Mr. Anon, welcome!

Hello and let me be the first to welcome you to Wikitroid, the fan-based Metroid resource. I hope you like the place and choose to join us in our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikitroid member! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! — -- (Talk) 00:53, July 7, 2011

Deletion Edit

Clearly, you don't know how deletion works around here. If you place a delete template on a page, you have to follow the instructions on Wikitroid:Requests for deletion. Though I don't think the fact that it is ChozoBoy overrides the fact that we have pages for other cosplayers too... Though we can write some interesting trivia. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:07, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

is this royboyx? ive been trying to find you

No, I am not RoyboyX. I am a good friend of his, though, and if you would like to send a message to him, I would be glad to relay it. Mr. Anon 00:25, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

RfC Edit

If you are creating a new RfC, you might want to clean up the formating a bit. Please look at the others, and base yours off of theirs. Thank you. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 00:17, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Re: IRC Edit

I'm online. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:13, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Weirdness Edit

Funny you should think that: I just saw your name yesterday when I was scrolling to the bottom of RoyBoyX's Talk page, and I thought: "Hey, that guy's name is just like mine!"

But no, similarities in my name to any other users, living or... something else... are entirely coincidental. Dr. Anonymous 21:12, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Blocking Edit

I don't want to block him because 1. My principle of warning before punishing, 2. Because the user's IP could be dynamic, rendering it useless, and 3. in case of anybody sharing his IP. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 23:47, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

He is a mass vandal. Warning him actually would cause more harm than blocking him, since it wastes time. A 3 day block will not hurt anyone who he shares an IP with, and will make him stop vandalizing. Mr. Anon 01:29, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Warning should only be bothered with in the case of personal attacks or other behavior issues. The vandal new what he was doing by mass blanking pages, and your warnings weren't helpful. Mr. Anon 01:32, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, it is just a vandal, though. They are easily taken care of. Sure it might be a "mass vandal" but seriously, this is nothing. And most vandals never return anyways. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:15, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

IRC Edit

We never had that IRC chat. Can we please have it at some point? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 23:36, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Note, not today, I no longer have time at this point. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 23:56, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

No Need Edit

I'm pretty sure that the "no removing things from other users' Talk pages" rule doesn't apply when it's something you posted regarding a problem that solved itself seconds after the message was posted, thus rendering said message redundant. But, y'know, whatever you say... Dr. Anonymous 22:37, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Edit

Proposal? WHAT proposal? Dr. Anonymous 02:28, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

See Wikitroid:Sign_your_comments. Mr. Anon 03:00, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how my signature is in violation of any rules. If you could explain to me what, specifically, makes my sig illegal, I'll make the necessary changes.

Dr. Anonymous 03:01, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Your sig has to have a link to your userpage. Mr. Anon 03:52, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Hm, that's odd: usually my signature DOES link to my user page. Why isn't it doing it now? Dr. Anonymous 11:29, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Also make sure it links to your user page, not to an article titled: Dr. Anonymous. I'll help on his talk page. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:10, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

This is just a test to see if the modifications I made to my signature did their job. User: Dr. Anonymous 22:44, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed it. Thanks again for taking the time to save my sorry arse. ;-)

User: Dr. Anonymous1 22:47, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Perma Ban Edit

There are several very good reasons I did not do a permanent ban. One: IP addresses can be shared by multiple computers. This could mean I could potentially block people who actually want to contribute, forever. I could get around this by disabling block anonymous users, but that would lead to the next reason. Two: A block that doesn't block the IP would mean that the user could easily create a new account and repeat their crimes. The point of a block is to prevent the user from causing more damage. A block like that would only be for show. A non-permanent block is often the most effective. Very few times do users ever come back. If a block is >1 week long, than the person will probably get bored and not come back. They aren't going to wait, they don't care about the site. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:34, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Reason 2 is contradictory to your statement that vandals never come back. Block his username forever, if he cares enough to come back as another username block his IP permanently. Mr. Anon 02:37, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
They are more likely to come back in 1-2 days. They aren't going to wait a month. The point is to not show off. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:39, February 12, 2012 (UTC)


