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 irc.systemnet.info.

User talk:Relicant

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
A4 Clear File artwork.png
Ani646BMS.png Relicant's talk page Ani646BMS.png

Archived: 1

The last person who edited this page believes in ideals. (yes I'm talking about you, Maverick Nate)

Talk Page Comments

Removing talk page comments, including the initial welcome template, is prohibited per Bulbapedia's talk page policy. Please do not remove any comments in the future. If you wish to clean old comments away, you should archive your talk page instead. Thank you! --オリナル TheOriginalOne 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember ever removing comments from my own talk page except to archive them. So what you just wrote is irrelevant to me. --The Truth aka Relicant 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You removed talk page comments from TheOriginalOne's page, and I'm sure you're aware that that's what the warning is referring to. --It's Funktastic~!話してください 18:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
And if you were able to remove comments from a talk page belonging to another user, you'll certainly be able to remove from your page. I didn't need to change the text from the source template. This is not the way you're going to get your fresh start. So please behave normally. オリナル TheOriginalOne 13:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A side note. Please don't make accusations against other users. Whilst you did remove it, it still stands that you decided to say it in the first place. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say it in the first place.--ForceFire 06:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

When someone ends their sentence with "FOR GARDEVOIR", you can see why I made an assumption. Also, the irony --The Truth aka Relicant 15:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I resent that; I was not accusing you of something that may or may not be true, as you did to HoennRemake; I was pointing out a (completely factual) pattern in your talk page comments. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
What pattern? --The Truth aka Relicant 18:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't play dumb with me. You are fully aware of what I'm talking about; it's all there in the discussion you just linked to. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I made a joke about Georgia's Bisharp and you yelled at me for it. That's an accusation. --The Truth aka Relicant 19:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the two of you need to stop arguing. There's nothing to gain from bickering back and forth like an old married couple. You can either kiss and make up, or simply stop talking to one another. You're both being rude, and you're only fueling each other to get a reaction. Cut the attitude, turn around, and walk away. It's that simple. If one or both of you continues this rivalry, action will be taken. This cannot continue. Jo the Marten ಠ_ಠ 20:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a "rivalry"; Relicant is repeatedly disruptive, and I'm pointing it out when and where it happens. If she would get properly disciplined for it, I would stop, but that isn't happening. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
@Pumpkinking0192 If she's still bothering you, I highly suggest that you just ignore her and move on. Again, this debate isn't getting us anywhere, and we don't want to have to deal with any of this. And Relicant, remember what some of the staff and a few other users (myself included) told you already. GamerGeek 21:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Recet edits

Did you ask for permission to do them? Before engaging in such a big task, you should first consider asking a member of the staff for permission. If given, ask how you should proceed. For the time being, I'm reverting your edits (Did you make a typo here, by the way?); but feel free to propose the change (in this case, moving the pages), and we'll submit it to proper discussion. Please remember this for next time. Masatoshi talk 16:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to ask permission. If this Wikia didn't masquerade that hideous word as the actual terminology I wouldn't have had to do those mass edits. --The Truth aka Relicant 17:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that while we are a "wiki", we are not affiliated with Wikia Inc., which is much, much lower quality than us. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I actually don't care. Not to be rude or anything. I've seen low-quality wikias which didn't throw around the "beta" term as often as this place does. --The Truth aka Relicant 18:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
If we want to be consistent, we must plan out what kind of changes we are going to do, so changes like these can't be done by anyone without consulting anything first. You will wait until a decision has been given. Masatoshi talk 18:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User page

Do not, under any circumstances, add anything about the "leaked" Pokémon regardless of its confirmation or not. We do not add information about unconfirmed Pokémon, whether it's hidden or not, the site notice says so. Thank you. Masatoshi talk 18:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't responded to the talk page comment regarding the beta misuse. --The Truth aka Relicant 18:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Nate has already responded in my behalf. It will get a proper discussion later. No need to rush any changes until then. Masatoshi talk 18:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages

