User talk:John G

Second person
Hello, and welcome to the wiki. Regarding your contribution, please note that we don't accept second person language on our articles here (that is, "you"). Instead, please use "the user", "the player", etc. If you wish to read up on more of our article standards, please check out the Manual of Style or Good Writing. Thanks for reading, and keep contributing.

09:03, 30 December 2012 (EST)

TPP
I see you may be planning a TPP, on what page is your TPP going on, and what will it be about?
 * Sure, I'll go ask a bureaucrat.
 * Sorry, but we don't cover fan-made things here.

Proposal
I bet you know, but you can vote on your own proposals. -- 14:53, 28 December 2013 (EST)

Hi
Please don't undo admin edits, doing so gets you a warning.

Whoa whoa whoa, undoing admin edits is ILLEGAL? I think we should rethink this, Randombobomb undid an edit by who undid an admin edit and Random got a lecture by  telling him not to revert edits by undoers of admin edits, they should instead discuss it on the talkpage of why they undid it and if they were right. If this rule is actually enforced, it means the admins can can do whatever they want to pages and there's nothing we can do about it. Epic Rosalina (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2014 (EST)
 * A few month old discussion here, but I thought I'd pop in none the less. It's not that it's expressly forbidden to edit or revert edits done by admins, it's the act of going against administrative consensus in a destructive or disruptive fashion. That is, if I edit something and do it wrong, feel free to fix it. If I add/removed something because it didn't comply with the rules or is otherwise deemed to be something we don't want here, you'll need to explain why I'm wrong. If that last sentence again, but your rational is "BECAUSE F YOU!" or something along those lines, you'll be in for a warning. Circumstance may vary. I'm not sure of the situation KP is referring to above, but, as an example, the edits John made a few minutes ago to the proposals page were considered to be disruptive and were reverted by a patroller. If he was to revert again, we'd probably want to ask him if he had a good reason and warn him if he didn't. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Chris[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 15:12, 18 June 2014 (EDT)

About your Wreck-It-Ralph
Could you please add a "Do Nothing" option in your Wreck-It-Ralph proposal as stated in the comments? That's actually required in a proposal, please don't forget it! Thanks!  At last, the rock fell. 14:59, 16 June 2014 (EDT)
 * As stated, this is required. If it is not added by today or tomorrow, then the proposal will likely be cancelled.

Easter Egg Proposal
I removed your proposal about improving the Easter Egg page because organizing efforts to fix up pages is best left for talk pages or the forums, rather than a vote. It's great that you want to help, but there's much more effective ways at getting stuff done than the Proposal system alone: I definitely recommend making a collab thread about the Easter Egg page on the forum as one of the best ways to get other users on board. - 13:22, 22 July 2014 (EDT)

Edits in several articles
Please do not add bullet points throughout the Mario article. This is improper use of bullet points, which just makes the article look not presentable. Second, please do not copy/paste content directly from other articles, since that counts as plagiarism. Please put such sections into your words instead. Thanks. 14:20, 13 August 2014 (EDT)

Re:Luigi 64
"The Paper Mario explanation wasn't a theory, but fact"

[citation needed]

Super Mario 64 was in development throughout 1995. The "Super Mario RPG 2" incarnation of Paper Mario was in production at 1996 at the earliest and the final game was released in Japan at August 2000. Now, even if we accept the premise that a random graphic artist on Super Mario 64 somehow predicted the month and year of release of a game that didn't exist in any serious capacity at the time, why would it reference the U.S release date specifically?

Even if more than one person have formulated this theory, some things are simply too stupid to give them the time of the day. --Glowsquid (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2014 (EDT)

Re:Rumors and speculation article
Hi. Adding words such as "some say" or "people say" as your "source" of information is NOT an acceptable way to document these on MarioWiki, nor anywhere else for that matter. So can you please stop readding the Luigi's Hanging Shadow section, plus more badly sourced and documented "rumors" that probably don't belong in the article? 14:40, 19 August 2014 (EDT)

RE:Hell Valley Sky Trees
You should not leave incomplete sections, they make the article look unprofessional. And go ahead and remove the weasel words.

re: Rumour Revertion
After doing some more checking, I suppose the hanging shadow thing is common enough to be worthy of inclusion, and I've included a Cracked link to further substantiate it, so yeah, sorry. That being said, the Bowser thing is completely off-topic and absolutely not the kind of material I had in mind when launching the page. --Glowsquid (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2014 (EDT)

As an aside, two of the entries you added on the page were largely copied from other wikis. Free license or not, copying content without attribution is not acceptable and even if you credit the original editors as specified by the relevant wiki's license, we would rather have original writing. Further instances of plagiarism on your part will result in warnings. --Glowsquid (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2014 (EDT)