User talk:Lou Cena

Reminder[edit]

Just a quick reminder to sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks! SugarCookie420 (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2019 (EST)

Account creation?[edit]

I've seen you do a lot of work here recently, and all in good faith. I was wondering if you are willing to create an account. You can do much more than simply editing pages, such as creating your own user page, uploading pictures, and editing most protected pages. SugarCookie420 (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Thanks for the offer, but I think I’ll pass for now. I mostly wanted to add in missing details. The only game I fully own is Brawl, so I can’t really put in anything specific. I may end up making an account in the future though. I really appreciate the offer still. 184.181.102.188 18:58, 13 January 2019 (EST)

Responding to your question[edit]

In my honest opinion I believe we have reached a consensus. However, on the other hand, the last time I believed something came to a consensus it ended up getting removed :\. You could go on ahead and start making the changes, but they may still get reverted because people may believe that a consensus wasn't reached. SugarCookie420 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2019 (EST)

Memoryman3[edit]

When dealing with vandals, including Memoryman3, always deal with it quietly. Also it doesn't matter how BS something is, you never remove anything from talk pages. SugarCookie420 (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2019 (EST)

Infoboxes[edit]

Infoboxes should generally only have one image in them. Please do not try to add more than one. Toomai Glittershine The Aurum 12:33, 2 February 2019 (EST)

(moved from User talk:Toomai)

Is there anything wrong with it? I apologize for not asking permission to do so beforehand. Lou Cena (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2019 (EST)

It's simply a standard that most infoboxes should present only the most relevant image. I wouldn't say there's anything particularly wrong with having two, but you would need to get a fair bit of consensus somewhere before doing it. And in any case, you seem a bit too inexperienced to be making such a change (you were editing the infobox's information page instead of the infobox itself, for example). Toomai Glittershine

The Xanthic 12:39, 2 February 2019 (EST)

Fighter Numbers[edit]

There is a reason for character numbers to be in the fighter battle array : so the users can sort them back to the official figthers order after sorting them by names without having to refresh the page. Sorting the array by clicking at the top of a column is a client side task while refreshing the page is a server side task.
Also the wiki policy says that undo should only be done once, and that if you disagree with with someone undoing your changes, you're supposed to start a talk about it in the discussion page. So, please undo you removal of the fighter numbers, and if you're still not convinced, please start a talk so we can get more opinions on the matter. YoshiRyu (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2019 (EST)

The reason why I removed them was because it would cause confusion over if the haractwrd were unlocked in that order. Besides, they’re already sorted numerically anyways. Lou Cena (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2019 (EST)

I don't think anyone would be confused by the character official numbers, everybody knows about it. Their locations are also specified in the "Location" column, so nobody could be confuse about an unlocking number. Plus you just have to play WoL 5 seconds to know that youo get Kirby first. About the array already being in the right order, as I said, you would be able to sort them back. If you sort them by names, or power, or anything else, you can't put them back in the official order without refreshing the page. It's better to be able to put the array back in the right order without making a request to the server. And finally, the wiki policy still applies : don't undo an undo, and start a talk directly on the WoL page, if you think I'm wrong, you need to start a public conversation, a private talk between the two of us won't be enough. YoshiRyu (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2019 (EST)

Back from a trip without internet access, I just saw you reverted your changes, so thank you. You didn't start a conversation about it in the discussion page, so I'm guessing you were convinced by my explanations. If you ever had a doubt about someone reverting your changes, don't hesitate to start talking about it in the discussion page, that's what it's made for.YoshiRyu (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2019 (EST)

Archiving[edit]

I really appreciate you archiving the talk page at Template talk:Symbol/Archive 1, but next time please follow the procedure for archiving talk pages here. Thanks! SugarCookie 420 12:02, 9 February 2019 (EST)

SW:1RV[edit]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that this edit, violates the policy 1RV, a policy designed to help prevent edit warring. If you disagree with Serpent King reverting your edits, instead of re-reverting it, please use the talk page to lay out your reasons for disagreement. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:56, 10 February 2019 (EST)

I thought that was only reverting once. Or is it supposed to be all users can only revert a specific section once, and not all users get one chance before having to take it to the talk page. Lou Cena (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2019 (EST)

I reverted and then you did, so it was reverted twice. It's not a big deal, just try not to do that. Serpent King 17:01, 10 February 2019 (EST)

Your general attitude[edit]

