User talk:Walkazo/Archive 6

Status: Busy as always. My weekends are free again, but university still takes up most of my time, so I can't be online as much as I'd like to be. However, if you have any questions about the Super Mario Wiki, feel free to ask away, and I'll get back to you as soon as possible.

?
Everytime I see your edits, you somehow popped out from the wiki, and then you came back to make a quick edit before leaving. ...Then it repeats all over again. Why? :X I see that your working on the template elimination process. Go Walk! >;D
 * I usually don't have time for more than a few edits these days, so editing some pages out of the blue and disappearing is all I can manage for now. Tonight is the exception: no matter how much sleep it's gonna cost me, I'm gonna delete one of those accursed templates! - Walkazo 00:07, 24 October 2009 (EDT)

Hey Walkazo, you certainly missed a lot of action lately. I hope your feet are warmed up for your doing... how are you doing? 23:45, 10 November 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah, I chose a bad week to catch up on RL stuff. Other than school being evil, I'm doing good. I'll PM you that list of stuff you asked for on the forums a while back when I get the chance - possibly this weekend, but I make no promises. - Walkazo 00:59, 11 November 2009 (EST)

...
Hmph. I see. Pretty suspicious though don't you agree? The fact nothing was done until "I" did something certain people with more power than me didn't agree with? Hm. I think I see what's happened now. I'm not surprised. I could flip out right now, but I'm sure you understand how I must feel. Doesn't seem very fair does it?

Obviously I need to know some things though. Like... what IS going to happen now? What is this site actually going to do with character pages. You pointed out how broke apart they all are. Clearly something should be done to fix everything. You may or may not have noticed the Mario page (and some others) follow a ridiculous standard of making up some sort of chronological order not confirmed by anything. And other pages like the Koopalings are a mess thanks to the idea that equal means cramming everything together in a messy pile. Then, excuse me for being a bit biased, the Daisy page format of things which got it to be the featured article it is today.

Don't you think we should make something happen so that everything won't be so RIDICULOUSLY broken?

As you can see I'm trying to go about this for the good of the site rather than my personal loss of this failure of the mariowiki to support everyone fair power. Maybe if I wasn't so looked down upon this would've ended up differently. But I guess that's straying away from my question.

So? FD09

Well honestly I know the point of reverting my proposal was because of the problems and drastic changes the standard has seemed to have gone through, buuuut, doesn't it seem like a mistake to just end up saying: "We will keep everything the way it is now even though the whole reason everything is in disorder is because we have kept it this way for so long". What we need to do is go through and make a final decision as to how the pages should be set up for characters so that way we have something to work towards on all of them. If I don't have something they should all be set up for then I can't fix them, nobody can. Yes we have a standard but obviously it doesn't suit every page as a whole which is the reason it is so broken. We need to look at what each character page needs then set up the standard so that it can suit each page's differences while making them all similar enough to have a real standard.

I would make a proposal now. but I don't think people are going to understand what is wrong here. Even though they should. The fact my proposal was deemed a problem seems weird when I was trying to make the pages more like one another. So how am I supposed to fix a broken standard when I can't change it? This is backwards and I think you and every other person on this site with power knows it. This doesn't have to take years. It doesn't necessarily even have to take months. Why don't you help me fix this? Come on, it can be easy if we make it easy. FD09

Well well well well well. Hmm. For now, at least, I'm going to figure out a way to set up all of the character pages. I'm gonna try and look at the different ways character pages need to be set up in order to make a standard they can all follow. I know we can't change it now, but I can at least make a plan to make everything right. Still, I'll have to change the pages regardless. Is there like, a page that shows what the current standard is supposedly? FD09

Your Koopa Taxonomy Project
Are you still working on this? If so, where can I find it? 13:13, 11 November 2009 (EST)

Enough's Enough
Alright, this time TimeQ has done something personal. Rather than edit all of the pages with broken formats, including their bio's, TimeQ has gone to the Daisy page and incorrectly placed all other media information in the main biography. He basically just through everything in there. This is ridiculous. It is obviously a personal attack on me. TimeQ has no real interest in Daisy other than using her page to insult me with the fact he already got my whole proposal removed. This time it's personal, it's obvious. FD09