There is insurmountable proof that the accounts are RoyboyX's socks and not Piratehunter's. Hell, I even gave him the Rache name. Please do not demand immediate unblocking if you don't know all the facts. Wait for MG to give you the whole facts, before demanding things and accusing others please. Insurgence: Speak! 14:57, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Why would AmyFox be here if they weren't Piratehunter's? Mr. Anon 16:33, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
One, it wouldn't be AmyFox. Two, it could be to place the blame on PH, even though he cares more about Roy than Ex. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 16:37, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
PH hates virtually everyone on this wiki. I wouldn't put it past him to disrupt an RfB. Mr. Anon 16:38, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
Then why not disrupt Roy's RfA? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 16:40, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
Insurgence told me in the chat that the next person would claim to be Hedgi whatever it was and would bring up Ccalen. And that is exactly what happened. So that already eliminates PH. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 16:42, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
How does that eliminate PH? Insurgence for all we know could be working with PH. I realize that there isn't much hard evidence, but until Wikia staff come and use checkuser, we don't know for sure. Besides, you should trust RoyboyX (an admin) over a known vandal (Insurgance). Mr. Anon 16:45, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Stop Edit

Roy JUST confessed in the chat channel, for the sake of the wiki. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 16:48, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Will you drop your accusations now, Anon? I don't require any apology, I know my track record. Just leave me be. Insurgence: Speak! 16:52, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

I know, he confessed on the SmashWiki IRC as well. Tbh, Royboy was the only reason I was here. I guess this means my leave as well. Mr. Anon 16:56, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Reductive editingEdit

I've noticed that your edit history on articles heavily leans towards reductive editing, meaning that you have tended to subtract large amounts of content as opposed to creating new content. I'm not in favor of telling people how to edit, but I think it might be best to advise a new editor to consider avoiding this habit before demonstrating that they can create worthwhile content. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 23:12, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a huge expert on the Metroid series (I haven't played all the games). That's why many of my edits are focused on housecleaning type stuff. Mr. Anon 22:41, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

All-caps redirectsEdit

Just letting you know that creating all caps redirects like ALIMBIC CLUSTER is unnecessary. Instead, please use this method of linking, which allows alternative text to be used when linkin to an article: [[Alimbic Cluster|ALIMBIC CLUSTER]], which creates ALIMBIC CLUSTER on articles. Thanks, HellKaiserryo12[ADMIN] (TalkContribs) 19:27, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Speculation? Edit

Um... can you think of any other reason for there to be a single Sap Sac with a different scan in a game where scans are shared? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 00:18, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Can you please answer my question? The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 22:54, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
Ingame error? But there's no need to speculate on whether Sap Sacs were to be given a Logbook entry or not. A lot of Pirates at the start of the game that are dead can't be scanned for their Logbook entry. --Mr. Anon (talk) 23:02, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
An in-game error creating a completely new scan for a Sap Sac? I highly doubt it. And there is a good reason for the pirates at the beginning being unable to be scanned. They were injured, and weak, therefore, you weren't fighting full strength pirates. They wanted to save the scan for later in the game when you fight them proper. In addition, you were able to get the logbook scan long before you can get this temporary scan. It makes no sense for it to give a different scan given the situation. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 23:20, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
I guess so. Feel free to add it back in. --Mr. Anon (talk) 23:21, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Phase 9/Items Edit

Yes, the Ice Beam is the only item in Phase 9 of Metroid II. This is because that is where the Infant Metroids are fought. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:01, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

I forgot, sorry. --Mr. Anon (talk) 02:02, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Hey there's been some vandalizing on the other wiki. I tried to fix but I'm pretty sure i only made it worse.

Can you revert it to that please? thanks.

Policy templateEdit

Thanks so much for making that! It's a really good help, sort of strange that no one had thought of it before though. :) HellKaiserryo12[ADMIN] (TalkContribs) 14:29, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Fansites Edit