I'm not sure how to put this in better words, but you need to calm down. Continuing to debate on closed discussion is disruptive. Copy-pasting large amounts of text on various admins' talk pages to ask if it's "consensus" is disruptive. You seem entirely too eager to change a lot of things at once by drumming up a bit of support for your opinion and trying to get it cemented as "consensus" quickly. Please be more patient. Toomai Glittershine The Resolute 19:31, 13 February 2019 (EST)

Yes in general if an idea lines up with the wiki's general opinion, you don't need to do the extra leg work. Serpent King 19:34, 13 February 2019 (EST)

I apologize and will try not to do either of those as often. I just saw a few holes in the consensus of the symbol fisasco, and panicked over a tiny detail that didn’t make any sense to me. About the infobx “consensus”, I mostly just wanted to be safe. To be honest, i don’t know if there is a consensus. I just wanted to be 100% certain if it was OK to change since it was such a widely used template. Lou Cena (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (EST)

About closed discussions, is there ever a time when it is safe to reopen them? Lou Cena (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2019 (EST)

Usually depends, but anything that has been archived can no longer be edited (though the system allows such edits, they will be immediately undone by other users). ZeldaStarfoxfan2164 (talk) is bad for me 19:59, 13 February 2019 (EST)

The infobox deal will require more talk and a bit of planning because it requires an extension we don't have. In general, we do not reopen discussion unless circumstances change. Serpent King 20:02, 13 February 2019 (EST)

Would the passage of time count as a changed circumstance. For example, if I reopened the symbol discussion in 2 months, would that immediately put me on the block log, or would that be enough time for somebody to warm up to a proposal that they denied in the past. Lou Cena (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2019 (EST)

Another suggestion[edit]

You should check this out. Both Robins are featured in one picture. SugarCookie 420 18:25, 15 February 2019 (EST)

I actually left that there because they had that image. The other characters do not sadly. I still don’t agree with Miles, but I’m not winning by arguing with an admin on this. At this rate I’ll be banned. Lou Cena (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2019 (EST)

A major misconception that new users have, regardless of when they join, is that admins have this almighty power and you can't argue with them. That is entirely not the case. We are regular users, no different from anyone else; we just happen to have a few extra tools that we can use.

With that being said, however, the problem here lies with you starting a proposal, and it being argued against with legitimately valid points, but then continuing to do it anyway; you even made it look worse by doing something completely different and inconsistent with the rest of the character pages. This isn't the first time this has happened either, nor is it the first time I've had to explain this. The problem isn't you're arguing with people of power, the problem is you're deliberately going against them. I'm going to leave you off with a warning for now. Aidan, the Lovely Rurouni 12:17, 18 February 2019 (EST)

/::That first edit from me was before discussion even started. In fact, that’s the edit that started the discussion. Miles’ points were brought up afterwards. The second one was somethhing I was planning on doing for all of the characters, but poor internet connection prevented me from doing all at once. However, I can see why you think it looks worse. Lou Cena (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2019 (EST)

Fighter/Non-Fighter Art[edit]

I think only Smash original content should have alternate art in the infobox. Like what you did for the Beam Sword. I don't think others that came from a non-Smash game, like Heart Container, should stay the same. Wolff (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2019 (EST)

The thing is that the heart container’s design changed fairly significantly between smash games. On the other hand, the gallery mentions its game of origin, so I agree with you on some parts. Lou Cena (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2019 (EST)

I forgot some had the basis art/model outside of the infobox on the page. I guess in that case it could have them. I guess that'd only be if we (the Wiki) wanted to go though the effort out of fighters or original Smash elements. If we do, we just need to remember to generalize the infobox descriptions when adding the art. Wolff (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2019 (EST)

Do you think Crafted Yoshi and Pikachu Libre really should be added on Yoshi and Pikachu's main pages? Yoshi might be fine as Yoshi is Yoshi in each game (as far as we know), but Pikachu Libre is actually a different Pikachu known as the Cosplay Pikachu. Link would be a different case as Link is always Link in the concept of Zelda, but is a different character only story-wise. Wolff (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2019 (EST)

Discussion[edit]

"Frankly, this comments section wasn’t even supposed to exist."
Why are you attempting to participate in discussions when you appear to hate the idea of actually having a discussion? We've told you many times we do not do things by vote count here, yet you continue to hammer things into a votecount format (not just on this page, but in other discussions such as the clone move page discussion currently on general proposals). Vote counts are a tool for some situations, not the first and only way to measure consensus; the clone page shows that the discussion in the "comments" section produced a lot more useful information to consider than the users' votes did. I think you need to re-adjust your viewpoint. Toomai Glittershine The Aurum 06:40, March 15, 2019 (EDT)

