User talk:RAN1/Archive 1



Welcome
Welcome to Smash Wiki! If you need help, please visit my talk page. --Tuth (talk) 15:46, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I would just like to say I approve of your contributions so far. Good work etc.

Also, you might want to find a better place for the above discussion- perhaps Talk:Trophy, or if people seriously ignore you there you can go to the admin noticeboard. Shadowcrest 01:45, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shadowcrest. Anyways, I did move the discussion over to the Trophy Discussion Page. My talk page wasn't exactly a good place to put it. It should get more attention over there than here. RAN1  dom  chu punch!!99 02:18, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
It's recommended that you archive your talk page when it gets to over 30,000 bytes and there are no active conversations on it. Making an archive just for one short comment is pointless, and you shouldn't just copy and paste text when archiving anyway. For future reference, when you get round to having to archive this talk page, do the following: That's all it takes. I've deleted the archive you just created, as it was pretty much pointless, and put the comment back into this page in an appropriate place.  Penguin  of  Death   14:18, October 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Get rid of the big box and any other notices you may have at the top of the page, and instead place at the top
 * 2) Click "Move" and move the page to "User talk:RAN1/Archive 1"
 * 3) Go to "User talk:RAN1", which will redirect to "User talk:RAN1/Archive 1", and replace the redirect with the boxes you used to have at the top of the page, along with something like this:

Extra Images
Hey its no problem its just that i usualy just upload images that i cant find so its cool that you delete them or whatever i just couldnt find them so i uploaded them --Json1134 (talk) 19:05, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Eh, not really. If you're bored enough, you can look at some of my rollbacks. About half of the edits I've used rollback on were just bad edits in good faith, like the one you mentioned. Although I should have at least given my reasoning for doing so, it really isn't a big deal. Rollback is really just a faster "undo" tool and while there are some differences, the outcome of the specified rollback is essentially no different than if I had just undone the edit. Also, I hate to sound harsh, but you've got 0 authority over me and really everyone else here, so don't talk about punishment. If this is sour grapes over my comment on Smoreking's RFA, get over it. On an unrelated note, congrats on getting rollback.  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 23:09, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheezperson, rollback was meant to be a faster tool to replace undoing in case of mass vandalism. While the outcome of the rollbacks you do will probably be the same as that of a regular undo, the reason SmashWiki has the no-non-vandal-rollbacking policy in place is because it could be easily be taken advantage of in edit wars and the like. Rollbacking numerous non-vandal edits only shows that you're abusing the tool. In all of the cases in which you rollbacked non-vandal edit(s), you could have used the undo function, even though it was slower, since you would be able to provide a good reason for the revert. The fact that rollbacking is significantly faster than undoing does not give you an excuse to exploit it. Also, I am very aware of the fact that I have no authority over anyone in this community, but PenguinofDeath does know of the previous message I left on your talk page. Therefore, I seriously advise you not to rollback any more non-vandal edits. RAN1  dom  chu punch!!99 01:03, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been doing that for a while, and it hasn't been an issue. I don't know why you're so concerned about it tbh.  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 06:12, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of giving a user the Rollback tool is so that they can more efficiently revert vandalism, not just more efficiently revert edits of all kinds - as such, I'm concerned about your use of Rollback, and I have the tools required to "punish" you.  Penguin  of  Death   11:07, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see what all the fuss is about. I've been making edits like the one mentioned since I got the tool, and no one has ever had any problem with it. That rollback that was given as an example was reverting an edit that was probably in good faith, but was clearly incorrect. If I find something that needs to be reverted, but may need an explanation, I'll give it, but like I mentioned earlier no one has ever had any problem with just using rollback, and that goes for any rollback'r.  Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 15:19, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read this carefully. Rollback shouldn't be used for non-vandal edits. I don't care if other Rollback'rs do it - they shouldn't. The edit might have "clearly" been incorrect, but the person who added it didn't think so, so you should have explained why you were reverting it.  Penguin  of  Death   15:47, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * But how do you know for sure that they truly meant what they wrote? That vandal catcher guy seemed pretty serious, but he really wasn't (sorry if you don't know who that is).  Anyways like I said before, I'll use more discretion when reverting especially when an explanation may be needed, but I think this whole thing was a bit unnecessary.  You, or really any mod, could have told me this at any time, but life went on as usual.    Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 16:05, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * PenguinofDeath, I don't think threatening Cheezperson with "punishment" helps the situation, that was originally between Cheezperson and RAN1, at all. He reverted what APPEARED to be vandalism and was given a "lecture" by a user who had only recently joined this place. So the vandal removed text and it was rolledback, undoing it and supplying a summary wouldn't have made much of difference, although it would shed some light on why it was reverted. Stop getting so upset at everyone, you already have me permablocked from the IRC channel because I told you that you had been expressing signs of having premenstrual syndrome, which was obviously a joke, since you aren't female and to my knowledge do not have female parts. Paper Bowser (talk) 17:48, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * My riposte, in full, point by point:
 * Actually, RAN1 first mentioned "punishment", then Cheezperson said words to the effect of "you can't punish me", implying that he wasn't taking what RAN1 was saying entirely seriously, so I mentioned the fact that I could "punish" him.
 * My reasons for getting involved in this discussion were because I want to see policy being upheld wherever possible - what are your reasons, exactly? I mean, aside from taking advantage of the opportunity to casually have a dig at me, of course.
 * He wasn't given a "lecture" - please learn what that word means.
 * It doesn't matter who says something, so long as they're right, so please don't bring longevity into this.
 * Please don't assume he was a vandal - that directly contravenes SmashWiki policy.
 * The need to "shed some light on why it was reverted" is exactly why Rollback shouldn't be used for non-vandal edits - it's polite to explain to someone why you're undoing their edit(s), instead of just Rollbacking them with no explanation why.
 * You haven't been "permablocked" from #wikia-smashbros - you have, in fact, already been unblocked. Also, I didn't block you from #wikia-smashbros just for saying that I was "being pms" or however you said it - it was for being generally annoying over a long period of time, that was just the final straw.
 * Thanks,  Penguin  of  Death   18:24, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * "Longevity"? Honestly? Don't thank me, you're the one getting upset... again. Paper Bowser (talk) 19:08, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, he said "longevity". To quote my dictionary, it means "long duration of service," or, in this context, having an account for quite a while (what you said). I don't know why you're saying he is getting upset because he said that, but I wouldn't bring other problems into this discussion over Cheezperson's rollbacks. RAN1  dom  chu punch!!99 22:51, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, is this such a big deal? I know nothing about Penguin and PB's arguments on the IRC, so I'll let that part go.  As I said, myself and I'm sure a lot of other rollback'rs have used the feature in the way I used in the example, and no one has ever had  any problem with it.  I'll say my conclusion again: I'll use more discretion when I feel an explanation is necessary, but what was I supposed to say to the guy who made the edit?  Sorry, your logic's wrong?   Cheez person  { talk } stuff ''' 01:05, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes. You should tell him the reason why his edit is unreasonable. As for explanations: it would be a good idea to make sure that you explain any reverts of non-vandal edits. It's certainly a lot less insulting to someone who wanted to contribute to explain to them why their edit is wrong. Like I said before, you should assume good faith. You shouldn't assume something is vandalism unless it obviously is (for example, putting completely random stuff on pages, swears, etc). If that guy gives a reason for blanking, just give a reason for reverting it. Don't rollback it just because it's easier, though; and I'm fairly certain that most people don't use it the way you do. In either case, just use the undo function to do stuff like that. RAN1  dom  chu punch!!99 03:32, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Rollback is not to be used in cases of non-vandalism. It is not to be used just because you feel lazy; the only reverts that do not warrant an explanation of the revert are vandal reverts... which is what rollback is used for.
 * I understand how it might feel like you're being singled out Cheez, but that's really not the case. I know that a number of admins (myself included) have been pretty lax about misuse of rollback, but I assure you the intention was not to single you out personally- you most likely just happened to catch RAN's eye and he decided to post. Which, frankly, I'm thankful for- it's nice to see that someone remembers how to use rollback properly.
 * However, a couple things that I am going to respond to specifically:
 * "Also, I hate to sound harsh, but you've got 0 authority over me and really everyone else here, so don't talk about punishment." SmashWiki:You are valuable- please follow it. Please don't try to debunk someone's perfectly logical claim with the fact that they do not have the authority to enforce it- it doesn't make sense. If someone points out (with direct quotes from policy to support themselves, no less!) that you're doin it rong, chances are you are indeed doin it rong, regardless of whether or not they have had a successful RfA.
 * "If this is sour grapes over my comment on Smoreking's RFA, get over it." These types of insinuations that one or more other users are taking things personally seriously need to stop. Making a reasonable request (this one was even polite, too..) DOES NOT EQUAL someone holding a grudge against you. Please remember that, people.
 * "that was originally between Cheezperson and RAN1[...]" If you want a conversation to be private, take it off wiki. I can not currently think of a single instance where helpful contributions from any user editing in good faith would be discouraged.
 * "He reverted what APPEARED to be vandalism[...]" Removal of text (with a good-faith explanation, regardless of validity) is not vandalism. It is, at worst, a mistake. Let's not confuse the two.
 * "was given a "lecture" by a user who had only recently joined this place." Age means nothing, end of story.
 * "although it would shed some light on why it was reverted." That is the entire point of this discussion- the explanation. You can't just wave that away as though it's not the basic, underlying point of the whole conversation. It matters.
 * I realize that some of this post may be redundant and just a rewrite of what some editors have said above, but if it'll get people to actually start thinking about the topic rather than just throwing out baseless accusations and missing the ideas behind the controversy then I am glad to have posted. Shadowcrest  19:52, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Yo
Wanna Brawl?
 * I do have Brawl and Wi-Fi...But I don't really want to Brawl right now. Maybe some other time, perhaps. RAN1  dom  chu punch!!99 01:03, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * KK