Okay. After what seemed like days (lol hours) of talking to TimeQ, Daisy's page basically just got hit by a semi-truck. I don't know what we're doing. We literally just need to fix the character pages pronto. I know their format deals with other pages like items or whatever. I (and other users) are willing to fix it now. Clearly this standard isn't working and it's not working anytime soon. Would you please come together with me and others to actually decide on what to do to format this. We can't just wait 'til it fixes itself anymore. We need to act now and do it right. It will NOT be hard, No more excuses. FD09
 * Discussing is a very good idea. What makes this so hard is that all the time you complain about how broken our standard is, and that it doesn't work. Actually, that's in diametrical opposition to my point of view. I can't see AT ALL how it doesn't work, and itnmy opinion the current standard is the only way to get rid of any notion of "canon" whatsoever. We don't have Biography sections anymore (mainly because it's hard or impossible to establish a "biography" when there's so many different and contradictory sources). Now we have History sections, and comic and film appearances belong to a character's history just as the game appearances. Well, I stated why I think we should keep our standard. Maybe you, FD09, should go on stating what exactly bugs you about the policy. 17:46, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * That "I" complain about it. Clearly you saw walkazo agreed when we were talking about it. Also, I don't see why you seem to act like you don't know what we think is broken about the standard when that was the whole point of the proposal. There's A LOT wrong with it. Basically each character page is different, many character pages still don't follow the current standard, and the reason comics cartoons and video games aren't split up in the biography right now is not because it makes a canon, as shown when my proposal PASSED. You seem to think it was taken back because people agreed with your silly idea of canon nonsense. Even after the proposal passed you looked past the fact that it was for nothing more than BETTER organizing of the pages history section. Every character page should be similar enough to have no confusion. You just don't get it. Simply looking at different pages should be enough to understand what's wrong with them. They're all different, and it's because the standard is not good enough. FD09
 * Um... Could you guys perhaps wait until after Walkazo responded to all this before going on further here? Also continuing the previous discussion on her talk page is kinda... meh o_O - 18:04, 19 November 2009 (EST)
 * Yeah you're right. I'd move what I said to TimeQ's talk page but I wasn't TRYING to talk about his silly opinions. I was just trying to fix things. Now we have another argument because TimeQ doesn't "understand". FD09
 * You're right, Edo. Sorry for abusing your talk page, Walkazo. We need a central place where we can discuss all that. Unfortunately I can't think of any. If we move the discussion to one of our talk pages now, it hardly stays traceable... 18:08, 19 November 2009 (EST)

W/E I'm just going to wait until walkazo comes on. Laters. FD09
 * Wouldn't it make sense to move it to MarioWiki talk:Manual of Style? After all, the corresponding page talks about how pages should be organized, including the "history" section. 02:20, 20 November 2009 (EST)
 * I agree with 2257. It'd be a lot easier to continue a discussion of this caliber of importance on a community talk page, rather than a user talk page. 02:25, 20 November 2009 (EST)

GP
That means girl power :P I hope this does not sound sexist, but is now I know you are a girl. I though always you were a boy until I read your user page. Smash Bros Sister, eh? which character usually you choose?


 * Well, I would choose Luigi by having funny yet powerful moves. Even his taunts are deadly moves! XP

The proposal about Daisy (or Peach) of the movie has been removed by the user. This means that you can create the proposal to split the movie characters' info found in the game characters' articles to a separate one.

Hi!!!!
Oh my gosh! I've been online for 3 days in a row! It's a miracle! :D
 * Congrats. - Walkazo 21:16, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * So how have you been during my most recent vanishment?
 * Busy and stressed, same as always. How have you been? - Walkazo 21:19, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * School has started to over my life. @_@ As well as Facebook. :P
 * I've managed to resist Facebook so far, but school took over my life long ago. I have a paper due tomorrow which I haven't even started on yet - the only reason I'm even online right now is to update a couple policy pages. I have to do it tonight because there's a chance our Internet's gonna get cut soon, since my mother messed up paying the bills somehow and the phone company is NOT happy... - Walkazo 21:37, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * Yipes! That's not good. But I'm guessing you're a fellow procrastinator? :P
 * Oh yeah, I leave everything until the last minute - especially boooooring homework assignments. - Walkazo 21:56, 24 November 2009 (EST)
 * lol. One time I had like a month to do a project and I waited until the day before it was due to start it. :P
 * I've done that too many times to count :P - Walkazo 22:20, 24 November 2009 (EST)

Just Peachy
Okay, this has been happening more and more often it seems. Recent edits I made to Peach's article have been "overruled" by merit. I removed the "idea" that Peach is good friends with Birdo and Toadette. It is mentioned in her intro paragraphs section. When I removed this with valid reasoning, merit, "overruled" my edit without discussion and then when I asked him about it in-depth he told me sports-installments didn't matter or weren't important or something along those lines. ...? Sounds crazy right, I know. The whole reason I removed the idea Peahc and Birdo were good friends is because there is no reason on the page to believe they are. In FACT, it is in Mario Super Sluggers that they have bad chemistry together. Meaning they're definitely not "good" friends if they actually are friends at all. For a fact. Also, the idea Toadette and Peach are friends wasn't backed up at all either so why would they be mentioned as "good friends"?