My bad for not understanding the wiki policies. I apologize, and I’ll rethink it next time. Lou Cena (talk) 15:25, March 16, 2019 (EDT)

This edit[edit]

Or rather, the edit summary. Be careful of block talk. SugarCookie 420 22:18, March 25, 2019 (EDT)

This[edit]

Entirely inappropriate. I will ban you if I ever see the likes of this again. Serpent King 17:54, April 1, 2019 (EDT)

I apologize for the racist pun, and won’t do another one by the next April Fools. However, while I understand the block, a month seems a bit excessive for a terrible April Fools joke. I’m not arguing that it wasn’t racist (because frankly, it was), and I’m not asking for a reduced block because I know that it won’t work. In fact, I believe all of my April Fools mess has been cleared, so there’s really nothing for me to edit currently. However, I don’t entirely understand why you would get so worked up over something like this, as there was no actual malicious intent. This is malicious. Even though the KKK is a horrible group, I did not in any way praise their actions, or blurt out white supremacist phrases. In fact, I don’t respect them, and I used the name ironically. While I don’t think I should have a more lenient punishment, and will gladly accept my current one, I am curious on why you were more angry over a racist pun than an attack on Trainer Alex (talk•contribs•logs) (as the IP from the actual attack hasn’t been blocked ever). Lou Cena (talk) 02:29, April 2, 2019 (EDT)

Do not use whataboutism to argue. The fact of the matter is that I am one person with a busy life, I cannot survey the wiki 24/7, I cannot hope to catch everything, the issue with alex was never brought up to me, ~~and I actually still have no idea what you are referring to.~~ Serpent King 08:18, April 2, 2019 (EDT)

The vandalism you've linked to isn't an attack to Trainer Alex specifiically, just an otherwise unrelated meme that uses the derogatory word inside the rest of the IP's vandal edits.

Nokii — 10:24, April 2, 2019 (EDT)

QUICK MESSAGE FOR SeanWheeler (talk•contribs•logs)[edit]

I’m currently blocked for a racist April Fools joke, so I can not argue for your Symbol proposal. I changed it to the ellipsis as part of another April Fools joke, but it’s been changed back now I believe. If you intend to start up discussion again however, I would not argue again even if I was not blocked, as a discussion should really be reopened if a large portion of users has changed for the debate, and I was clearly the one who blew the arguement out of proportion. Just let it go for now. Give it another 3 months, or let other users argue for it instead. Lou Cena (talk) 20:16, April 2, 2019 (EDT)

Psudeo-admin noticeboard[edit]

I can’t add to the real one because of my KKK joke, but memoryman has come back under 5.81.71.60 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log · WHOIS). Lou Cena (talk) 19:09, April 3, 2019 (EDT)

You're blocked[edit]

The only thing you should be discussing here is an appeal for your ban. I'll remove talk page privs if I see anything else beyond this point. Serpent King 21:35, April 3, 2019 (EDT)

My apologies. I just wanted to calm down SeanWheeler before he starts up the symbol debate again, and to report a memoryman sockpuppet. Lou Cena (talk) 22:14, April 3, 2019 (EDT)

Looking through your talk posts on here, you seem to be really wormy on editing the wiki, so I'll give you a tip: do not edit as a sockpuppet or through any means, because that's an infinite block. When your block is over you can continue with your edits. SugarCookie 420 23:42, April 3, 2019 (EDT)

Ban reduction time and apologies[edit]

I apologize if I’m being disruptive currently, but I’m wondering if I could have my ban reduced from 1 month to two weeks (which would make me banned for 2 more days). My ban was a weird case, since while it was an April Fools joke that was done during the festivities, it’s also one that many deem offensive and innappropriate. While I understand being blocked at all (frankly, I did deserve one because it was innapropriate), 1 month is a tad bit extreme. It doesn’t fully fit into the mold of vandalism, since it was done early during April Fools, and the joke, while innapropriate, was not done with malicious intent. It was simply a pun that I thought was funny (because K.K. Slider only needed an extra K to become a joke, not to mention the white fur), and I truly apologize for offending many people from that joke. I thought the joke would only be offensive if it was actively praising the KKK or calling K.K. Slider a white supremacist, not by simply mentioning the group. Reading through the official block policy, a month-long ban is only for severe or multiple offenses. I’m aware of my checkered past of warnings on multiple subjects, but looking through my contribution history shows that I usually stop repeating the offense after a single warning. Lou Cena (talk) 23:37, April 11, 2019 (EDT)

