Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on

User talk:IWannaBeTheVeryBest

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search


Bulbapedia logo.png
Welcome to Bulbapedia, IWannaBeTheVeryBest!

Here are a few links to help you get started:

The Manual of Style, or MoS, outlines the format of all pages on Bulbapedia.

Our friendly team of staff are here to help! Talk to them if you have any questions or problems with Bulbapedia.

On talk pages, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), or by using the "Your signature with a timestamp" (button_sig.png) button at the top of the edit window.

On Bulbapedia, the ability to edit personal userpages is a privilege. Per our userpage policy, this must be earned by first making constructive edits to the mainspace. Once you can, remember to keep userspace edits (edits to User:IWannaBeTheVeryBest) to a minimum.

For a complete list of policies and editing advice, please see the Welcome Portal.
 Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
  Werdnae (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)  

Scizor and Scissor

I don't think that would be notable considering the similar pronunciation between the two.--ForceFire 12:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Multi-strike moves

Can you do the categories too please? Thanks for your help in getting the correct terminology in use. --SnorlaxMonster 07:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Independent events

Each hit of a multi-strike move is independently affected by the King's Rock/Razor Fang. Using your logic of (number of trials)*(probability of a single event)=(combined probability), if I were to flip two coins, there would be a 100% chance of flipping a heads, as there are 2 events and a 50% chance of heads in each trial. This is explained in further detail on Wikipedia: Independence (probability theory). The actual probability is 75% chance of heads:

Pr(H1∩H2)=0.75 --SnorlaxMonster 06:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello, I wanted to talk to you about your recent edit summaries. A summary like this is acceptable, but this one is a bit over the line. No user has been targeted directly, yes, but it is still offensive for the user who originally wrote it. I appreciate your help and effort in improving Bulbapedia's articles, but please try to be a bit more polite with the users. It is not a warning, but a kind request to you. It will leave a good impression on our users and it'll encourage them to contribute even more efficiently. I hope you can understand, have a nice day ahead. AdynizWanna talk? 04:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand, it just bothers me so much that we have to resort to such writing because no one else bothers to do it. I know that these summaries are basically mini-rants of mine and provide no real explanation for the edit itself (other than the obvious correction of aforementioned atrocious writing). I wasn't planning on doing any more rant summaries, but I'll make sure it never happens again. Sorry, and thanks for doing the right thing the right way. --IWannaBeTheVeryBest (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Code of conduct

Please do not assume bad faith and attack people. Pumpkinking's edit summary was in no way condescending, nor was it criticism. It was simply his reasoning for the edit that he had made. There was also no reason for you to bring up that months old incident. People can change, and this person does seem to have learned their lesson. Don't assume that every comment they ever post is with the same attitude. Every single comment you left on their talk page is essentially an attack. Take a day off to think about your attitude, it needs a serious improvement. You should assume that every comment is well meaning and in good faith. Note that this is not in response solely to those comments but your general attitude, which has become a clear problem. Werdnae (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Userspace limits

Hi. I noticed you have been editing the User: namespace a lot recently. Please don't do it any more, though. Bulbapedia's Userspace policy restricts the amount you can edit your userpage: no more than three edits per day and make sure you contribute to our mainspace more than your userspace. This policy was instated to promote people helping out in the mainspace, and also to control strain on our server. Bulbapedia is an encyclopedia, after all, so help us out by contributing to some articles before coming back to your personal userpage. The more often you edit in the mainspace, the more you will be allowed to edit your userpage. Thanks! ----Pokemaster97 21:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I can tell that is a standard message because 4 edits rather than 3 is by no means "a lot." I specifically noted in the summary that the fourth edit was the last one, and it's not like I edit my page regularly. That being said, I know I broke the rule (though they were done across two days in my timezone). Sorry. --IWannaBeTheVeryBest 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: The Birth of Mewtwo

