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)
I don’t want any trouble. I am not going to remove the message until I get a response from them as well. I want multiple sides of why what I did was wrong and how I could fix it. If you have a problem with me contacting ForceFire, then just contact them yourself. Also what does reverted mean? PeakA (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Reverted means the edit in question was completely removed by another user. For example, you make an edit on the Kabutops article saying it appeared in a certain episode, but I remove it for whatever reason. That's a revert. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah so that’s what reverted means. Thank you GrammarFreak01. I will try to contact the staff before I edit things just in case I am wrong next time. PeakA (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. Not sure where exactly you were in the wrong, but okay. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

PeakA and GrammarFreak

  1. Please don't tell another user to remove a message they've left on another talk page, there's absolutely no need for that kind of attitude. Your hostility, no matter how much you don't think is a big deal, is unnecessary and goes against the Code of Conduct. Please tone down your attitude when interacting with other users in future.
  2. As I've mentioned to you before, don't edit war. If you disagree with an edit, bring it up on the talk page, don't just continually revert it. It still falls under edit warring, whether you like it or not. The names of seasons or series always gets called by their full title.--ForceFire 17:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Don’t tell me I’m edit warring when I’m not. Don’t make claims without evidence. Whether you like it or not, not every reversion merits being called an edit war--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Is this not edit warring? Because I can tell you, it is. It very clearly is.--ForceFire 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Where does it say two reversions makes an edit war? You may tell me it counts, but that doesn’t make it true. Also, I went to the talkpage, but you conveniently ignored that in order to overstep and tell me that my behavior was wrong when all I did was follow your guidelines--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You still chose to revert twice before going to the talk page. And two reversions is enough to make it edit warring.--ForceFire 17:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You don’t get to decide that. You only called it edit warring because you disagreed with the reversions being made. Not because it was actual edit warring--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You do realize that Force Fire is staff? So am I. And I fully agree that two reversions is edit warring.
First edit is free. You're reverted, and you revert... Not great, but I can call that a "disagreement" (but if it becomes a habit...that's worse). At that point, IMO, you should 100% be talking it out and leave the page alone. Your next revert was just edit warring. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


Please, I added a summary on my post. Follow this link : to see they're exactly the same building reused. Also you're not an admin to remove sourced content without discussion. Jeangabin666 (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Your summary meant nothing. Bulbapedia is not Wikipedia where every bit of info is sourced. Bulbapedia has notability standards--KnightGalarie (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I noticed an admin. Jeangabin666 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"Bulbapedia is not Wikipedia"

While that may be true, it is my strong understanding that information that doesn't come from within the franchise (e.g. games, anime, manga, etc.) needs to be sourced. I noticed you removed perfectly valid sources from the SS024 and SS025 articles without explanation, so I've restored them as such. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Please use the standard quotation marks ("), thank you.--ForceFire 05:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I forget that those are accessible on my keyboard with a hold-down. I’ve just been using the ones that are on the keyboard with a tap. I didn’t even remember until I saw this message. At least i won’t have that issue anymore--KnightGalarie (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to add, this also applied to commas.--ForceFire 07:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Just realized I said commas when I meant apostrophes, my mistake. Please use the standard apostrophes, not the curly ones.--ForceFire 04:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been. When I started going backwards from the end of Kanto to meet the midpoint I was on my tablet, which had them as the default. My phone was occupied with Seedot spawns--KnightGalarie (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
If you really have been using them, then I wouldn't need to be editing after you to change the apostrophes and quotation marks to the correct version.--ForceFire 07:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
So I miss one here and there, why are you being so aggressive about it? Do you really think I missed them intentionally and maliciously?--KnightGalarie (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Use the preview button if you miss one or two of them. I'm only going on about it because I'm trying to help you be a better contributor, so you can make edits without leaving behind small, minuscule mistakes.--ForceFire 04:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Goh's Raboot

I reverted you because on Raboot's page, the romaji under its Japanese name says, "Rabbifuto", not "Rabifuto". --Bfdifan2006 18:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk page indentation problem

If you're having trouble with figuring out how many colons are to properly indent a talk page post, as you say here, then I strongly urge you to use the preview button. It's at the lower left portion of your editing screen. Click on it, and it will allow you to see your edits before you actually publish them. It will allow you to check if your latest post is properly indented on a talk page. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fictional movies

