User talk:DatNuttyKid

From ARMS Institute, the ARMS Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hi there, welcome to ARMS Institute! I've noticed you've been making some useful changes to the wiki, especially those galleries you've been adding. You should join our Discord chat so you can more easily talk to other people on this wiki. Thanks! --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 12:12, 5 June 2017 (EDT)

No thanks. I'm cool with just helping. Not a big fan of using chatrooms. DatNuttyKid (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

Galleries[edit]

As far as I was aware, victory animations and alts go in the gallery. That seems to be the case with other articles besides spring man and ninjara. --PleasePleasePepper (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

I did see that, though that wasn't always the case for every article. Last time I was editing the character pages en masse, I started with Byte & Barq and made it to Ninjara before running out of patience and several characters on that side of the alphabet weren't like that, so when I started on the opposite end this time I assumed that was still the case. After I reverted your revert, I went back and checked and saw someone had fixed that, hence why I reverted my revert... of your revert...? and decided it was too big of a job for me to take on (at least right now). Sorry for the understanding!
Although, I do still stand by the fact that edit summaries should be used whenever possible instead of rollback. If you had included that in your edit summary, I would have been less likely to revert you :P DatNuttyKid (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2017 (EDT)

New character concepts[edit]

Hi. I love your ocs. My only problem is that El Encatador's rage ability honestly wouldn't work well. It will just result in him intentionally getting hit at the beginning so he can have that extra damage through the match, and once others are aware they wait until El Encatador throws a punch at the beginning so that he doesn't, resulting in an annoying mind game waiting for someone to punch. Otherwise cool characters I love them! Especially Kitty, that duel-form mechanic would, with balancing of course, be really unique and interesting to play with and against. I might draw one of them because I like drawing characters but I'd be very bad at drawing the springs in their arms sadly. KingBurtis (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2017 (MDT)

Thanks! I'm sure Encantador's rage mechanic would be frustrating, particularly to professional players, but I personally like the idea of the standoffs that would almost certainly happen as each player waits for the other to make the first move to give the other the advantage. Particularly in an Encantador-vs-Encantador match.
I'm thinking the boost wouldn't be really significant and fairly temporary. That way, it's not completely game-changing. Still, I'm sure he'd be fairly controversial if he was in the game... I like the idea, anyway, lol.
Ooh! Yes, definitely draw them if you have the time! I can't draw anything but I really want to see what they would look like. DatNuttyKid (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2017 (EDT)

Deletion[edit]

The deletion of File:Characterleak.png you performed earlier was an arguable abuse of your patroller rights, and I'm not too keen on your blanking of the fighter page either. The page and image were clearly added in good faith, and you treated the pages as blatant spam and vandalism by not allowing discussion first. I'm not going to petition to revoke your rights, since it doesn't seem you had bad intentions either, but please be sure to look over AI:DEL if you haven't already and keep a distinction of "insta-delete" and debatably useful articles and images in mind. Thank you for your understanding. Nyargleblargle (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2017 (EDT)

I'll admit that the deletion of the image was probably inappropriate and I didn't really think that through.
I blanked the page because it, at the time, was almost entirely poorly done -- as evidenced by the fact that in your recreation, the only returning element was the infobox -- and I wasn't sure what exactly a fighter page with no available information should look like, so it seemed more reasonable to request deletion until such a time as there was enough information to justify a full article (which is likely to be in the next couple of days) or someone who did know what the article should look like came along. Now that I know what it should look like, I'll make sure if it ever comes up again I'll do it properly. Do you have a suggestion for what I can do in another case where I don't know what the proper page would look like? I guess just leave the article as-is, regardless of sloppiness?
I also regret not properly addressing my thoughts with the user in question and instead just leaving it to vague and blunt edit summaries... hopefully, I didn't deter them from helping us and becoming more informed... DatNuttyKid (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
Follow-up question: does the datamine belong in leaks? Or do we need more evidence of its accuracy first? Is there a place for just rumors...? DatNuttyKid (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2017 (EDT)
We're having a discussion on it at the talk page for the rumor policy right now. Nyargleblargle (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2017 (EDT)