User talk:Mario jc

Hotel Mario levels
Hi, so in addition to creating the Paper Mario: Sticker Star Scrap articles (finally), I've decided to start creating articles for levels in Hotel Mario. Since they use naming conventions of "Stage 1", "Stage 2", "Stage 3", etc., which conflict with Donkey Kong Jr.'s level names, I want to ask you: should those levels take precedence over the Hotel Mario levels, or should those titles be disambiguation pages? Thanks! 02:52, 24 March 2018 (EDT)

Double RE:Scraps
Yeah, I saw your comment from the beginning. The problem is, what kind of discussion? After all, I already took part of your advice and purposefully didn't create an article on the useless block in Goomba Fortress, which is briefly a Scrap. 08:09, 29 March 2018 (EDT)
 * Sorry for my belated response. Should I instead create a page entitled something like ? 10:38, 31 March 2018 (EDT)

Implementation
Hi, since my technical restrictions proposal passed, would you mind adding this to Naming? Feel free to pick wherever you find the section most fitting. Thanks! 01:03, 6 April 2018 (EDT)
 * Oh, and would you also mind deleting the page when you're finished? There's not that much history to salvage. Thanks! 01:05, 6 April 2018 (EDT)

Auto confirmed early
Super Mario Odyssey, I noticed, has a lot of red links. I'd like to fill in a lot of good pages that are missing. If you are pleased with my edits so far, is there any way you can get me auto-confirmed early? Tom Phan (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2018 (EDT)

Re: Aboutfile reminder
Apologies, I'll try to remember to remove any unused parameters when uploading images from now on.--Jjrapper100 (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2018 (EDT)

Kremling sword class
IIRC, that's from some randomly-appearing line of text Wrinkly herself says in the game. It certainly sounds familiar... Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2018 (EDT)

Question concerning proposals
[You can answer here.]

I thought I'd just ask a random sysop, since I don't want to bother the same ones too much, but anyone can answer it.

So, if I had a proposal that's past its deadline and voted in by a majority, I gather that I could just go ahead and implement it?

I feel like Proposals should be more clear, since just having a lumped, unsectioned 17 point list is really detrimental to a new user trying to understand all the finer details of proposals. Particularly lacking in that list is details of how proposals are closed: there are no clear instructions on who can close a proposal and how they would go about doing it. --The  Retro   Gamer  23:11, 27 April 2018 (EDT) (Edited for accuracy: 23:18, 27 April 2018 (EDT))

Re: Talk page response
Sorry, I wasn't exactly sure of the rules themselves, but since there were very few other people online, I didn't want their question to end up being fully missed and wholly unanswered.Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2018 (EDT) There's also the fact that I've basically learned "Welcome, read the rules" as an acceptable greeting due to being the greeting used in the one fully-active Discord group (and as such, one tight social group) I am in. So I didn't think of it as rude, I thought of it as normal. Sorry. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

Super Mario series enemies section
Remember when, relatively shortly after I joined, I made a section on enemies and obstacles for the Super Mario series page that went for too long, so I had to shorten it. I decided to rework it again to tell more information in less space, as seen here. Would you consider this a step in the right direction? I removed a lot of simple rehash species that were on there, like Fire Piranha Plants and the various "Big" species, moving them to the new "Relatives in the series" section; the only ones I left were Koopa Paratroopas, Paragoombas, Dry Bones, and Galoombas. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2018 (EDT)

Protection issues
Hi, I'd like to ask: is it possible to reduce the time or level of protection for Luigi's girlfriend? The page was fully protected for one month by L151 a few days back, but IMHO that big of a protection was a tad unjustified. First, the page was never protected before. Second, there were only two vandals that edited the page - a persistent user and one IP, and I feel that in this case protection is only justified if accounts and IPs from a dynamic range vandalize the article, and even then only semi-protection at this point. Third, this is their first time vandalizing, so we don't yet even know their activity level enough to establish a protection that big. That being said, the only reason I'm contacting you is because you have much less involvement than L151, which makes it easier to settle disputed actions. That being said (again), I'm asking if you'd be willing to reduce the protection level; I'd suggest semi for one or two weeks, but I'm fine if you have a better solution. Thanks! 18:48, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
 * Taking into account their Twitter post, I'd now just recommend reduction to semi. However, I'm also suggesting that the page be regularly monitored for vandalism and fully protected for a few days where appropriate. 19:58, 1 May 2018 (EDT)
 * Actually, yeah... you do bring up a pretty good point. I didn't realize some of the subscribers she had were autoconfirmed already. :P


 * I don't want another user to complain about this, so would it hurt just to change the protection reason to "Excessive vandalism by a user who asked for assistance on Twitter", or is that even possible? 06:22, 2 May 2018 (EDT)