It's a fictional movie. It doesn't need to be italicized. It's only italicized on the Pokemon films article because it's in the lead, which are always either bolded or italicized. Also, don't just continuously revert me and actually give me a minute to make a comment on your talk page. You just delayed me sending you this message each time you reverted me. I've protected it for 12 hours so I could actually send you this message without having to check the recent changes to see if you reverted me again. And also, use the preview button, you keep leaving behind small errors and typos. It's also really odd that you sometimes use the standard comma but then use the curly comma, sometimes in the same sentence.--ForceFire 16:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

When I write commas, I only have the curly. And no, the titles aren’t just italicized in the lead, they’re in the section titles too. I mean, come on now. There’s nothing in the manual of style saying fictional movies must be unitalicized.--KnightGalarie (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Second block

As you have repeatedly shown a complete and utter refusal to use the talk page to settle differences, you have been blocked once more for a week. I've already explained my reasons in the edit summary, but just to re-iterate them: stop merging appearances. You're assuming that they are the same individuals just because it is the same location. We don't know if they are the same individuals and we will never know. Leave them as they are. Secondly, yes, people call Western movies "Westerns" but you still need to clarify that you're talking about a Western movie. "... in a Western Brock reminisced..." is pure nonsense. What is a "Western Brock", is what people will think when they read that line.

And before you cry foul, yes, you were edit warring. And yes, you absolutely refused to use the talk page. It doesn't matter what you think qualifies as edit warring. If the staff says "reverting twice" is edit warring, then "reverting twice" is edit warring. And you repeatedly revert edits on multiple articles. Even if you were to revert once on multiple different articles, it still counts as edit warring. Because you are reverting more than one edit. It does not matter if those reversions were on different articles. Not one bit. They all fall under edit warring.

And use the preview button. You keep leaving behind stray brackets and commas, and leave behind fragments of sentences that you removed. And listen to staff members when they tell you not to do something. And use the talk page rather than continuously reverting edits. If you return to continue edit warring, not listen to staff, and refusing to use the talk page to settle disagreements, you will be moved on.--ForceFire 06:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edits

While you may be blocked and unable to edit your own talk page, I felt it was pertinent to share these pieces of feedback before I forget. Having resumed my little scouring of editing the anime sections of Pokémon articles, I noticed a couple of patterns that I strongly believe need to be addressed as soon as you come back.

First off, you do not seem to be a fan of using "multiple", or at least a synonym, when it comes to addressing groups of one particular Pokémon species whose specific numbers are unknown. It is urgent that you do so anyway, because uninitiated readers will misinterpret certain entries and think a certain episode or movie featured one Pokémon as opposed to many. For example, you write here that the Marina Group uses "Seel" for their show. But because of the wording of that sentence, an uninitiated reader wouldn't know if you meant to refer to one Seel or many. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd like to believe this wiki strives to be as accurate as possible, all the way down to the wording. We're a hub of information, after all. So please, consider your wording for entries about singular or multiple Pokémon.

Secondly, you're clearly not using the preview button that I mentioned above, and if you are, you're not scanning your previewed edits thoroughly enough. This lack of efficient previewing shows strongly in some cases. For example, your revision of the Farfetch'd anime section features this: "[[Holly]]'s Farfetch'd appeared in ''[[DP052|Smells Like Team Spirit!]]'', under the ownership of. [sic]" That's something that could've been prevented had you used the preview button. Now, I understand there are some gaffes that can be overlooked (I've done my fair share of those), but the example I provided is a pretty egregious miss. I urge you to at least slow down and use the preview button before you proceed with your edits. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 07:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I also notice you sometimes like to alternate between using the present tense and the past tense without any explanation. While there are very few exceptions to using the present tense, generally, the past tense is required to be used for all appearance entries in the anime, manga, etc. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
If you’re going to complain about my edits, please do not make your prime example visibly older than what I had been doing at the time of my block. The example you gave was over a week old at the time of your message, leaving no room to account for any changes to my editing behavior that had happened in the intervening time--KnightGalarie (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I was editing by Pokédex order, not directly through your editing history, so I didn't think about checking the timestamps for your edits. My bad. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


It's like I mentioned earlier, information that doesn't come from within the franchise (e.g. games, anime, manga, etc.) should be sourced. Even if it looks obvious, leaving one article like that sets up a precedent for looser original research being used in other articles. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Preview Button, again

I'm not sure what it looked like to you, but my screen interpreted your edit on XY009 as using a single quotation mark instead of an apostrophe mark. I strongly urge you to use the preview button, because I noticed you occasionally use single quotation marks with some of your edits. They stand out even more because they're beginning quotation marks. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I must’ve missed it, I’m sorry. It looked like a straight apostrophe to me, as was my intent, but clearly it didn’t happen that way.--KnightGalarie (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Ho-Oh and Gyarados

In response to this, director Kunihiko Yuyama confirmed in an interview about M20 that, and I quote the article: "The movie is set in a parallel world that is split off from the main series, showing what would have happened had Ash received the Rainbow Wing from Ho-Oh." This pretty much confirms the Ho-Oh seen in the anime and the Ho-Oh seen in the movie are one and the same, since the movie is, for all intents and purposes, a hypothetical scenario of Ash going after Ho-Oh instead of just letting it fly by like he did in the anime proper.

