User talk:Walkazo

green

First
Well, this is interesting. Henry Stickmin 03:35, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Congratulations on making the first edit of 2015! :) 11:44, 1 January 2016 (EST)


 * Only going by EST. GMT's first edit was this, and if I've done the math right, this is the first edit going by the UTC+14 timezone. Time is relative: perspective is everything. - Walkazo 14:15, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * I did get some perspective! According to my timezone (GMT+1), the first edit was this. I picked the wiki's default timezone though :) 14:47, 1 January 2016 (EST)

James Blonde and Number 1!
Hello and Happy New Year. I've to tell you that I'm the guy behind my defunct account. I know that I was the one who used James Blonde, but I'm completely sure I didn't use Number 1!, Number 2!, and Number 3!. The result was failure of my IP address after it was already hacked long ago before the first account. I don't even know what did that guy made, but I'm here to tell you that I was previously just a normal user. And I'm sorry for lying, I'm not a NOA employee, I'm not 23 years, I don't have children, and it was my possible mistake to what I did to User:LudwigVon. Remember, I didn't know what happened but Number 1! and Number 2! weren't my accounts, nor MightyKoopa96. I wouldn't evade a ban; just continue to view the wiki as an accountless user. I've also told you I wanted respect, and I didn't want any changes, but I know what you would say if you ought to look my responding to LudwigVon. And the reason of the offensive message was because I wanted to retire, but I now got a new IP. --190.92.15.126 15:21, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * It was obvious that you were lying about working for Nintendo and being an adult with kids, and it is obvious that you are still lying. "I've been hacked" is one of the oldest excuses in the book, and in this case, it doesn't even make sense given the most basic info: all you've done here was confirm to us that all those accounts are yours, and get this IP blocked for ban-evading. Feel free to keep reading, but you're gonna have to give up on editing and talking to people. - Walkazo 16:10, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * To be fair, that block was well-deserved. Vandalism and severe personal attacks to another user were two things you had been warned about already, and she had already given you a 14-day break for that after having failed to consult to said warning, but sockpuppeting in order to evade your ban so that you can continue your past actions pushed it even further and only made it worse for you, and ended up resulting in your block being extended to permanent. With that said, denying it now just to get your account back is negligible, and in no way of convincing her to unblock your previous accounts.


 * Also, as what she said, that stupid "Some jackass hacked my account." excuse isn't going to help your case; vandals here and there say that over and over just to sockpuppet, and it's quite apparent that said lame excuse is getting old, ridiculous, immature, and childish, so in other words, nobody can even believe that anymore. Plus, as a bureaucrat, she can use CheckUser, so she can identify what IP addresses your accounts have been using. Finally, there isn't an account named Number 3!.


 * News flash: there is now (Number 3! James Blonde). Henry Stickmin 04:43, 3 January 2016 (EST)


 * Can you please not insert yourself into my/admin business like this? I have it covered perfectly well on my own, and as specifically explained on the courtesy policy (again), "Getting yourself involved when the admins have it covered just makes their jobs harder": it's not helpful at all and is more likely to just make the other party get defensive or retaliatory: notice how the latest sock only appeared after you commented here? That's not a coincidence. - Walkazo 12:27, 3 January 2016 (EST)


 * To clarify, I replied after the Number 3! James Blonde account was created, and I now understand that I shouldn't be replying to him since he's gone for good. I'll being dropping out of this discussion right now if you're okay with it, ma'am. I'll now be leaving you alone so that you have time to work on whatever it is you're busy with. Henry Stickmin 16:25, 3 January 2016 (EST)


