User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 3

Pumpkinking0192's Talk page archives
Archive 1 May 2012‑Aug 2013	Archive 2 Sept 2013‑Nov 2013	Archive 3 Dec 2013‑Feb 2014
Archive 4 Mar 2014‑Aug 2016	Archive 5 Sept 2016‑Jan 2017	Archive 6 Feb 2017‑Aug 2017

Please leave your message by creating a new section below. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding revision 2029507

I do not see how you ended up at that conclusion please logic. If anything, it's anything but fanon because I was the one who initially added it into the article when I wrote about the B2W2 Zoroark. --The Truth aka Relicant 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The assumption that Illusion does anything additional to its explicitly stated effect (in this case, speaking human language is additional to changing its visual appearance) is fanon. It doesn't matter whether you or someone else initially added it; it's fanon nonetheless. Pumpkinking0192(talk) 03:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC

No, it's not fanon, or else I wouldn't have added it in. fanon would be me stating Aroumshipping is canon on Serena's and Ash's articles. adding in an sentencr and adding "arguably" to the beggining isnt. --The Truth aka Relicant 06:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Anything that is not confirmed does not belong on Bulbapedia. Couching it with "arguably" doesn't make it any less unconfirmed. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet there's fanon speculation here on why some Pokémon in the anome use more than 4 moves in a single battle nobody's removed it or hidden it. --The Truth aka Relicant 11:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

For the trillionth time, Relicant, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. It just means the other stuff is also wrong. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting of Flannery's PWT announcement within Flannery's article

Regarding this edit, I disagree; how does Flannery's PWT announcement not warrant mention on her own page? The announcement is directly related to her, as it is an exclusive piece of dialogue that the PWT announcer reserves for her. Offhand quotes (as in, quotes about Flannery that are not said by Flannery herself) that stem from in-game sources, like Fame Checker and National Gymquirer, are listed on Flannery's page, so I don't see why her own PWT announcement merits exclusion from Flannery's article as well. Fenyx4 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to enhance an understanding of her the way the Fame Checker and Gymquirer quotes do; it's just a silly pun about the Fire type. It's only the slightest bit relevant to her because she happened to be the leader it's attached to, and frankly, I'd say it only belongs on the pop culture references article, not even in any Trivia sections anywhere at all. On top of that, the Reshiram bit is even more irrelevant to her and even if the PWT part is restored, the Reshiram part doesn't belong at all. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

While I admit that the quote is relatively minor, the same could be said for a lot of Gym Leaders' "defeated by player" quotes that attempt to make trivial/minor puns in relation to the Gym Leader's type specialty and/or hobby (although those essentially have to be included by virtue of being actual quotes of Gym Leaders). I still think that the "Flannery PWT announcement" merits mention in individual trivia sections (namely, the PWT page and the Flannery page only), seeing as the "pop culture references" article is essentially one giant trivia page, and it seems to be having difficulty in getting linked to by other articles (which reduces its purpose, if it's only going to become an orphaned article that's hard to find). However, the same could be said (regarding the restriction of the trivia to the "pop culture reference" page) for the numerous anime episodes wherein the title "references something in pop culture/incorporates a pop-culture pun in the title". As for the Reshiram thing, I mainly included it since it was on the PWT page as well, and it seemed to slightly warrant mention in that the identical pop-cultural/punny quote was used in Pokémon White Version and was used again in the Black/White sequels, despite the phrase being used in totally different situations (similar to how various articles mention something like an English item sharing the same Japanese name of a different item). I guess I might bring this issue up on the Flannery article's talk page to see what other users have to say.. Fenyx4 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, bringing it up on the talk page would be a good idea if you want to keep it. Most people are considerably more pro-trivia than I am. As far as I'm concerned, most of what you brought up is just further examples of things we shouldn't have cluttering up our articles. Better to keep things in one place than to sprawl them out over a bunch of different pages, in my opinion. Repetition is both boring for readers and a waste of server space. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Meloetta's item

The notice on the template's page clearly states
"WARNING: To those using this template, please only use this for Pokémon that legitimately appear in the wild in those games. For instance, Lunatone cannot be found in Emerald, so this does not apply to it. The only exception is for those for those in the Battle Pyramid and Battle Pike (Dusclops only). See here for details according to the Battle Pyramid. Please write it in the edit summary and write that it's possible only in the Battle Frontier with the parser Frontier."
Meloetta can't be found in-game, unlike eg. Victini. I am sure this still applies... Uploader (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but considering the example it gives, I'm guessing that was meant to address version exclusives, not event Pokemon. And as you can see on List of Pokémon by wild held item, Meloetta is indeed programmed with a Star Piece... Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

?? ?