Also, when I mentioned to merit in the same message that his revert of redstar's perfectly fine edits to Daisy page had no reason to be "overruled" he seemed to get lost and started talking about edits redtsar was making to Peach's. So i'm here asking you to help on this, walkazao, because merit clearly is a little confused and doesn't seem to have reason backing up his "overrulings" other than his odd and backwards opinion that sports installments don't count for anything character related? If you're wondering why this is so odd, put into consideration he has no problem saying two characters are friends because of their sports interactions, but is against using it as reason for them to not be?FD09

Just make sure to tell that to merit. FD09

Proposal vote
Actually, if you look at my whole edit, you can see that we had a proper vote for the removal of Edofenrir's vote and myself, Redstar and MATEOELBACAN all supported it. IIRC only 3 votes are required to remove a support/oppose vote.
 * This rule only applies if a vote was cast in bad-faith or has no reason accompanying it. I gave a reason that was justified in my point of view. Or are you trying to imply that my vote was cast in bad faith ôo? - 20:41, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * This rule applies in any case scenario, and Walkazo please stop re-adding the vote, that's edit warring. Walkazo: About your comment, the reasons for the removal of the vote cannot be unjust - he said something related to Lord Crump and other guy but made no reference to the subject at hand. Though he did "Per Tucayo" he can re-add the vote as "Per Tucayo"
 * If you looked at the votes entirely, Marioguy1, you'll notice that Redstar didn't want the vote entirely removed, so you did not have the right to act. Not that you would anyway, because as Edofenrir pointed out here, there was not enough grounds to remove the votes in the first place. You need STRONG reasons, not quibbling about opinions. You have no right to remove those votes. - Walkazo 21:06, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Walkazo: There is no rule stating that the votes in that section can be removed or that the suggestion can be stopped. I am totally for this rule being created and I am trying to write a proposal to create it but this is all getting in my way. Thing is there is no current rule saying that thing can be stopped or even saying the votes have to be valid. I am going to make a proposal to allow those votes to be removed and the sections stopped very soon.
 * I suggest you re-read the rules then. You seem to lack oversight of the situation. - 21:37, 4 December 2009 (EST)
 * OK, where's the rule?
 * Rule 4: "At any time a vote may be rejected if at least three active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation." It's a very vague and useless rule, I'm afraid; it was just meant to allow people to comment on questionable votes, and these one-way "Vote removal" sections were not the intention at all. There is no rule against them, but they are not how the Proposals are run and should probably be removed outright, without the song and dance of another proposal being necessary. Rest assured, the Admins will be taking another look at Rule 4 and willl get this mess sorted out ASAP. - Walkazo 22:00, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Very well, I already have a small comment in the Comments section so I will bring it to his talk page


 * Okay, sorry, they just piss me off.--

Implied Characters
Just a moment. Barely any of the redirects were listed on an Implied category, so they were to be added anyways, and might as well have been done as I am now. It's the standard I've seen and implemented on other wikis, and results in clean organization. While it may be better to see it all in one category, that just overloads it and is better off being sub-categorized. At least take a look at how it branches down, or discuss it with another sysop before undoing my work. I'd really hate to lose all of it, only to have to do it again if it's a preferred standard. I also wouldn't want you to spend as much time as I have simply undoing unless it was absolutely necessary. Redstar 17:55, 19 December 2009 (EST)
 * I don't see any page being categorized more than once. The benefit of categorizing redirect pages is that you can actually have a list (or category, as it were) that shows the individual subjects found on the main article. Otherwise, they just don't show up. Admittedly, the lists are rather short so sub-categorizing the individual subjects may not be necessary. But, Time Q seemed fine with it and suggested that's how it's supposed to be done, so I would appreciate a second opinion if the issue of categories is being brought up. But, if you genuinely feel that it has no benefits and no one will prefer this standard, go ahead and undo it if you so choose. Redstar 18:19, 19 December 2009 (EST)
 * Ah. I understand what you're getting out. However, the categories I placed were only for listing under the Implied categories, and were placed on redirects that have no article. There's no risk for multiple categorization, because we wouldn't put categories on alt-name redirects for pages that exist. Time Q didn't exactly support it, but he gave a basic assent to at least try here: Category talk:Implied. It seems Cobold made a proposal over the whole issue. While we can continue discussing it here, might as well take it to the proposals. Redstar 20:21, 19 December 2009 (EST)