You stop harping on one issue but start another to avoid blocks. I want to be clear, if it weren't AFD, it would have been an infinite ban, and no amount of appeal would have swayed me. The block policy isn't a policy, but a general guideline for admins to get an idea for the "how long" question, especially when starting out. I'm sorry but no, the block stands as is. Serpent King 15:21, April 12, 2019 (EDT)

Had I not made that joke on April Fools, that would have been vandalism, so of course I would have been given an infinite ban considering the innapropriateness of the joke. I’ll stop trying to reduce my ban, but I do want to clarify 2 things before leaving for the remaining two weeks of my ban:

1. While I do continuously flock over to different discussions and perseverate over almost every single one I participate in, I’m making an active effort to improve myself. Usually, multiple of these issues are all in the back of my mind when editing the wiki, but I just start or massively contribute to one of these issues to keep attention focused on that one and that one only instead of having multiple half-dead discussions going on, not to avoid blocks like what you believe I’m doing. If that’s not a good standard, then I’ll make an active effort to fix that too.

2. Despite being blocked, I intend to make meaningful contributions outside of April Fools. Looking over your proposal for the birthday template, I Support it, as most of the info on the main page is completely stagnant anyways (as the forum and the youtube channel are both dead, and the featured article and “do you know” section haven’t changed in quite some time). You can choose whether or not my input on that proposal would be counted. I apologize for discussing something outside of my ban for that, but I do want to make useful contributions in good faith. Lou Cena (talk) 18:23, April 12, 2019 (EDT)

Ban reduction (again) or adding in missing/removing redundant details on new content[edit]

I know I said I wouldn’t try to reduce my ban again, but there are several details since 3.0 pages that are either redundant, missing, or now false. If I could have my ban reduced (I’ve learned my lesson now, and an offensive April Fools joke wouldn’t necessarily stop constructive edits), I could add/ these. If not, can somebody else add these? Thanks Lou Cena (talk) 12:36, April 18, 2019 (EDT)

•Stage Builder reuses backgrounds from the following stages: Battlefield, Big Blue, Magicant, Rainbow Cruise, Final Destination, Mario Galaxy, Wrecking Crew, and Luigi’s Mansion.

•Joker’s school outfit is in both the gallery and the infobox. It should only be in the infobox, so could somebody remove it from the gallery?

•Prior to 3.0, certain songs from the smash bros series could only be played from the playlist, and were otherwise unused (such as Melee’s opening theme), as well as two songs from street fighter. With Stage Builder, these songs can now be used elsewhere, so that trivia point in both pages can be removed.

•Daisy is now exactly like Peach again, so that trivia point should be re-added.

You don't seem to understand the concept of being blocked; your talk page is to be used only for discussion of your ban, not to request changes on the wiki. In addition, you have not provided any new reasons for why you should be unblocked sooner, and you don't seem to understand that this likely isn't solely because of your ill-conceived April Fools joke, but also because you have been somewhat of a problematic user on the wiki for quite some time. I may not be an admin, but I would still like to give you some advice: stop trying to have your block reduced, it isn't going to work, and might even get you into more trouble.

Please think about what I have said. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 12:44, April 18, 2019 (EDT)

Your general attitude 2[edit]

I understand that you are enthusiastic about helping out SmashWiki, getting involved in and starting discussions about various issues. However, I'm seeing several undesireable patterns in your attempts:

You create or join discussions as if your stance is universally correct.
You create "support, oppose, neutral" categories in polls you did not start.
You attempt to restart concluded discussions repeatedly when they do not end in your desired outcome.
You attempt to end every discussion as if it's your place to do so, including times where a clear consensus has not been made.

It is coming off as though you are trying to take charge of and strongarm the discussion, or that you feel that your way is the only way. We want that to stop. You are still welcome (and encouraged) to participate in discussions, but please stop attempting to route the decision in your favor by prematurely ending discussion and taking action. Toomai Glittershine The Brass 20:19, May 4, 2019 (EDT)

I apologize for all of those. I probably should have waited a bit longer for the Fire Bow thing. I’ll make sure to leave it up to the admins to close discussions.