I honestly doubt we're adding anything at this point by going back and forth like this. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:56, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is weird. Going to be hard to tell what the votes are. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:12, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
We go by number of votes because that is easier to determine fairly. How am I supposed to judge my argument about fansites against yours? Also, most people voted A LONG TIME AGO. If I change the rules for this, I would have to start the RfC over. They were under the assumption that it was done in the normal fashion. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:27, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
"Most people at the time were under the assumption that the RfC would be conducted in the normal fashion." It would be a little unfair to change the rules on them. If they knew it was going to be done a different way, they might have explained their reasoning more. Changing the rules without restarting is not an option.
Only two RfC's have been restarted in the history of wikitroid, if I remember correctly. The first one, C&C, which was technically thrown out, because the actual request was not clear, and kinda poorly written. This was done after all three bureaucrats stated their opinion on the rfc since it wasn't closed properly. The new RfC had different rules... and honestly, could have went better. The second had removed parts of it removed, separated into sections, and restarted, due to particular pieces not being popular, but others going over fine. The RfC creator did it, since it was going to fail due to the certain pieces. Oh, and this was creation of a template, not deletion of articles. Other than that, the rules were normal. Note the differences between these two and this case. The first one, the RfC was completely unclear and the second's subject changed. In this case, from what you are telling me, the votes are somehow "bad". A RfC will not be restarted on the exact same issue because somebody dislikes the votes. If there is another reason, please tell me.
Finally, not everybody is as well verbally articulated as others, so changing the rules will keep them from having their opinions matter. This will remove the ability of the community to have their opinions matter. If their votes don't actually matter on an rfa if they aren't well written, they should at the very least matter in an rfc. Otherwise power truly belongs in the hands of a select few. It would belong in the hand of which admin closed it, because one can argue that a side is better until the end of time. So I'm NOT doing what you suggested for that reason. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:32, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
And the time to say something was relatively early in the voting, not months afterwards. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:35, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

(Undent) The fact remains that the time to change the rules for the RfC has long passed. You cannot just ask me to simply change how the result RfC is to be decided after the votes have stopped coming. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:16, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the reason it hasn't closed yet was because FL offered to handle it, but then never did. :P The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 20:21, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Nintendo DSi XLEdit

You cannot delete articles or large amounts of content on your own initiative. You can attempt to have an article removed, but please work within the established rules of the wiki to do so. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 08:45, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

A discussion doesn't cut it for a user to speedy-delete an article. You need to either mark it with the template and allow an admin to decide or create an RfD or RfA. Please do not edit war. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 06:06, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Red links Edit

Why are you removing red links everywhere? --FastLizard4{ADMIN} (TalkContribsLogs) 22:40, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the links I removed were for a blog of a user that is now inactive. If you disagree, feel free to revert. I just thought I was clearing up clutter. --Mr. Anon (talk) 22:49, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed you removing red links for various things from all over the place. You really don't need to and you shouldn't, because it's, well, unnecessary and just adds to the number of edits we have to patrol. The only time removing redlinks is worth it is from articles because you don't think the article linked to will ever be created. Aside from that, it's best to leave them alone. Cheers, FastLizard4{ADMIN} (TalkContribsLogs) 08:08, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the edits of other usersEdit

I've noticed that you make a habit of reverting the recent edits of users at times, based on your personal discretion of the edit. This is not preferred behavior and you should instead try to make use of the talk page found on the article or the personal User talk. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 01:15, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

I have just done so. --Mr. Anon (talk) 01:16, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Removing content without explanation Edit

Hello Mr. Anon. Upon reviewing the patrol queue, I came across this edit you made to Metroid Challenge. Although I presume that the reason why you removed what you removed is because you felt it was unnecssary detail, in the future, when removing large amounts of content please explain why in the edit summaries*, or drop a note on the talk page explaining why. Any user is within their right to revert with no questions asked any removal of considerable amounts of content, and you would be expected not to revert the other user's revert without discussing it first. Thanks, FastLizard4{ADMIN} (TalkContribsLogs) 01:09, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

*Note: You should really use edit summaries for every edit you make, anyway; it's good style.

Roy review voting Edit

The voting hasn't actually started yet, the rules are still being tweaked. TheMG {talk/contribs} 19:01, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

OK, my mistake there. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:38, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

RoyboyX Edit

We, the Wikitroid administrators, are aware of a new plan that RoyboyX has involved you in. If you would like to come clean about it, please visit Special:Emailuser/FastLizard4 and send me an email, with details of the plan of course so we can corroborate with our sources. If you come clean, we will lighten any action taken against you as a result of our discovery of this plan. In any case, action will likely be taken against you and RoyboyX. Be advised that the most you can accomplish by coming clean is lessening the severity of the action taken against you, and you are under no obligation to disclose anything. Sincerely, --FastLizard4{ADMIN} (TalkContribsLogs) 22:09, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Note: I tried to email this message to you, but you do not appear to have a valid email address defined in your user preferences. --FastLizard4{ADMIN} (TalkContribsLogs) 22:09, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
I have sent a reply. If possible, I'd like to keep discussion on IRC, where we can talk more face-to-face in order to clear up misunderstandings or other confusions. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:29, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Chat? Edit

I know you're busy but can we chat sometime? RoyboyX(complaints/records) 03:02, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.