User talk:Gearzein

Trivia rollbacks
Before resorting to protection or blocks, please put the reason for the revert in a summary first. If they see only a rollback, they might not actually understand why their edit is being considered invalid, or even that you're enforcing a rule rather than being arbitrary/opinionated. I created the trivia redirect so it would be easy to point to the trivia rules during undos. Thanks. Equazcion ( talk ) 23:10, 20 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to The Meatball, that's a strange case that admittedly may be me being paranoid (and by extension acting in bad faith). Certain patterns, particularly the editor's immediate change in IP to the next available in the range, just lead me to believe that this is someone I've dealt with before. This may just be indicative that I handled it badly then too, but hey. Gearzein (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely possible trolling. This does refer to The Meatball, but also other trivia-type rollbacks that I've seen be explanation-less. It's good to have a descriptive edit summary on the record either way for any particular situation, especially before other measures are taken for further such edits. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:34, 20 Jul 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate images
If you're deleting all the duplicates uploaded for the Chinese translation, know that Noyastary has already uploaded a bunch also. Equazcion ( talk ) 03:41, 21 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * Jeez. I'll take care of those, but apparently Curse's servers are overloaded or something and can only handle four deletions at a time. Batches take a while, so in the interim between deletions, I'm writing up a general notice on the Chinese translation project page, since it seems to have picked up quite a bit of steam in a short time. Do you think that'd be a solid idea, and if so do you want me to run it by you before I publish it? Gearzein (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to a language barrier preventing them from really understanding the notes we've been giving them about how this is supposed to work -- so I'm not sure that the notice will help, but it might. You can go ahead and post it, I may edit it afterward. Equazcion  ( talk ) 03:56, 21 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd assume that translators could speak both languages well enough to communicate ideas fluidly from one to the other, but there does seem to be a breakdown in communication somewhere. It feels like there might just be more of them than we can account for, so contacting them as a group may have some effect that individual notices can't. It's worth a shot, I figure. Gearzein (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Goblin Summoner

 * Discussion moved to Talk:Goblin Summoner -- Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:39, 23 Jul 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a breath here. Things may be getting heated but InfiniteMarioMaster hasn't engaged in any personal attacks or even attempted to re-institute the edit while the discussion is ongoing, so there's not much reason to "take action" (assuming Gearzein meant administrative action).


 * The Goblin Summoner was the only hard enemy added to the Goblin Invasion in 1.3, so like the Flying Dutchman, it should be considered a "boss" or "mini-boss". It also drops several unique/powerful items. Several Youtube videos refer to it as a boss.
 * The Goblin Summoner's design doesn't offer any traditional clues to it being boss-like, such as a Trophy (it drops a Banner instead), spawn/death messages, large size, multiple parts or forms, or astronomical health/damage; so it shouldn't be referred to as a "boss" or "mini-boss".

This, I think, is where the evidence stands, so let's not repeat those anymore. Declaring that "I'm right" or "You're wrong" is never helpful, and if that's what the discussion has devolved to, it's time to let it sit and wait for other opinions. I'm going to leave a note at the community noticeboard to try and attract new participants, and I'm also going to move this entire discussion to (Talk:Goblin Summoner), which might help emphasize that this discussion is about the game and not about any particular editors. Until some new people have had a chance to discuss this a little, I would ask that neither of you (plus myself) post any new comments to this discussion.

PS. InfiniteMarioMaster, if you could sign your comments, it would help us out. Instead of saying "From IMM" at the top, please place four tildes at the end of your comments ( ~ ) which will automatically place a standard signature there. Thanks. Equazcion ( talk ) 23:28, 23 Jul 2015 (UTC)

Translation assistance
I want to help turkish translations. How i do translate pages? Cgndz (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)?
 * I've left you a message on your talk page. Gearzein (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Email
Do you have an email address I could contact you at? If you don't want to announce it here you can enter it in preferences and enable the email option, which will hide your actual email address. Or if you don't want to do that either let me know. Thanks. Equazcion ( talk ) 16:42, 24 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * Turns out I had an email on file, I just hadn't confirmed it yet. You should be able to contact me now. I hope I'm not in too much trouble. Gearzein (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah nothing like that. Thanks :) Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:02, 24 Jul 2015 (UTC)

Cultist Trivia
Is it possible to edit a new trivia about cultists origin or would it refer too much to the first topic? -prometheanrazerPrometheanrazer (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to this revert then there's no problem strictly with adding a new trivia piece. Most of why it was reverted is that it completely overwrote the meaning of an already sourced trivia point. If the intention was to remove or contest that point by suggesting another origin, the fact that the current trivia links directly to a developer comment makes that impossible.
 * The other reason it was reverted, though, is because Lovecraft doesn't have sole claim to the idea of a cult, and it's incorrect to say that "cultists" alone are a Lovecraftian allusion, much less a creation of his. I expressed as much in the edit summary for that revert. If that's the trivia you're re-adding, it'll likely be removed again before long if it's not significantly reworked in meaning- even if I leave it, someone else will inevitably contest it, just because of how much of a long shot it is to outright say that Lovecraft invented cultists and that they exist primarily in the context of Cthulhu. Gearzein (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)