 * No, you responded on my talk page at 09:15, 09:22 and 09:23, then the new account was created at 09:26, vandalized for a bit and then disappeared before being blocked (took 5 hours for that to happen), at which point you came back and tattled on it. And by "it", I mean your sockpuppet. And yes, you will be dropping out of this conversation now because I've blocked you for that stunt, and because I think you've actually been sockpuppeting for months (what I've been busy with is using your beloved CheckUser: fun fact, it does more than spit out raw IPs), but even if it's all just large coincidences linking you to the vandals, "Number 3! James Blonde" is enough to get you blocked permanently, seeing as you've already been blocked twice and are thus, out of chances. Goodbye. - Walkazo 17:12, 3 January 2016 (EST)

Infobox pictures
Hey! 2016 celebrations aside, I was wondering something about infobox pictures. Ideally, what should the subtitle read? The Mario page doesn't have any, the Luigi page has " Luigi 's artwork from Mario Party 10.", the Princess Peach page has "Solo picture of  Princess Peach in her appearance for Mario Party 10.", the Bowser page has "Artwork of Bowser from Mario Party 10."... You get the point. I picked 4 articles at random, and they all have different subtitles. Does this warrant a collab thread in the forums? 17:00, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * Personally, I think captions for infobox images look sloppy for reasons that go beyond the inconsistencies alone, and should be removed and/or replaced by hover-over text for folks who really want to know where the image is from. To me, the image being a representative of the character as a whole matters more than where it specifically came from. It could be worth making a collab thread to get more feedback and organize a push to change/remove captions if people agree to it. - Walkazo 17:05, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * I'll get right on it. Thanks! 17:09, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * May I add something? I think the captions should be removed because they are unnecessary and redundant. If people really want to know where the image originated, they can check the file page. So, I'll support removing them all together. 17:13, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * I agree. Among the 4 articles I've linked to, Mario stands out. It looks cleaner. Should I create a forum thread asap? I've already started the subsection order collab a few days ago, and I worry creating a bunch of collaboration threads in a short amount of time might be frowned upon. 17:39, 1 January 2016 (EST)
 * Two collabs isn't bad, especially since the infobox caption is relatively minor. If you make a new one every few days repeatedly or attempt multiple "let's make massive changes to all the pages" pushes, then it'd be bad because you're flooding the place and there's no way folks will be able to address all the projects (nor will they likely want to). - Walkazo 17:47, 1 January 2016 (EST)

Hide revision
Hi, can you hide the talk page revision made by James Blonde, since its personnal attacks and inappropriate content.-- 16:39, 3 January 2016 (EST)

Vandal
Active vandal spamming pages and talk pages. Could you take care of them?
 * They always seem to join literally 2 min after I've checked in on RecentChanges... - Walkazo 16:11, 5 January 2016 (EST)
 * It's the nature of the business; things always happen just under your nose. Thankfully, there's always someone else to take care of things (Tucky in this case), but thank you very much anyways for responding!
 * New vandal being vulgar and whatnot.
 * Bad timing again - and in all honesty, unless I'm actively editing at the same time as the vandals, I'm probably only listed in WhosOnline because I'd just checked in before the attack and already left again. If I happen to come back to the wiki during an attack, most of the time, RecentChanges is what I check first anyway (I even check it more than email), so there's not much point in even trying to cold-call me like this. Either way, odds are another admin will blow in before me: spammers usually don't last long one way or another. - Walkazo 12:50, 7 January 2016 (EST)
 * I just pop in to the first admin I see on WhosOnline. Messages like these are basically the only way to quickly get someone's attention, and I'd rather not take the chance of nobody noticing the vandal in a decent amount of time. Still, excuse me for bothering you and thanks for letting me know.
 * Check the recent changes. 19:40, 16 January 2016 (EST)
 * Thanks, got it. - Walkazo 19:43, 16 January 2016 (EST)

