User talk:KnightGalarie

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Welcome to Bulbapedia, KnightGalarie!
Bulbapedia bulb.png

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:

  • Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct.
  • Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around.
  • Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page.
  • Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style.
  • You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy.
  • Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page.
  • If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite.
  • Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment.
  • For more handy links, see the welcome portal.
Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
  Frozen Fennec 00:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)  

Anime appearances

The anime appearances should be listed in chronological order, so merging the very minor appearances throws that off. Also, appearances should pertain to the Pokemon itself, anything other Pokemon or characters do that doesn't involve the Pokemon itself should not be noted (like mentioning that May chose Squirtle on Bulbasaur's page). Thank you.--ForceFire 04:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we at least work to reduce some of the repetitive language? A complete reversion seems a bit excessive--KnightGalarie (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Rewording is fine, though some of your edits weren't really necessary (like the aforementioned merging of minor roles that skewers the chronology of appearances). And don't merge multiple sections, like merging Ash's Squirtle with the Squirtle Squad, they are two different entities.--ForceFire 05:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Section editing

Please do not section edit, if you want to edit multiple sections, you can edit the whole "in the anime" section instead. Section editing gives off the implication that you are not using the preview button. Thank you.--ForceFire 05:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

You still seem to be just editing sections at a time. If you see or notice multiple sections needing to be edited, please use the edit this page button at the top of the page. This will help reduce clutter on the Recent changes page. Also, please make sure to use the Show preview button before saving changes, this ways you will not have to edit the page multiple times and can get everything updated and changed in one edit. Please and thank you, have a delightful day. Frozen Fennec 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


There's nothing wrong with what's being written on Charizard. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Read two sections above. Rewording is fine.--KnightGalarie (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Force Fire doesn't specify what kind of rewording is appropriate. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a standard writing style we must adhere to. Please adhere to it. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You have to tell me how I defied it first. You’re not even reading what you’re reverting.--KnightGalarie (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"However" usage

I have not seen "however" used like this. If it's going to be used like that, it needs to be for the beginning of a different sentence, otherwise it should be replaced with "but" or a similar connector. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s very common and correct--KnightGalarie (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know which example exactly I'm supposed to look for, but I see NOTHING in that article that proves your point. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
So you don’t know what you’re looking for, which means you didn’t read the article, but yet you’re still calling me wrong. Something doesn’t add up--KnightGalarie (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I did read the article. Maybe you would name the specific section I'm supposed to read? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Here’s something that’s gets to the point better--KnightGalarie (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Your takeaway here: "However, if you cannot bring yourself to do it, you can precede your However at the start of your sentence with a semicolon (not a comma) or slide it further down your sentence and offset it with commas." GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
You said you’d never seen it used in such a way, and now that you have, completely missed the part where it’s said that such usage is encouraged, and told me what my takeaway was. Please stop moving goalposts.--KnightGalarie (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I forgot about that one, but even if I did still remember it, I don't like to use it. The article itself agrees with me on that preference. Either way, you still didn't use a semicolon, if you looked at the diff. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
For chrissakes I do not need a semicolon--KnightGalarie (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
That's not what your own link is advising you, though. Nowhere does it say what you did is punctually or grammatically correct. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Then show me where in the GrammarMonster link it says such. You can even Google “Using however to begin a sentence” yourself and try to tell me I’m wrong--KnightGalarie (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I just copy-and-pasted the exact sentence that says so over here. Check above. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Minor errors

Can you please use the preview buttons to make sure you didn't make minor errors like not adding a period at the end of a sentence. Thank you.--ForceFire 06:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


