User talk:Chocolate/Archive 5

This user is starting to lose interest in Pokémon, and therefore may not be on as much as he used to be.

Current talk page size: 0KB (32 bytes, 0% filled)

Notices: See the bar above. Archives: Archive 1 (discussions from my old account) Archive 2 (discussions from March 17–September 18, 2008) Archive 3 (discussions from September 18–October 9, 2008) Archive 4 (discussions from October 9–28, 2008) I archive this page when the size is 50KBs or more (exluding this box). I constantly check the current size in the sandbox.

Now, I really don't want this to get filled up quickly again. So please, if you have something to tell me that isn't important to Bulbapedia, e-mail me or tell me on the forums. ^Chocolate 23:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Stick to the old

Epic fail on the cards. They had site stamps, which had to be deleted. Not fun. And it was obvious that you just went on a search engine and stole the images. Stealing, not good. Not even giving credit to the site you stole from, horrifically not good. Leave the TCG to people who actually know what they are doing. Stick to what you know more, games and anime, but do not do TCG again, because what you did was a disgrace! ^Maverick_Nate 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But the others are horrible! And there were no site stamps! I'm sick of people saying things that are completely un-true! ^Chocolate 16:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And there's absolutely no possibility that you just didn't see it? Both Nate and SP252 are saying that they were site-stamped, and these are two respected admins who aren't exactly going to lie about something like that. End of discussion, I suggest you drop it.

Also, if you want to contribute, do it properly. Some of us - including myself, Politoed666, Kogoro and Nate - actually take the time to scan in our own cards for Bulbapedia. I personally believe a quick flick through a search engine, when looking for scans, to be a very half-assed job, because they're hardly ever (if ever at all) up to the quality we can provide by scanning in our own cards. Cipher ^(Talk) 17:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any site stamps because there weren't any! I'll even make a video for proof if you want it. ^Chocolate 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That won't be necessary. Not for me, anyway. I didn't see the scans so I'm not going any further with this. Whether Nate wants to take it further is up to him - same goes for SP252. Regardless of whether or not they were site-stamped, the fact still remains that using search engines to find scans isn't a good idea, and it doesn't make us feel great when we take time out of our day to scan in our personal collection. Cipher ^(Talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But just look at the other ones (the ones not uploaded by me). You can't even read any of the text on 'em! ^Chocolate 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Give me some links. Cipher ^(Talk) 18:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brocksrhydon.jpg, Image:Erikasdragonair.jpg, and Image:Erikasclefable.jpg, as a start. There's definitely plenty more though. ^Chocolate 18:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

At least they're there. To me, as long as they're there and can be used in articles (which they can be), they're fine. If I or someone else decides to scan in cards from Gym sets (I myself have a more than decent collection of Gym Heroes cards), they can be replaced. But this is not at the top of the TCG priorities list. As far as scans are concerned, the priorities are to complete the articles which do not have images. Cipher ^(Talk) 19:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so this shouldn't have to come up again... I'm going to be working on some of the EX sets tonight. Chocolate, if you can get a list of cards with images you find to be badly detailed, and post it onto my talk page, I might be able to do a few of them with each night's scanning. Would that make everybody happy? - Kogoro | Talk to me | 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That sounds like a great idea. ^Chocolate 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ash's Gliscor

Listen to Jmath. I think he's right--KukiTalk 20:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How? ^Chocolate 20:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So it has in indent and no bullet on two trivia, it's not like it's the only two that have the pic make it look like a poorly indented paragraph --KukiTalk 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I see. ^Chocolate 20:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullets

I agree triva sections should have the bullets, but dont make an edit for the sole reason of adding a bullet. thats stupid. -- MAGNEDETH 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean it the other way around? Because I've been taking the bullets out, not putting them in. ^Chocolate 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

yea, but that sort of brings a new light to the table. stop deleting them. -- MAGNEDETH 00:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

But bullets are used to list things seperately. There's nothing to list seperately if there's only piece of trivia. ^Chocolate 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

first off, "separately"

second off, it makes it look tidy, and theres always the inevitable chance of more trivia. now, i know your going to say "whomever adds the next trivia should add it" and thats true, but, itd make more sense if it could already be there, like it should be everywhere else. its clean, its uniform, leave them alone. add to that you already got yelled at for this, if you keep doing it, it becomes you disregarding an admin, and thats punishable by block. -- MAGNEDETH 00:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get "yelled at" for it. I got questioned about it. ^Chocolate 00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

maybe "yelled at" isnt exactly the right term for it, but the fact it was questioned by an admin, shouldnt that raise a big flag? well if you dont think you were yelled at before, then im yelling at you now. stop it. -- MAGNEDETH 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Politoed666 was the one who asked me about it. He asked me where I saw something about how bullets are used. I responded by telling him that I was doing it based on how I saw several pages in the past. So, he actually didn't question it in a bad way, he was just curious. ^Chocolate 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

actually, i believe he questioned where it was stated as a policy because it isnt, and you acted like it was. -- MAGNEDETH 00:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

ok

we can be friends --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

Yay! I'm glad we made up. ^Chocolate 00:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Check email--KukiTalk 02:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I did. I replied as well. ^Chocolate 02:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

I don't want you uploading images for Kuki anymore. He's blocked from the archives and using you as a go around to the block is the same thing as ban evading as far as I can see. So no more uploading for him. Alright? -Sketch 15:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. ^Chocolate 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about saying this, but I would have probably been called a cyberbully, a bad admin and someone who should have my powers revoked. ^Maverick_Nate 17:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

Chek it for my source--KukiTalk 16:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

HIATUS????

Who r the users? Tell me thru email--KukiTalk 19:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not just because of some of the users here. It's for other reasons that don't have to do with Bulbapedia, or the Internet in general. ^Chocolate 19:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Grades in school?--KukiTalk 19:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No. I just don't feel like sharing the reasons why. ^Chocolate 19:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Admin

I would love to be an admin, however, I know that I have yet to contribute enough to the Pedia in order to qualify; I am not active enough. You may nominate me, however, I can promise that the answer will be no. I appreciate the offer. - unsigned comment from Paperfairy (talk • contribs)

Your Sig

i was reading over the sig policy, and in a bit of coincidence noticed your sig is against the rules. the little bump you give your sig breaks the normal lines and is technically against the rules. -- MAGNEDETH 02:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But other users have that "little bump". ^Chocolate 02:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(Maverick Nate and Tavisource for example).--^☆Tavisource 02:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And Cipher. ^Chocolate 02:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

my, and the others', "little bumbs" are in small text. It can be small, just not normal and never big. ^Maverick_Nate 02:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fixed. ^Chocolate 02:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by little bumps?--Diamaster 02:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You can make text go up in the air with the tag <sup>. ^Chocolate 02:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Whats so wrong about that?--Diamaster 02:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It will push all letters up, causing an "unwanted" gap.~Ποκεμανιακα0β 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)