Recent Edit-War
So BazookaMario is going back and forth with me on his removal of content on the Arcade Bunny character page. He's removing the personality and appearance sections for vague, personal reasons. As long as I've edited this wiki we've had these sections, and if his logic for removing them is even acceptable, we'd be removing all of the appearance sections on every character page. For the personality section, he's trying to say because he added part of it to the intro that's good enough, but why would we outline the character's personality in the intro when personality sections have also always been a thing? It seems like uncalled for removal of content that's standard on a character's page, and content that he's not pointing out any valid reasons to remove. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2016 (EST)
 * Since I made a lengthy post in my own talk page, which something a mere edit summary can't accomplish, although I thought I wrote as best as I can within this little box. There's nothing implied that I don't like personality sections; all I stated is that they're not done well, but I've provided additional details why this article in particular doesn't need it. Also, I'm female. 23:09, 8 January 2016 (EST)


 * I agree with Bazooka Mario. The sections are needlessly wordy, and personality section reads too much into a very basic character: cut out the fluff and his personality can be summed up in one sentence, which does not justify a whole section. The physical appearance can also be covered in half the space, but without a personality section, there's no point having that either, ergo, both go in the intro. The vast majority of articles actually don't have general info, personality and appearance sections because, like here, there isn't enough worthwhile content to put in them: better to have a solid paragraph as an introduction than needlessly cutting apart what little info we have for the sake of having lots of headers. The articles that do have personality and appearance sections are typically recurring and/or complex RPG characters for which you can write at least a paragraph about without needing to analyze their speech patterns, crack out unnecessary jargon like "extroverted" or go into exacting details of their appearance. Or they're cases like this where someone got carried away. Not having these sections on minor characters' pages has absolutely no bearing on major characters' general info sections, and vice-versa. - Walkazo 23:15, 8 January 2016 (EST)


 * Would you refer to the reply I gave on BazookaMario's talk page, Walkazo? The other thing is, his personality section could be larger. We could also add info about how he is comical, and makes a lot of jokes and uses memes. And like what I said to BazookaMario, you tell and show by stating then exemplifying. On one hand, you're saying there isn't enough to merit its own section, but on the other, you're saying it's too much. What is fluff in his personality section? What is too-detailed in his appearance-section? Can you explain that? I don't agree with you saying it's padded, so can you back that claim up for clarification? UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2016 (EST)


 * Additionally, you're saying the personality section reads too much into a very basic character, but if the personality section could be written like that, isn't he not just a basic character? To reason that, he has new dialogue on a constant basis. The stuff that was written there takes from a character who does a ton of talking, and who as a constant, keeps being fleshed out with more character dialogue. I feel like it's important to point that out. UhHuhAlrightDaisy (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2016 (EST)


 * Yeah, I saw your response to her. And I'm sticking to my assessment: the Arcade Bunny may be funny, but that can still be concisely added to the intro without the need for a separate section. Needless details and overwritten descriptions are fluff. Just because a lot of writing can be plopped down onto a page doesn't mean that it should, and how the article was before is not how these sections should be written: I suggest you look over Good Writing for more specifics on what to avoid. Similarly, just because a section can be made doesn't mean it should be made: introductions are perfectly acceptable locations for general information like personality and appearance when the amount of said info together only amounts to a paragraph or two even when combined with all the other basic info like first appearances and role in the game. Right now, the Arcade Bunny's intro, with personality and appearance, is one well-written paragraph, and it should be left that way. - Walkazo 00:00, 9 January 2016 (EST)

Seal & Clapper
You know, every characters & enemies from DK64 have pages (even the f****ng beanstalk from Fungi Forest...), so why would "Seal" not deserve a page for himself? --Metalex123 (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2016 (EST)
 * I dunno, he just looks a lot like Clapper, and I can see why folks would assume they're the same thing and expect the info to be in one place. Still, all I did was an edit summary: I really don't care that much either way, and have no intention of trying to change it back. - Walkazo 16:59, 17 January 2016 (EST)