I’m assuming you’re referring to trying to reopen discussion about Ganondorf being a pseudo-clone in Ultimate, but I want to explain myself for that one. I realize that I screwed up last time by making it a vote-based system, so I tried reopening it by not making it a vote and doing the math. The issue was that I intended to archive only the votes, and was planning on making it a real discussion instead of a vote this time. Plus, what we got out of that discussion ended up having Ganondorf’s up tilt added in as a unique move, but keeping his status as a semi-clone, which ended up having him apparently share less than half of his moveset with Falcon. I thought we having a discussion on whether he should keep the semi-clone status or the up tilt as a unique move would’ve made things less confusing on that page. Lou Cena (talk) 00:13, May 5, 2019 (EDT)

Tangentially related, and I apologize if there was discussion about this matter has been held elsewhere and I simply missed it, but this edit was entirely uncalled for. Not only is this a blatant breach of SW:1RV, but you can't just go unilaterally deciding content like that needs to stay off, and you especially can't half-ass it (nice to also ignore Morgana's page in your attempts to "purge VA trivia"). - EndGenuity (talk) 22:47, May 4, 2019 (EDT)

There was discussion on Richter and Robin not sharing a voice actor, and that ended with saying that it shouldn’t be included as a trivia point. I assumed that voice actor trivia was not allowed, and i guess I was wrong. About the Morgana one, I didn’t even know that was there. Lou Cena (talk) 22:51, May 4, 2019 (EDT)

It depends with VAs. Although it is interesting that VAs have voice numerous characters in Smash, that is considered more general, it needs more in relation to Smash specifically to apply. Chrom's and Joker's VAs have trivia related to Smash specifically to be mentioned. At least, that's my understanding. Wolff (talk) 23:11, May 4, 2019 (EDT)

Luigi and Rosalina's FS[edit]

Do Luigi's and Rosalina's Final Smash page names really need to be changed? I understand the case for renaming the "Fire Bow" to "Fire Arrow", but I don't see how much it would change the page in their Final Smashes. (Also, when suggesting a merge/move/split, its better to start the discusion or the suggestion may just be removed as no action was taken|I seen that happen before) I mean, yes it could be changed to incorporate both names in the title, but still. Wolff (talk) 16:54, May 11, 2019 (EDT)

Regarding the Vergeben split[edit]

I asked about splitting the Vergeben section and an admin said “Vergeben isn’t notable enough to have his own page”. Operationgamer17 (talk) 07:23, May 21, 2019 (EDT)

At what point would he be considered notable enough? I understand if the admins don’t think he’s notable, but before I remove the split tag, I’m curious as to why. (Don’t worry, I don’t want to reopen discussion. I just want to know the reason) Lou Cena (talk) 17:49, May 23, 2019 (EDT)

Final pre-block warning[edit]

You continue to act as if your opinion is desired/required in all discussions. This is a very egregious case, where you appear uninvited and unwanted, and proceed to prove a complete lack of knowledge on the topic, thereby derailing the discussion. And as I'm typing this, you're going around several talk pages bumping incomplete discussions with wording that implies you alone will decide when it's concluded. I've also received several complaints from users on how you posture above your authority. You need to watch how you word things, or we're going to have no choice but to start blocking you for being disruptive. Toomai Glittershine The Loony 16:41, June 28, 2019 (EDT)

My apologies. I was bumping them to ask for more input on the discussion before aksing either you or Serpent King if it was okay to move it afterwards. Sorry if my wording gave everybody the wrong idea. Lou Cena (talk) 18:30, June 28, 2019 (EDT)

Hey, listen[edit]

Before I go ahead and say this, I'm going to say that this is not an addition to your block warnings from Toomai.

Something I've tended to notice with you is that you jump to conclusions a lot, and you miss a lot of stuff when making edits and commenting on (or creating) discussions. Granted, nobody's perfect, and we don't expect you to be - even I make mistakes and miss stuff from time to time - but, if I may be a bit frank, you do tend to come to the wrong conclusion at times, and, in some cases, can cause a derail that could have been avoided if all of the details had been noticed the first time. I am entirely assuming good faith here - I, along with the rest of the staff, do not believe in any way that you are here to damage the wiki - but for the sake of the wiki and all of us working on it, it would be appreciated if you slowed down and actually thought about something you're doing before it's done. Aidan, the Rurouni 22:35, July 11, 2019 (EDT)

Your general attitude 3[edit]

This also doubles as an explanation post for your block.