I've always had an image of at least 1000px on my page. I don't see why u are suddenly raising concern over it. --The Truth aka Relicant 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've grown more and more irritated by it the more you change it. It's just now that it's reached the final straw. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You seemed fine when I had a 7000px image of Siebold on there and even reverted an edit when someone reduced the size of said image. Give me an idea on how to be less annoying, mayhap? --The Truth aka Relicant 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That was because the other person was violating the userspace policy. It had nothing to do with your image. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

is this better?? ? ? --The Truth aka Relicant 15:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC) ? --The Truth aka Relicant 17:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Can you answer my question please?- unsigned comment from Relicant (talk • contribs)

Please stop harassing me over this. Since you seem to be keeping track of my complaints on User talk:Jo The Marten, you're clearly aware that I have a problem with both your misuse of images and your obsession with the word "mayhap", and substituting one for the other and then repeatedly posting about it on my talk page will not endear you to me. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Physics-defying Magneton/Magcargo

You brought up Magcargo being hotter than the sun when removing the Magneton trivia...but do you realize that what you said actually is a piece of Magcargo trivia currently? (I'm just looking for some consistency, since I imagine you would have seen that in Magcargo's trivia at some point...)

For my money, the fact that Magcargo is hotter than the sun is definitely interesting, and also isn't something I would likely ever be cognizant of spontaneously, so I would consider that very fine trivia. More than physics, Magneton is actually defying basic math, and since I'm not likely to notice Magnemite's and Magneton's weights - and since I do think it's interesting that it becomes significantly larger than common sense would suggest - I also think its weight is a perfectly fine piece of trivia.

You're hammering on the point that Pokemon commonly defies physics/logic and that it's a common thing; but IMO that doesn't stop particular aspects from being interesting still. No one's crying that Magcargo shouldn't be hotter than the sun or that Magneton shouldn't be so heavy; they're just saying it's interesting. I don't think you should be removing the trivia about Magneton's weight. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not that it's not interesting; it's that the trivia point was trying to present it as a valid argument against Magneton being a combination of three Magnemite. If you want, feel free to reinstate the point, but please don't reinstate it as a subpoint of that discussion, because that kind of logic just doesn't work in Pokemon. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I glossed over it being nested the first time around and then noticed it when I took a closer look after posting. I'm glad to hear you're not completely against it, so I'll go ahead and do as you suggest, and make it a regular trivia point. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Relicant

It's clear that you have an issue with Relicant. While some of your complaints are legitimate, there are others where there is absolutely nothing wrong with the edits you're complaining about. Whether this is a misunderstanding of our policies or something else, I can't say. But if you can't get along, then you need to make sure that you don't become just as disruptive in response. Because that's what is happening at the moment - your behaviour is as bad as theirs.

I'd recommend trying to ignore Relicant. Don't go to their user or talk pages. Let other people deal with their talk page comments, and edits if you have to. Pretend they don't exist.

On a related note, please check your attitude. You have an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude with everyone, and it frequently hinders discussion. It's especially an issue when there's a difference between what you think our policies are and what they actually are, and attempt to correct staff members who had a hand in their development. Werdnae (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll point out that Jo The Marten explicitly told me to take any issues I have with Relicant to a staff member, which is why I've filled her talk page with those issues. All your other points are taken. I'll try to tone things down. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(Second note that just occurred to me after I saved that comment: Most of "what I think policies are" are observations I've made based on what does and doesn't get removed. Clearly some of this isn't by staff members and/or isn't binding in all cases. Having our actual policies finalized ASAP would be really helpful on this front.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, all of our policies are located at BP:Policy and anything in the Category:Bulbapedia proposed policies. If you feel that an consistent action that is taken, but it is not a policy, you can create one using the Policy creation for information --Super goku (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC).