As you have the habit of continuously reverting edits without discussing it first, you have been blocked for three days. Do not continuously revert an edit, it falls under edit warring and is a blockable offense. Discuss the issue with the user that reverted you, do not immediately jump for the undo button. The Squirtle in Ash's dream is not the same Squirtle that Gary chose as his starter.--ForceFire 09:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please show me where I continuously reverted edits without a single discussion. To ignore the discussion I was part of is disingenuous, and blocking me takes me out of the discussions that I was already part of. There’s also the fact that the reversions I’m blocked for were because another user jumped the gun and made edits before consensus was reached. In fact, you jumped pretty quickly to the block button without a warning or a discussion over the passage you contested. Three days is pretty harsh--KnightGalarie (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The Squirtle page. You've reverted me and GrammarFreak. And you reverted them previously on that article. You've also reverted their edits, and my edits, on several occasions. That was the factor in your block, it was not just because of one occasion.--ForceFire 10:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
And it's one day per reversion on the Squirtle article, including GrammarFreak's edit you reverted previously.--ForceFire 10:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Then it’s not continuous, and the block is unjustified. The first thing you cited was a “habit of continuously reverting edits without discussing it first”, but yet there is no evidence of such. Why don’t his reversions mean anything? Why do his edits where he jumped the gun in the middle of a discussion factor into the reasoning of the reversions. Why am I responsible for the actions of another user?--KnightGalarie (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
"Habit of continuously reverting edits without discussing" was referring to your recent reversions, I had clearly said why that got removed in my edit summary, yet you still added it back without discussing it. I've brought it up with the other staff members to see if GrammarFreak should be blocked as well.--ForceFire 10:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
How recently though? It has to be a really long stretch for it to be continuous. For something to be constant it has to be done way more than 2 or 3 times. One of the removals was to reduce redundancy as it stood at the time and I’m being penalized for that? Just because you feel like something is a war doesn’t make it one. How come you can use an edit summary but when I use the edit summary to say your reasoning doesn’t make sense as it pertains to the altered content, I get blocked for it? Isn’t that a double standard?--KnightGalarie (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The Squirtle article recent. You also have the tendency to revert any edits that you disagree with, without discussing it. This is something that can be seen by looking at your contributions. Your contributions imply that you are growing a habit of just reverting edits.
The problem with that edit wasn't what you said in the edit summary, the problem was that you reverted it anyway rather than coming to me and ask what I meant with my edit summary (which I already explained in my initial comment).--ForceFire 16:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
My actual contributions say differently. You completely reverted my edits instead of focusing on the parts you actually had a problem with. You did that multiple times. For someone saying that I have a tendency to revert edits I disagree with without discussing it (which isn’t a crime), it seems you have the same problem, but for you it’s business as usual. Heck, GrammarFreak tried to undo many of my contributions without explaining what was wrong with them. Only after reverting them did he try to claim a “standard writing style” that when asked couldn’t even cite when asked. And as for part two, it seems you feel justified in blocking me because I didn’t come to you? That’s pretty petty and shows I didn’t actually edit war. Both of you accused me of doing things I didn’t even do in order to justify your action.--KnightGalarie (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


I did a check and it would appear that both you and GalarPony share the exact same computer details, with one of your IP addresses being similar to the many IP addresses that GalarPony uses. That, and your behavior is somewhat similar to theirs in that the both of you get very defensive when something doesn't go your way. You both also edit war frequently and generally refuse to use the talk page to sort things out. Please clear up whether you are GalarPony, because if you are, this account will be indefinitely blocked as users are only allowed one account each. Thank you.--ForceFire 08:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