No, I don't have a Bulbagarden account. Now, if you wanted to ask me where you can find the radio drama, its text translated in Engish, and its anime adaptation in Japanese with English subtitles, I would gladly answer here and now, but first I want to verify that my answer wouldn't go against the rules of Bulbapedia. I am saying this because part of my message in Talk:Mewtwo (original series)#Mewtwo origin was edited and removed from the chronology by the user ArcToraphim, who then added "Please don't link to, or ask for, these things. It's not allowed". Now I don't want this kind of problem anymore, so I am asking if I can post the link; if I can, I will do it here, if I cannot, we must find another way to contact each other. Bye --Abcd (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm... This is problematic. I certainly don't want to get either of us in trouble. I'll just find it on my own someday. Thanks for your time. --IWannaBeTheVeryBest 06:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not noticing your answer until now, I didn't realize that you would answer here instead of my talk page. Anyway, as I don't know if I can post links or not I won't do it, but I'll tell you that I find the radio drama googling its title (Myuutsu no Tanjou) and I found the Japanese movie subbed in English (with the extra scenes added at the beginning) googling Mewtwo's Counterattack uncut. As for the translation of the drama, it's very easy to find. Please tell me if you found them. --Abcd (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, did you find them? --Abcd (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Giovanni's Theme

The trivia should be removed because that track is somewhat common in the 4Kids dub and it was created first for the dub and not for the game. I don't remember specifically how many times it was used, but when I listened the Puzzle League version for the first time yesterday, I already knew it by memory. I'm not sure if any Puzzle League song was arranged for the anime, but I know that some anime dub-only music is arranged for the game, like Double Trouble as Team Rocket's Theme, Together Forever as Ritchie's Theme or Manny Corallo's Under Water BGM as Bruno's Theme.

I know this track existed before since one of the first times it was used in the dub (not sure if it was the first time ever, though) was in The Tower of Terror, when Jessie's hair starts to burn and she is seen running around the basement floor. That episode was released in 1998, while the Puzzle League game was released in 2000. --Gabo 2oo (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible usertags

You can use some of the code from my page, which has collapsing user tags, if you wish for next time you update your userpage. ^o^ --ZestyCactus 17:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll probably never have a neat page like you or a super-elaborate, template-gasm page like some other folks, but I'll look into it. --IWannaBeTheVeryBest 17:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


The tail here resembles how it looks in Gen 1 sprite... Marked +-+-+ (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


Here's the prove, As you can see, the coloration of Pidgeotto's feathers are the same as for Japanese version, while Aerodactyl's leg is corrected. Only Eng dub correct Pidgeotto's feathers error, while the other regions uses the same version as the Japanese version does. But these errors were fixed even on Japanese DVD version. Pikachu65 08:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Day of the Week superscript

Try {{dotw}}, so for Thursday, you would write {{dotw|Th}}, which would give Th. たかはりいtalk 21:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried to cancel my next edit (Dustox), but it went through anyway. I fixed it with another edit. Wiki is hard. --IWannaBeTheVeryBest 21:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Multi-strike Moves in Gen III

I tried battling between Emerald and FireRed, so, at least in FR/LG/E, they work that way. I don't own a copy of Ruby or Sapphire to test the rest of the games, though. And as for in-game mechanics changing, well, lots of things changed between the games of Gen IV, like Hypnosis and Blizzard. hfc2X 06:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Red links in your teams

The two fakemon on your user page are making red links on the Wanted pages. If you leave |pokemon= blank and put |nickname= right beneath it, the box will look the same but not make any red links. Glik (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't aware, sorry! Fixed it. --TheVeryBest 02:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page policy

Please note that the talk page policy forbids you from editing someone else's talk page comments as you did by removing the parenthetical part of my comment on Talk:Inkay (Pokémon). Also according to the talk page policy, comments should be in chronological order, which you defied by moving my comment out of order to be adjacent to the comment to which I was responding. Please be more careful with talk pages in the future. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

