things, for example the Cranky=Donkey Kong during the events of the arcade game theory. Stumpers! 20:49, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Meh, I'd rather have the Luigi Mansion forest being discussed in the Boo Wood article than having another sperate conjectural article for the Luigi Mansion FOrest. Maybe what we are doing is conjecturing, but at least, we are basing our conjecture on facts.

Blitzwing

That's what I was thinking, (Holy crud... that's long! What was I thinking?! SORRY!) but my real question was why we would have to put up the conjecture sign and say things like "is assumed to be" when Nintendo's left those clues? My point was that we've just made the assumptions and called it a day, like you say we should for the sake of our sanity, before. It's what I'd like to do, too. Stumpers! 22:01, 8 December 2007 (EST)

... I don't understand what you are trying to say,

Blitzwing

Note to self: Stumpers should not write about abstract concepts after getting two hours of sleep the night previous. ANYWAY, what I meant to say is this: I believe we don't need the conjecture template on Boo Woods. Take a look at this scenario:

1. Gadd Science, Inc. and "An old man in a while coat gave it too me" --Bowser Jr. Both are from Super Mario Sunshine. Clues in the game lead us to believe that E. Gadd created Bowser Jr.'s magic paintbrush and the F.L.U.D.D. However, the game does not go so far as to mention him by name. These are two references to Luigi's Mansion. Should we write that E. Gadd made the magic paintbrush? Absolutely! To not say it would be to say that, "If a guy lights a bomb and the camera zooms out to show the entire building explode, the guy may have used the bomb to destroy the building." We didn't see him do it specifically, but we assume it because... well, it's obvious because of the clues given to us.
2. Boo Woods and the location of Luigi's Mansion: In the game Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time a young man version of E. Gadd tells Mario and Luigi that he wishes to move to Boo Woods in order to study ghosts. In Luigi's Mansion, E. Gadd states that he has been studying in his current lab since he was a young man. Should we then assume that E. Gadd has been studying in Boo Woods since he was a young man? Yes. We have no reason to believe otherwise. It is true that in the future Nintendo could reveal more about E. Gadd's past, but right now, there is no reason for us to doubt it. The same goes with the Paintbrush and F.L.U.D.D.

Does it make more sense now? The two scenarios are the same: we should be allowed to make those assumptions, right? Stumpers! 16:46, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Bleh, for what we know, E. Gadd might have moved from Boo Woods to the Luigi Mansion Forest between Partner in time and LM. In SUper Mario Sunshine, E. Gadd likeness can be found on the box that contain the Nozzle's.

Blitzwing

Yes, but "could have" is based off of a conjecture you make. We don't have any evidence for it. That's what my question was about. When can we just say, "There's no proof otherwise, so we're calling it canon until further notice from Nintendo"? It looked like it was E. Gadd's likeness, but until we saw that likeness again being directly linked with E. Gadd at the Star Beans Cafe, someone could say, "It could be a coincidence, and therefore the FLUDD may or may not have been made by Gadd." But, we and everyone else (as we should) logged it as fact even before the cafe, right? I wasn't around this Wiki at the time, but that's what I was seeing on the main Wikipedia, which is more strict than us on conjecture. Stumpers! 19:00, 9 December 2007 (EST)

We are not Wikipedia, these guys have their policy on conjecture, we haveo ur. Ask Son Of Sun for this kind of thing, I am sure he will be able to find a response.

Blitzwing

And thank goodness for that! I hate Wikipedia, I just assumed they'd be more strict than us, so if they were allowing it, we would be right? Anyway, that doesn't matter. Thanks for the advice. Stumpers! 19:13, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Welcome Accepted

Hello, how are you? I just want to say thanks for the welcome dude. Shadowbean 20:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

YourMom

Notify a sysop while I revert the edits. 3D, @#$%

Bleh, when a sysop will come on, he/she/it will likeky notice the vandalism caused by that guy and take the appropriate action, warning the sysops is a waste of time.

Blitzwing

Eh?

What is up? 3D, I is protesting stupid fanon over @ Userpedia.

Currently, I am crusading against the "Wiki War II". See Talk:Leet Town on Userpedia. I'm leaving for the night; it's 4:30 and I'm beat. I'll stay to here your response and I'm GONE. 3D, pa's a sap

Eh, screw this. I need to go to bed; my parents thought I went to sleep four hour ago. Here's a link to THE BATTLE OF THE CENTURY; join the crusade. 3D, HOLY DR. STRANGEGLOVES

I'm against all of it. 3D, THIS IS A WEBSITE. NOT A MAGICAL ANIME PORTAL.

I agree, but still, fanon over a stupid Mario website? WE'RE NOT SOME STUPID FAIRY TALE! 3D, happy Festivius. G'bye.

Indeedy doo. G'night. {{User:3dejong/sig|ROBOT CHICKEN FTW}