”[I] edit war frequently” is not a true statement. I’ve only been in one edit war. And “generally refuse to use the talk page” can’t be true either because I used the talk page in regards to both of you. You keep calling my behavior pattern that I’m a frequent edit warrer when there’s no evidence to back that up. It is impossible for GalarPony to be me. I didn’t even know GalarPony existed until I saw GrammarFreak make the baseless accusation. How can there be the same exact computer details if I’ve only made one account ON A CELLPHONE? There is nothing that makes sense about these accusations. The fact that you called the similarities “suspicious” as if two people both using terms from the same popular game is cause for alarm. If it’s alright, don’t make defensiveness the fault of the accused when they’re faced with baseless accusations, because I am not GalarPony. I chose this account name because of the “Night Gallery” (the ‘70s horror-themed anthology series hosted by Rod Serling) pun. Blocking someone because of similar names is stupid, it would be like blocking an account named “AlphaBettman” for being too similar to Abcboy--KnightGalarie (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Continuously re-adding information that was previously removed counts as edit warring, that's what I meant by frequently edit warring. You have repeatedly add back information that was removed without asking why. That's why I said "generally", yes there are time when you used the talk page, but then there are time when you don't and just revert away.
I'm not suspecting you of being GalarPony because of the name, hence why I didn't mention it. I'm suspecting you because I did a check and some things matched, namely the device the both of you edited from are the exact same. All I needed was a yes or a no, and a short explanation. Not a whole paragraph. Anyway, thank you for clearing up the issue.--ForceFire 15:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You’re still accusing me of edit warring, when everything you’re accusing me of doing is stuff only you and GrammarFreak did. You’re also flipflopping on whether I “never” go to the talk page (which caused the block) or I “sometimes” do. You specifically stated that you blocked me because I didn’t come to you, and stated that because GrammarFreak did, that got them a lighter sentence. You also took his word that his suspicions were reasonable when they weren’t. Your course of logic has so many holes. You’re showing obvious bias. Yes, you came to me, but not in good enough faith to avoid doubling down on baseless accusations like “Having the same exact device” like there aren’t multiple people with the same model of cellphone. Heck for all I know, you read my information twice and didn’t realize it. You didn’t approach this properly, and it really shows.--KnightGalarie (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Look at the revision history of the Squirtle article. GrammarFreak makes an edit, you reverted him. I reverted you, explaining why it was correct, yet you still reverted me. That is edit warring. And simply reverting other user's edits is something you commonly do. Someone makes an edit, you revert them (or re-add the information), someone else reverts you, and you re-add it back. That is edit warring. Simple as that.
There are multiple factors that got you blocked. Edit warring is the main one. The "not using the talk page" reason was specifically referring to you reverting me on the Squirtle article when I clearly said why the information does not go there in my edit summary. You were clearly confused on why the information was removed, but rather than come to me, you chose to revert it and used the edit summary to express your confusion.
GrammarFreak got a lighter block because his edit warring wasn't that extensive in this occasion. I did not take his word about the GalarPony thing, me not mentioning that whole "similar name" thing makes that rather clear. I acted on it because I did a more thorough check on your IP address and compared it to another user, who had the same details as you. And it's not far-fetched for someone to create a second account for whatever reason, there has been plenty of precedence for that on this site.--ForceFire 16:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
1) The passage was about the Squirtle who became Gary’s. 2) The wholly correct and relevant information you removed was there long before I got here. You used the edit summary instead of coming to the talk page, a behavior you scolded me for and was a factor in my block. 2) You call it “continuously edit warring”, yet have only cited one example that lasted all of two reversions. That’s not continuous. That doesn’t even establish a pattern of behavior. 3) What you call “confusion” was a statement of fact. Your edit did not make sense. And because I stated so, you blocked me. After two reversions. 3) The extent of GrammarFreak’s edit warring is MASSIVE. He sought out to undo every one of my early edits to the Pokemon pages under the false claim that I was going against a non-existent writing style policy. 4) This was after you wholly reverted my edits on those same pages instead of fixing the parts you disagreed with. And yet I get labeled the edit warrer. It just doesn’t add up. The fact that you didn’t respond when I stated points 3 and 4 the first time in the previous section definitely arouses suspicion of your motives--KnightGalarie (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Move Variations

I am unsure if the edit I made on the Move variations page was bad. Can you tell me what I did wrong and how I could improve on it in the future? I also remember me doing a similar edit on adding Meteor Assault but no one removed it. Can you explain why that is? PeakA (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because no one paid mind to it. A user had recently been reverted for changing criteria without permission. Now if you could please remove your message on Force Fire’s page, that would be great.--KnightGalarie (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)