Per the talk page policy, apart from your own personal user talk page, archiving of talk pages should be handled by staff members only. Next time you notice a long talk page, please contact a staff member instead of moving it yourself. --SnorlaxMonster 13:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Trivia

You were specifically told not to add that trivia back again. As a reminder, repeatedly readding an edit is considered edit-warring, and is a blockable offense. Additionally, at this time, trivia should not be our main focus under any circumstances whatsoever. There are new games out, and our attention should be directed at adding core information. If it is that important to you, I will bring it up with the rest of staff. However, until then, the decision made during previous discussions still stands and it is not notable. Thank you. Crystal Talian 16:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If that piece of trivia was not notable because it's a trait more than one Pokémon share (although I've already brought up that 2 out of 718 makes it notable), yet a Pokémon that share its Base Stats and Species name with several others is, that's hypocritical. If one piece of trivium is unnotable because it's a trait shared by several individuals, all trivium of that kind is, regardless of what is is. And no, Charizard being a fan favourite does not give it special permission to break the notability rules.
On another note, how come we're not using "VS character" screenshots for Gym Leaders and E4 who haven't had their official arts revealed yet? --The Truth aka Relicant 20:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
All of the artwork has been released. The remaining pieces just need someone to scan them from the guidebook. MaverickNate 21:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorta weird how nobody's done this yet, although then again the wikia just lifted the edit block for all non-admins so maybe I'm just impatient? --The Truth aka Relicant 21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
People have probably just been focusing on other things instead. There's a lot to do and a lot going on, so I wouldn't rule that out. MaverickNate 22:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Boom. Reshiram."

Please note that posting images as section headers makes it impossible for users to click on that section in a Table of Contents and be directed down to that section. I don't know if this is actually breaking any rules, so I'm not reporting it, but I would like to earnestly request you to stop because it's disruptive. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply on my talk page

^ That. CycloneGU (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't edit my talk page with one-liners. --The Truth aka Relicant 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk page

Hey there. You removed my comment, and I guess that's fine given the circumstances; but per the policy, you should say what was wrong with it in an edit summary. Just undoing it doesn't provide that, and risks confusing users who don't know about the policy. GreenReaper (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your complaints regarding "beta" articles

While you are welcome to your opinion, and welcome to voice it with the intent to bring about change, spamming your complaints every time someone uses the term "beta" is not productive. So, seriously, enough with the constant unwarranted complaints. - Kogoro - Talk to me - 19:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

People keep on using that term without knowing what it actually means, I'm just educating them. --The Truth aka Relicant 19:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Your "educating" is nothing more than unnecessary spam, it adds absolutely nothing to the questions/suggestions of others. Like I said before, no more of it. If you continue "educating" individuals where it's not acceptable, you will receive blocks for talk page spam. - Kogoro - Talk to me - 08:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
So, "educating" others is unacceptable except on their user talk pages? --The Truth aka Relicant 08:53, 17 November 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! --Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Expressing doubt in name origins

I didn't have enough space in my edit summary to adequately explain, so my apologies for intruding on your talk page for it. We aren't Nintendo, so we can never know for sure what a name origin is (unless it's cited, which to my knowledge few or none are). Thus, some expression of doubt is necessary; this generally takes the form of such-and-such may be something-or-other. The reason you were reverted on Siebold is because further adding "possibly" on top of that is redundant. From my perspective, if part of a name origin is so speculative that it requires further doubt-indications, it's too speculative to include at all; whereas if it's not speculative enough to exclude, it's fine to treat it with the same level of doubt-indication as the rest of the name origin section. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent behaviour

It's clear that you and Pumpkinking0192 don't get along, and your disagreements are becoming disruptive. I must ask that you ignore each other. Don't go to each others' user or talk pages, and let other people respond to each others' comments and edits. You also must stop antagonising other users. In particular you must not leave deliberately misleading edit summaries. If you're going to use them at all, then use them properly and say what you did. They are not a place for you to try and get back at people or complain when decisions don't go your way. Werdnae (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You were just told not to leave misleading summaries, and to ignore Pumpkinking. You did not do either of these things. You've been warned before that you would be banned if you continued disruptive editing. In light of this and past behavior, you have been banned for two months. Crystal Talian 02:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I sent an email to you about why my two month ban was unjustified and asked for it to be halfed and you never responded. Can I have a fresh start now? --The Truth aka Relicant 12:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the late reply, but I never received the email from you. Regardless, your ban was justified as you did exactly what you were told not to do (demonstrated above) and were warned previously that continuing to be disruptive would be a two month ban. If you want a fresh start, that's something you'd need to take up with the Editorial Board. Crystal Talian 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Trademarked romanizations