Potential Vandal
Special:Contributions/207.177.48.145 Had to undo some of his edits. -- 00:07, 18 January 2016 (EST)
 * Seems more like mistakes than deliberate vandalizing for now, but if it makes a habit of bad edits, it could be worth sending it a "hey, be careful there" message or something. - Walkazo 00:31, 18 January 2016 (EST)
 * Alright, but I have a feeling it is the former because the edits I undid broke template usage. -- 00:39, 18 January 2016 (EST)

Impersonation
Please block the user who is clearly impersonating two of you. 21:16, 18 January 2016 (EST)
 * Thanks. - Walkazo 21:47, 18 January 2016 (EST)

I've got some questions for YOU
184.6.46.157 15:03, 31 January 2016 (EST)
 * You seem like a truly dedicated Mario fan. What about the series puts it above others, such as Pokemon, Zelda, etc., for you? What drives you to contribute so greatly the Mario Wiki?
 * How long do you see Mario lasting (I ask because you're a long time fan, so your projections may be more accurate than most)? Will it outlive the other greats of Nintendo that are commonly described as becoming stale (Pokemon in particular)?
 * How is this site's traffic? High, medium, low?
 * Whatever happened with this wiki logo? It looks so cool and professional.


 * Thanks! I'm flattered!
 * I've just always liked the characters, and the series leaves so much room to read between the lines and come up with fan theories since there's little official continuity, but tonnes of little details that all add up into interesting figures. I've always been a huge Pokemon fan too, but every generation is a new set of characters, so while I still love my Red and Sapphire teams from back in the day, it's hard to get emotionally invested in the games as a series (the manga's good at getting you to care each time, however). Other series, I just haven't been exposed to much since getting old enough to care about games beyond killing time after school, largely because I don't have tonnes of free time or cash to buy and play other games anymore, and renting options are almost non-existent (which is how I got most of my Kirby and Zelda fixes back in the day). Of course, I barely even play Mario titles anymore, partly because, like Pokemon, it's just ultimately more of the same old thing each time, but even then, I don't see Nintendo retiring any of their flagship series anytime soon, since they still well enough, and even if veterans get bored and stop collecting, there will always be new generations of gamers to cut their teeth on the latest iterations of the platformers, karts and pocket monsters. The only thing I'm concerned about is mishandling of the RPGs, but Paper Jam sounds like a step back in the right direction, so ya never know.
 * As for the site, I don't know specifics, but I think our traffic levels are pretty good. We're a big, established wiki, and as long as Mario is popular, we should continue to thrive too. Iirc, the consensus was that we didn't want to ape Wikipedia, and preferred a unique look; plus, a lot of us weren't crazy about the salmon colour, or about immortalizing the Face ship in particular - at least, that's how I felt. Anyway, thanks again for the interest, and I hope my answers were interesting! - Walkazo 16:57, 31 January 2016 (EST)
 * As for the site, I don't know specifics, but I think our traffic levels are pretty good. We're a big, established wiki, and as long as Mario is popular, we should continue to thrive too. Iirc, the consensus was that we didn't want to ape Wikipedia, and preferred a unique look; plus, a lot of us weren't crazy about the salmon colour, or about immortalizing the Face ship in particular - at least, that's how I felt. Anyway, thanks again for the interest, and I hope my answers were interesting! - Walkazo 16:57, 31 January 2016 (EST)
 * As for the site, I don't know specifics, but I think our traffic levels are pretty good. We're a big, established wiki, and as long as Mario is popular, we should continue to thrive too. Iirc, the consensus was that we didn't want to ape Wikipedia, and preferred a unique look; plus, a lot of us weren't crazy about the salmon colour, or about immortalizing the Face ship in particular - at least, that's how I felt. Anyway, thanks again for the interest, and I hope my answers were interesting! - Walkazo 16:57, 31 January 2016 (EST)

Links problem
Hi, can you go here. I go there to see if there is link that land to Baby Dragoneel redirect, to remove them and delete that redirect since the page is now named "Dragoneel (purple)", but strangely, there is page there with no links to Baby Dragoneel mark on it. It is me that don't see the links or some page simply don't have link to Baby Dragoneel. (eg:Fuzzy Clifftop and some others).-- 23:33, 1 February 2016 (EST)