K. I was being pretty careless and just did what looked best. I haven't been myself lately, sorry. Now I'm reconsidering my place here… Editing a wiki is a thankless chore and has been distracting me from more important matters for several years now. Hm. --TheVeryBest 08:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon Trainer's Choice

On the Pokémon Trainer's Choice page, I'm a little confused as to why the Venomoth-Gastly thing shouldn't be there. There are plenty of other examples when the answer is correct but another good choice is pointed out. Could you clarify for me? AGGRON989 16:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This belongs on the PTC Talk page, but oh well. Other good choices are mentioned only if they are equally good against the listed Pokémon. Obviously we don't have a set criteria for this, but basically the score is calculated from the number of type advantages and resistances. For instance, Although Togetic is the only choice with an advantage over Fighting, Dustox bears a double resistance to Fighting. Whether it's easier to battle a Fighting type with a Normal/Flying (offensive) or Bug/Poison type (defensive) is up to you, but we mentioned Dustox anyway. In this way, a double resistance is better than a resistance, and an immunity is better than that. The notes should only mention choices with an equally-good or better match-up. With Venomoth/Gastly fixed, each note only lists the best choice/s. —TheVeryBest 16:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Okay, that makes sense. My confusion comes from ones such as Carvanha also has a double advantage over Larvitar. However, unlike Carvanha, Treecko bears a resistance. Treecko is the best choice, but Carvanha was mentioned as another possible choice. And you're right, this should be on the PTC talk page. Sorry about that. AGGRON989 16:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It's okay; this happens when we don't have a set rule even after years of conflicting edits. I missed that one despite checking them all after seeing your first comment. That should be blank since Treecko is clearly superior. I will do a thorough check later once I'm sure that this dispute is resolved. —TheVeryBest 22:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
(not trying to drag this on) I see your point, but looking back at the page, I think the difference in this case is so slight that it deserves mention. They both have a double effectiveness, and Treecko is only better by its resisting one of Larvitar's types. I reworded it to make that more clear. AGGRON989 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Uh... no. The Carvanha note should be there. Water is super effective against Rock/Ground, did you forget that? Do you think 4kids took resistance into account? No, I don't think so. And Gaslty would be a possible choice, not the best choice, but a possible choice due to it having a type that is super effective against Grass (and before you say it, it can learn Sludge Bomb). And the conflict has not been resolved, and is probably one that didn't need to be brought up. 4kids were stupid. They knew nothing of the franchise, so what makes you think they thought about resistance? Don't bring technicalities to an article of a quiz that was clearly not thought out. And finally, you know better not to edit war, so you should've brought it to the talk page instead of reverting me. --ForceFire 04:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Excuse my bluntness, but what you assume about 4Kids (and yes, you're speculating) is meaningless. Each of those questions asks for the best choice based on type match-ups. Not the Pokémon with the best offensive advantage, not a list of choices with advantages, the best one. That's a pretty clear meaning. Venomoth, who has two super effective types and a double resistance to Grass, is inarguably a better choice than Gastly and Wailmer. Regardless of 4Kids' numerous errors and whatever alternate definition you speculate they had, the wording is clear, and so should our criteria. —TheVeryBest 07:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Based on type match-ups. Resistance is best offensive/defensive advantage, not just an advantage. Gastly is a poison type. Poison beats Grass, simple as that. And 4kids telling me that Seviper evolves from Arbok is enough for me to judge them.--ForceFire 07:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be ignoring both the simple definition of "best" and all my valid points, so I'll phrase it your way: "Bug/Poison beats Grass even better than Poison, simple as that." Why do you agree that Gastly "would be a possible choice, not the best choice," yet refuse to let Venomoth occupy the note box alone? If the whole purpose of notes is to point out errors and trivia, why do you want every choice with at least one advantage mentioned? That is not what the question is. It asks for the best choice and you for some reason have something against that. Very few of them actually have equally-good match-ups, such as Swampert and Larvitar's immunity to Electric. The rest have a clear winner. Notes should only mention them. —TheVeryBest 19:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Because I'm basing it off types alone. Yes, Bug/Poison is technically better than just plain Poison, but it is not wrong to state that Poison itself has at least an advantage. This is what the note box is for as well, to note who else would also has an advantage of some sort solely by type. Venomoth is in the note box, look at the note again and tell me where Venomoth is NOT mentioned. Yes, the question is asking for the best choice, but we should also note who else would be a possible choice based on type alone.--ForceFire 03:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