You were just told to ignore Relicant. But you didn't. You even did it knowing you shouldn't. In the future, unless they're blatantly vandalizing, I suggest you leave Relicant's edits to staff. In light of your recent behavior, you have been blocked for one week. Crystal Talian 02:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Silly me

To be honest, I forgot about Skorupi. *sigh* Now I feel like an idiot... Berrenta (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No big. Technically, it's Poison/Bug, so it's easy to overlook on our Bug and Poison pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And it evolving into a Poison/Dark didn't help matters either. X_x But hey, it happens. Berrenta (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Something to Note

While I agree that Additionally is better than Notably in that instance, I think you should tone the criticism down. You're an active user, so I see many of your edits. Your summaries often come off as mean-spirited ridicule. Notably is not an inherently bad word; it's used to point out something fairly interesting/important that the previous text did not explicitly say. Though I think that Characteristics sections are subjective garbage and a poor substitute for actual type match-up summaries, it really doesn't change anything if Notably or Additionally is used.

Believe me, I sympathize. I've been told that I'm too critical and hard to please as of late (trying to fix that), and a grammarian long before (not trying to fix that). Just try to be less inflamed by what some neanderthal on the Internet wrote, correct it in a neutral mood, and go on your merry way. I mostly do the same as you, and we both only want Bulbapedia to be a polished reference site, so we're on the same team! --IWannaBeTheVeryBest 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that I'm not enflamed and I do almost always write things in a neutral mood; people just don't read it that way for some reason. I have strong opinions that I give to explain my revisions (and one of those opinions is that there are inherently poor words for certain situations, like "notably" on an encyclopedia, where everything is supposed to be notable or it wouldn't be included), but as far as I'm aware I don't insult or talk down to people*. There's just something in my tone that people read in a negative way, and I don't know what it is or I'd fix it. In my head I'm doing exactly what you're telling me to try to do, but for some reason people don't seem to read anything the way I mean it. Sigh. Well, I'm done with my maudlin monologue, so back to editing. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe you, as the same has been said of me. It is your style of writing that gives off the odor of negativity, then. For example, in the edit I linked to, your exaggerated simile makes me imagine that you're mocking me, like I'm a fool for using a certain word. It would've been much better to summarize with "everything is supposed to be notable or it wouldn't be included." I suggest that you look at other users' summaries who can combine logical explanation with diplomatic presentation. (Good luck finding them, since even admins write downright mean summaries.) --IWannaBeTheVeryBest 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Dude, I like to know what is your problem with me! I'm not trying to be rude to you, I was just wondering why? I'm doing the best I can here on bulbapedia. I'm doing my best to follow the rules here and I'm still trying to get use to things here on this site too. So, can you please just don't bug me anymore please. Marioiscool765 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you at all, and I've neither thought you were rude nor intended to be rude to you. I just fix mistakes anyone makes. If this is about the Kayzie Rogers thing, I went to your talk page only to clarify the situation because you called me out in that edit summary; I wasn't trying to do anything negative. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. =( Marioiscool765 (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note that it's against the rules to remove comments on a talk page. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry that I called you out when I was editing the Ash Ketchum article, I'll leave the info box alone. I was just a little upset and didn't understand about that, I'm sorry kid. =( Marioiscool765 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also yes, I forgot again that It was against the rules to remove messages. I have a bad memory, but now I remembered. Marioiscool765 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Friends?