 * Hmm, weird. Since the link was removed from a Template recently, that sometimes takes a bit of time before all those pages are cleared out of the cache/WhatLinksHere. Usually it's faster than this, but guess not this time; I'd leave it for now and check back tomorrow. The redirect doesn't need to be deleted anyway, since the name was used for a while, and folks might still try to search for it. - Walkazo 23:47, 1 February 2016 (EST)

Random biology-related MarioWiki question
How come noncharacter organisms such as Mushrooms, Fire Flowers, Bananas etc. aren't listed as species? Wouldn't they technically be species? 16:16, 2 February 2016 (EST)
 * Inherent human bias towards animate forms of life, methinks, plus those subjects can already be sorted into item lists and categories and and thus don't require it. But you have a point - some nav templates like  call 'em species already, actually, so clearly others should agree as well, and when you consider things like Bob-ombs, the line between item and organism is pretty blurred at times in this series. Expanding the "species" umbrella for the categories and list pages would also make for less redundancy due to the massive overlap with Enemies - although it could complicate game/series pages that try to have species sections instead of enemie sections to cover both friendly and antagonistic species, but I'm not sure how much of a problem that'd actually be. Another real caveat is making sure only the actual organisms get species designation; the templates have some pages divided out as "Recipes", but even basic things like Super Shroom Shake don't really work as "species" - but then some may argue that there's speculation going on if we were to exclude stuff like that, and more ambiguous things like Dried Mushroom (although TTYD at least showed that any Mushroom can be dried up into one). There could also be arguments like "but a Banana is just part of a plant so how could it be a species - does that mean all Koopa shells are species?", or general squeamishness about mixing two different subject types. It's worth thinking about either way, but approval, and then rollout to an even greater extent, will be significant undertakings. - Walkazo 22:05, 2 February 2016 (EST)
 * Sure, it's an early thought process, but do you think accommodating species to include Mushrooms, Fire Flowers, even Super Stars (?) might outweigh the costs? Hm, as for Dried Mushroom, it's not like it suddenly becomes less of a species just as how a dried fruit doesn't stop becoming a species. Speaking of fruit, in response to the imaginary Koopa Shell argument, there isn't really a banana "tree" article and it seems that fruit are also classified by species (Musa acuminata is a "banana") whereas they refer to shells as "shells of [species]" (shell of Chrysemys picta) though the layperson brain in me can't exactly comprehend why sometimes a part of a plant can be referred as the plant species (it's common to attach scientific names to the fruit or flower it seems) while same usually cannot be said of an animal. 22:42, 2 February 2016 (EST)
 * My main worry is that Dried Mushrooms have been shown to be made from multiple species: it'd be like saying all dried fruit's the same, when some slices are bananas and some are apricots, etc. Cases like that will need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis at the very least, which adds complication, but yeah, overall, I think it'd be better in the long run. I feel like the "well, there's already a Koopa Troopa page so we wouldn't need to call the shells a species, but we don't have a Banana tree page so we just categorize the fruit instead" angle could indeed be a good way around the hypothetical argument (flying Blue Shells are the only thing I can really think of off the top of my head that have no known living counterpart, as there were no Para-Sky Blue Spinies). As for why it's not done irl, I think it's because people tend to disassociate hacked apart animals and living animals (for squeamishness reasons, or whatever), whereas it's the opposite with plants, since we tend to think of the parts more than the wholes (like you mentioned), and don't get as off-put by killing plants and using/eating the pieces. One exception to the piecewise animal thing are skeletons and fossils, but that's largely because you can still picture the whole animal from the bones, so even then, it's ultimately a wholistic identity approach. - Walkazo 17:15, 4 February 2016 (EST)