But why? That's like asking someone "What's the largest Pokémon?" and instead of just saying "Wailord," they add "But Groudon and Steelix are pretty big too." It's nonsense to include anything but the best choice. You're still guessing 4Kids' intended criteria as if it's fact when the only fact we have is that they ask for the best choice. Know what a reader will think when they see a needlessly inclusive explanation like one of yours? "Look, man, I don't need a compare-and-contrast essay for each mistake. Just tell me why the answer's wrong and say which is the true best choice!" —TheVeryBest 05:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

And it's wrong to say that another choice would be a possible choice because? That's what the notes are for, "X is the best choice, but Y would also be a possible choice because it is also [part] A type." That's all it's saying. It's not saying Gastly is the better choice, it's saying it is a possible choice.--ForceFire 06:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It's wrong because it has nothing to do with the text of the question, but I've repeated that enough for you to already know it. It's only a "possible" choice if it has as many advantages as the best choice, thus making it also the best choice. For example, Torkoal is listed as the best choice to battle Shiftry, but Taillow has an equally advantageous match-up, so we mention it. A more complex example would be the best choice to battle Tyrogue: Togetic is listed because its Flying attacks would be super effective, but Dustox's double resistance would arguably be a better choice. —TheVeryBest 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You're being too technical. You think 4kids actually knew anything about the technical aspects of Pokémon? They told us that Arbok evolved into Seviper. They knew nothing. Taillow was added not because it is equally as good as Torkoal (because it isn't), it's mentioned because it has a type that is super effective against Shiftry. The Togetic note is too technical, again, 4kids knew nothing of the technical aspects of the franchise, so that shouldn't note the technicalities of the question. Again, they are there not because they are equally as good, but they are there because because they have a type that is super effective against the opponent.--ForceFire 16:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm really not. My version of the notes would be shorter and simpler. "Choice B is the best because of its X advantage/s and Y resistance/s." That's it. Taillow's type is equally good against a Grass type as Torkoal's is. Come on, FF, You know better than to even think about stats when these questions are only about typing. Togetic/Dustox is the only "technical" one and it's not hard to understand at all: one has offensive advantages, and the other, defensive. Again, that criteria is your opinion alone. Mentioning every favorable match-up is neither relevant to the question, notable in this encyclopedia, nor useful to the reader. This has gone on long enough. Please discuss this with another administrator or allow me to do so. —TheVeryBest 02:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Talking about resistances is being technical. Talking about which one is equally effective is being technical. My version is just basically "X would be a possible choice because it is Y type, which is good against Z". No talking about resistance, at all. Saying Taillow is equally effective as Torkoal is being technical, because when your saying something is equally effective you are basically implying stats. Dustox is only better by technicality, but strip it down to just offensive advantages (which is what the question asks), then Togetic would be best. The notes generally will not have anything to do with the question. It's just there to say "Hey, you could also choose X because it's Y type as well". It's not saying or suggesting that it's the best choice, it's just a "did you know" sort of thing. And this did not need to go on for as long as it did, I understand what you're trying to say, but in my opinion you are being too technical on a quiz that was not well thought out.--ForceFire 04:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Continued reversion of changes to an article, such as you were involved with on the Mewtwo Returns article, is not permitted on Bulbapedia. If changes to an article are in dispute, the proper course of dispute resolution is to use the article's talk page to discuss the changes, and to seek staff intervention if such is necessary. Further edit warring on any article will result in temporary blocks. Thank you, - Kogoro - Talk to me - 22:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)