User talk:Spyspotter/Archive α

Welcome to Bulbapedia, Spyspotter!

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules: Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct. Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around. Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page. Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style. You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy. Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page. If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite. Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment. For more handy links, see the welcome portal.

Thank you, and have a good time editing here!   Spyspotter (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The Preview Button

Instead of editing a page several times in a row, try using the preview button to make sure your edit looks the way you want it to. It's right next to the Save Changes button. Please try it out, so as not to clog up the Recent Changes. Thanks! --ForceFire 01:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record

"Goad" is a real word. Lure, though, is a better choice in this instance. Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 01:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Signature

There seems to be a problem with it. Is that a custom signature you've placed in your preferences or are you attempting to use a signature template (which is against the Signature Policy)? To sign, all you do is type out four tildes like this: ~~~~.--ForceFire 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you would be able to fix your signature by ticking the box "Treat the above as wikicode." I recommend you try and fix your signature before welcoming more people. --SnorlaxMonster 14:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

A Small Note

If you see a user with a possible username violation, you should contact a staff member directly instead of posting on the user's talk page. The user's talk page is not the place for that. Please keep this in mind during the future. Thank you. --Pokemaster97 03:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it's not necessary to mark spambot talk pages for deletion. There's almost always a staff member online who will see the talk page and delete it when they have the chance. --Pokemaster97 01:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Metagame terminology

About your editing of the Appendix:Metagame terminology article. Now, my involvement with this mess of an article has mainly consisted of cleaning up, but I do see a few issues with your revisions, and their edit summaries. This revision removes the "Goodstuff" section, with the explanation "removed foolish term. FYI, this is more commonly called a "powerhouse"." What matters here is whether this term is used among players, not whether it is "foolish". Your FYI-note is off the mark, as "powerhouse" is a general term used to describe any number of things considered strong, not at all a substitute for what the "goodstuff" term is meant to cover, as specified in its section entry (otherwise, try google.com). It may be foolish, I don't use it myself, but the only reason that would justify its removal is that the term did not at one point achieve notable usage in the fandom (which may be the case). This was apparently not your rationale for removing it, so I'm restoring it. Your second revision ("Removed foolish/outdated/unused terms. Seriously, half this stuff isn't used in the metagame, and I know what's going on there. I will add more and remove more later.") shows a lacking understanding of the purpose of the article; the article does not attempt to collect today's hottest strategy lingo, rather it provides explanations of terms that at one point or another in the history of the metagame saw notable usage among players. Again, "foolish" doesn't enter into it and "outdated" I just explained. "Unused" is a legitimate reason for removal, if it considers that the term may have been used significantly at an earlier time. Currently, most of the information you removed has been restored by users Turtwig-A and SnorlaxMonster, but I'll restore the rest, except for the "Atmacune" section, which I'm not going to defend, so you can remove any of these anew if you have a legitimate complaint. In your third revision you undo the changes of another user, which were similar to my intended changes, providing the explanation "I'm a top-level player, so I could be wrong about this. However, if you see anything that should be put back in, do it individually instead of undoing this entire edit. Some of these are just plain goofy." You are wrong about most of these, mistaking the purpose of the article, so it should rather be you who remove entries individually. Again, "goofy", like "foolish", is not relevant. If the fandom uses goofy/foolish terms, an article listing the terms used within the fandom will include goofy/foolish terms. Making an out-of-place statement praising yourself as "a top-level player" (like most metagame players believe themselves to be) also does little more than question/insult the hard work of others, and clearly backfires when it is apparent from your editing that you have not been one for huge parts of the history of the metagame, dismissing terms that have been very central as "foolish/outdated/unused". I'd prefer it if you do not make a face-saving retaliation after reading this, as I'm merely informing you of your mistakes, on a topic that isn't really a matter of opinion (article's subject matter). Yvnr (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Spambot talkpages

It's best if you just leave them be, as there will always be an admin lurking the recent changes. Thank you.--ForceFire 03:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

GSC walkthroughs

Care to explain the reasoning behind reverting my walkthrough updates? The single paltry summary ("Undid so I could undo the previous edit.") does nothing to justify undoing it all at once. — ^KC 01:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

These are not Prima guides. We have different manuals of style. The way you edited the walkthrough was against our MoS. - unsigned comment from Spyspotter (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that, but these are walkthroughs, after all. It's not always possible for these pages to be as polished as the normal articles without being awkwardly-worded. As I understand it, these pages are bound less tightly to the manual because of this. Otherwise, it stands to reason that the admins would have taken issue with this ages ago. — ^KC 15:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

DiscussDelete on User and User_talk pages

Can I ask you why you are doing it? There is no point in doing so. — Reshi643 05:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm marking them for deletion so an admin will delete them. They are all pages related to permanently blocked users. The above comment is supported by Spyspotter. 05:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Old Users

Hello, I have noticed that you have been placing delete tags on user/talk pages on blocked users, many vandals. While we usually delete user/talk pages of blocked users, the older ones we don't worry about as it is just not worth the time going over. Thank you for reading.--ForceFire 05:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)