All the staff here make sure everything is going smoothly on the wiki, and no one is stepping out of line. If they do so repeatedly, then we keep an eye on them. Given everything that you've done, it's almost an understatement to say we've been doing that. You've repeatedly caused problems on the wiki, intentionally or not, and in spite of being warned several times, you continue to do it anyway. There are also certain toxic patterns that have been picked up on, and to know that such assumptions were true only hammers the nail further. While good faith is still being assumed, and we hope that you are able to grow and change your behavior because of this, you have still negatively affected the wiki in ways that have earned yourself a year block. We do not need a specific offense to occur in order to block someone - we just need to decide that such person is doing more harm than good by being allowed to edit the wiki.

And before anything from you is said in regards to this, attempts to have your block reduced will not be helpful to your case. Aidan, the Rurouni 13:59, July 22, 2019 (EDT)

Apologies to everybody for everything[edit]

Well, I f*cked up. I don’t know if it’s because I’m stressed from applying for college, if it’s because I’m a piece of human garbage, or I’m just stupid, but the fact of the matter is that I screwed up, and by the time my block ends, I’ll be starting college. And I can’t reduce this block either, so this is almost definitely my last edit here ever. I don’t really have a second chance despite not being infinitely blocked, and that’s probably for the best with all the mistakes I’ve made.

I’m assuming that all of my offenses from the past added up to this, and whether I should be blocked has been a subject of debate has been a part of the discord for a while. trying to revive a debate because I was unsatisfied, making a ridiculous claim when I lost a debate, Assuming a wrong conclusion based on another wrong conclusion, not watching my words when bumping a discussion, inadvertently making me look like I’m backseat modding, making an unintentionally racist April Fools joke and probably so much more I’m missing. I want to apologize for every single thing I’ve done. I might’ve gotten a little cocky when I suggested to add certain alternate costumes to the infobox (though the tabber wasn’t my idea; all credit for the tabber goes to Cookies and Creme), and then that proposal passed.

I’ve added some minor trivia points that work, fixed some grammar, revised some tables, and reworded some things to make them less jarring (at least in my eyes), but that doesn’t excuse every single mistake I made. I mean zero harm to this wiki, and have been acting in what I thought was good faith, but it looks like I accidentally caused too much trouble. I tried to solve every issue that an admin warns me about every time, but each time I solve one issue, I f*ck up something else. Even when I actively avoided edit warring (I think I’ve only done it two times ever), I still somehow found a way to f*ck up. I am sincerely sorry to everybody on this wiki, and for every article or talk page I have negatively affected, and for f*cking up something every time I fixed another. Lou Cena (talk) 21:52, July 22, 2019 (EDT)

If you truly won't be back, I'd like to thank you for the good edits you have made. You are definitely not a piece of human garbage, and your productivity will be appreciated. I know this probably isn't the place for me to say this, but I'd rather not send Lou out on a bad note. KungFuLakitu, Spiny Overlord 22:22, July 22, 2019 (EDT)

Let the record show that we are not driving you out, nor do we think you're a piece of human garbage. We simply want what's best for the wiki. Aidan, the Rurouni 23:45, July 22, 2019 (EDT)

First of all, get a life. Also, in their defense, should’t their block be shorter? 107.242.121.12 00:14, September 13, 2019 (EDT)

Never thought I’d be back to editing, even if I’ve been reading this wiki a lot since Banjo came out. I want to clarify 2 things, 1 to the IP, and one to clarify that this is not a sock to decrease my ban.

1. Regardless of how long my block is, I was actually planning on leaving for a while. If anything this block is a failsafe to let me focus on real life. I have a ton of classes and college prep essays, and I’ve had mental health problems from stress. While I started put as a somewhat decent user, real life problems have been slowly driving me insane, and I need to deal with these first. I’m staying off of editing because I have a life that needs fixing.

2. While this IP does show typical behavior of a sock trying to decrease my ban, I have proof that they are not. Checking this site shows that I live in Southern California, while said IP is in San Francisco. I know I wanted a decrease on my first ban after April Fools, but this ban is 100% deserved, and I will not ask for it to be decreased. Lou Cena (talk) 01:40, September 13, 2019 (EDT)

The debate is back[edit]

That discussion has been brought back in full force and we could have used your draft forum. Though since we're back to where we were, repeating old arguments, I wanted your proposal to be revised into more of a voting proposal than a debate. But since you're blocked, you can't do much of anything. But when you're unblocked, could you format that draft to include votes for the ellipsis and the votes for the Battlefield symbol? And I'm sorry that I never got that message about your block. SeanWheeler (talk) 00:44, February 19, 2020 (EST)