Since we talked this over of the Kayzie Rogers thing and got everything settled, because now I understand. Do you want to be friends? Marioiscool765 (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still sorry for calling you out before on the Ash Ketchum article. Also, thank you for fixing my mistakes. Marioiscool765 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Air date stuff

I didn't get why I wasn't informed via edit summary that it was on bulbanews. Otherwise, I wouldn't have reverted this since users are required to provide a source regarding airdates. This was a rule that was placed on the episode articles. Not upset or anything, just saying what was going on. PattyMan 20:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Type edit and friends

Now look what I'm trying to edit to fix the order, now you took out and edit it for yourself and now I have to start again. So do you want to become friends? Cinday123 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What were you trying to edit? Like I said in my edit summary, it's a ranked list, not a type-order list. Unless I misunderstood you? You're not explaining yourself very clearly. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see; you meant the types needed to be ordered within each tied rank. You didn't explain that at all, so I misunderstood you. Sorry about that! Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Type Trivia

I didn't see a rule saying that the top two trivia MUST be the same on all (except Fairy) types, so what's up with that? - unsigned comment from CamjChari (talk • contribs)

It's a stock trivium; changing that messes up the pattern. It's not a policy (that I know of), but it's common sense; consistency is important in order to look professional. I'd be more comfortable with it changing if an admin approved it first. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Aerodactyl

I understand the dislike of speculation entirely (though I think it's an obvious reference and doesn't count, but that's opinion). But, no references to copyrighted works? Pokemon makes tons of references to other things, why would they not be allowed to be noted? Drake Clawfang (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just citing the precedent on Talk:Keldeo (Pokémon), which generally gets applied when it comes to references to copyrighted works (unless the reference is canonically clear, such as in Tyranitar's Japanese name). Talk to an admin if you want to argue about the reasoning behind it; I don't have the power to change policy or precedent. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah, there's so many policies and rules here I couldn't begin to try and argue them. It's not a big deal anyway. Drake Clawfang (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon Bank

Hey Pumpkinking0192. I wanted to say sorry about overriding your edit to the Pokémon Bank article. I kept getting the Edit Conflict section several times in a row and I thought that I had altered my edit to match the edits that had been made. Considering what happened, I did not do so for your edit and I would like to apologize for my actions. Sincerely, Super goku (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No big deal. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) Just as a question of curiosity, was the first word in the tt section meant to be lowercase? --Super goku (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks aesthetically better to use all-lowercase for tts that are just short phrases (not complete sentences), but I don't know whether we have an official policy on it. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Eevee as a starter

When you say that Eevee is a rival's starter, you are missing the point entirely. When you say "Eevee is a rival's starter", the answer (as I answered previously) to that is, "No, it's your starter in XD." If you just say that it's not a "real" starter, I don't have any trouble (and I'd guess others wouldn't) guessing that you'd only consider the main-series starters to be "real" starters. When you bring rivals into it, you imply that that's what they meant and confuse the issue, when the other person is almost assuredly thinking of XD. I ask you: please, don't continue to fail at recognizing that some people consider Eevee a starter for XD. All you need to say is "Eevee is not a real starter." Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I will jump on the bandwagon here due to the edit warring since it is a stater Pokémon per the article called "Starter Pokémon", the the Starter Pokémon template, and the Category called Starter Pokémon. I would prefer that we follow what has already been established and then discuss changing it on the talk page of the Starter Pokémon article. --Super goku (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want, we can bring it up on the Starter Pokemon talk page again, but as you can see from older posts, SnorlaxMonster asked that the page be distinguished between the Grass/Fire/Water trios (actual starter Pokemon) and everything else that Trainers in some media start with, but nothing came of that request. I have low expectations that anything would come of a second one. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I believe that discussion is better than a storm of edits and counter edits. Considering everything, I will post a reply on the talk page of the article for the more appropriate discussion. --Super goku (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon-Amie Experiment

Well, since it seems most of the other Pokémon I have gotten through Wonder Trade have never been played with in Pokémon-Amie save for my Deerling, perhaps you could help me test this out? I can feed and play with some Pokémon and get them to different affections and fullness levels, and you do the same. We then see the results, as to if the affection resets like friendship does. Then we trade back and see if the affection (if it does reset or go to zero for the new trainer) returns once they are back with their original trainer.

For the experiment we can use Scatterbug. They're readily available so catching a large amount will be no hassle. I already have more then I want due to chaining for a shiny >,>;

We should use at least 5 in this experiment, nicknaming them by number and then feeding them to that number and getting their affection to that number.

What do you think?Yamitora1 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)