Whenever you discover a batch of new trademarked romanizations, you can't just change the species pages. That's only doing half of the work involved. You must also make sure to change any relevant instances of where the old romanization is used in favor of the trademarked one. This includes, but is not limited to, the List of Japanese Pokémon names, as well as the two instances on every card article featuring each Pokémon. MaverickNate 04:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. --The Truth aka Relicant 10:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Draft Page for Volcanion

Just thought I'd help out and make some suggestions. I think a feline appearance would suit more than lion-dog (it doesn't look much like a lion or a dog in my opinion, but it certainly looks feline). I've also heard some people comment it may be based off a steam engine. Hoopa's looks pretty good so far.----BigBadBatter 04:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I did forget to mention why I thought the lion-dog part should be kept out of the Biology section but kept in the Origin section. What I've noticed with the Biology section is that it describes the definite design points, for example Charmander would more or less be "an orange lizard with a flame on its tail", whilst in the Origin, it describes the fact that it's based off a salamander. Hope this makes sense!----BigBadBatter 06:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just a little reminder, if you have a problem with a user reverting your edits, bring t up on the talk page of the article or a staff member. Don't just keep on reverting them because it really goes no where when you do so. Thank you for reading.--ForceFire 08:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a reminder that your interaction ban with Pumpkinking is still active. While he did revert you first, if that happens again in the future, please avoid reverting back or getting into edit wars with him. You've already been given ample warning not to interact with him, and it was even one of the reasons for your last block, so this will be your only warning. Thank you --It's Funktastic~!話してください 15:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit comments are useful...

Particularly when you're reverting someone's edit, it would be nice if you provide a reason in the summary. Currently, you've twice reverted an edit to Geosenge Town's name origin without explanation. I had to discover on my own that you're probably right, but other people may not stumble upon that conclusion like I have. If it should happen that you need to revert another such edit to Geosenge Town, or any other town/city, it would be nice if you mentioned in the edit summary that "The English names of cities and towns in Kalos are derived from various ingredients used in fragrances." (...to quote the trivia; I don't say you can't paraphrase it, though). Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

it would be nice if people steal ideas from my serpace but it happens. also im pretty sure they should have picked up rhe common theme with the Kalos town and city names or at least bother to read the article's talk page where it was agreed ginseng would be kept as a possible name origin. --The Truth aka Relicant 17:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The "stealing" comment is mistaken and irrelevant.
"Should have" is not the same as "did". In any case, if they're removing it, it "should" be apparent that they're not aware of any theme or discussion; nor is it guaranteed that anyone else seeing your reversion is aware. Must you make others do extra work (especially when they may not arrive at the correct answer) when you could just give an explanation in the first place? It's simply courteous to write a reason when you revert someone. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
1) don't blatantly lie to me.
2) research is everyone' s friend, especially when it's an article on a wiki that has an active talk page. --The Truth aka Relicant 22:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
First off, simply because someone else is working on the same idea does not mean they are stealing concepts from someone else. Both of the userspace pages contain exclusive information that can be easily merged together at a later date. Secondly, there is no need whatsoever for such rude comments, Relicant. You are in the wrong here. If you have to do remove/add something more than once after someone changes it themselves, an edit summary is warranted. Otherwise, without an edit summary, it is a revert war. Expecting someone else to do research that was already finished by someone else is rather selfish. Especially when all that is needed is a few seconds worth of explanation in an edit summary. You are essentially saying that your few seconds is worth more than anyone else's time, which is not true. Don't be a Dunsparce. MaverickNate 23:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)