Because the movie's a hypothetical scenario, not to mention set in an alternate timeline, it doesn't automatically mean the Gyarados and other Pokémon seen in the movie are the same Pokémon seen in the anime, just like Ho-Oh. It's only because of Yuyama's interview that we consider Ho-Oh to be one and the same in the anime and the movies. Had he not confirmed that, the site would have gone on the safe side and assumed we were dealing with a different Ho-Oh altogether, thus leading to the creation of a "Ho-Oh (M20)" article or something like that.

It's the same reason why we have different articles on the Mew that appeared in the first movie and the Mew that appeared in the eighth movie, not to mention a section and a potential new article in the Mew that appeared in Pokémon Journeys: The Series. I personally, strongly believe we are dealing with the same Mew across all continuities, but because no one in the anime staff has confirmed that for me, I have to settle with what the site has now.

Lastly, it's just as Force Fire told you before: "You're assuming that they are the same individuals just because it is the same location. We don't know if they are the same individuals and we will never know." On its own, the movie's premise that it is set in an alternate timeline throws objective doubt over whether we are dealing with the same Gyarados. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a flagrant misinterpretation of Yuyama’s words. The Ho-Oh is not hopping timelines or dimensions--KnightGalarie (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I didn't write that in the article. Do you have the interview at handy? It isn't sourced in the article proper. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Why would I? Why is your entire argument based not on fact but on memory? How is it that because Gyarados doesn’t chase Ash in the movie, it’s a different character, but Ho-Oh's the same regardless of dropping the feather?--KnightGalarie (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Why did you undo my edit? Regardless of who's right or wrong in this discussion, we still need a link to the interview(s) so we can back up the outside information being provided in the article and reword it if needs be. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
This was the original edit to the M20 article containing the Yuyama interview, complete with sources. The source for the original Yuyama interview's now dead, though. I'm trying to look into it further. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I looked at the Reddit translation, which says: "Movie 20 is a parallel world that is split from the OS episode one, in a ‘what if the story took a completely different route because of the Ho-Oh feather’…" So it doesn't sound like I or the original Bulbapedia user were off-base there. I have a Reddit account, so I'll contact the original poster and inquire further. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
No, you are still very much off-base. It’s a “What if?” story--KnightGalarie (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
First off, cool it with the aggressiveness. Second off, a "What if?" story still makes the movie (and therefore the Pokémon in it) an alternate continuity. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
What aggression? Isn’t it aggressive to accuse someone of a tone? Besides, the whole point is if Ho-Oh can have its part in episode 1 and movie 20 in the same paragraph, why can’t the Gyarados in the lake, when it’s serving the same role in each?--KnightGalarie (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Even if the major players are pretty much the same characters overall, it doesn't automatically mean the minor ones are either since we obviously can't follow all of them and their movements. It's too much speculation to look into whether they are the same or not without any outside confirmation. Also, saying I'm "still very much off-base" isn't exactly an encouraging response. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
1) It really isn’t speculative at all. It’s as speculative as saying “Beedrill is based on a bee.” and 2) “Not encouraging”≠aggressive--KnightGalarie (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


I'm not sure if your edits on the flute articles was necessary. We don't know if the Flute Cup has been held before, as far as I know, so saying that the flutes are rewarded to those who win the tournament might be somewhat inaccurate. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ll rewatch to check how explicit it is, but if no indication leans that way, I’ll remove the generalities--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds fair. Thank you. --FinnishPokéFan92 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor Appearances

Hey there. I undid your edit here, once again. As Force Fire explained, just because a wild Pokémon is playing a similar role (most likely as a reference EP001, as it was one of the very first Pokémon seen) does not confirm that they are indeed the same wild Pokémon, a point that I must agree with. This is also another reminder to use the talk page when you are in disagreement about an edit or if someone has undone your edit, you once again just readded your edit, which is edit warring. This isn't the first instance of this, please do your best to communicate on talk pages where possible. The next instance of this will not result in a warning. Thank you. --Pokemaster97 17:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not the case here. It is very clearly the same Dodrio. You are mistaking continuity maintenance with coincidence. I just left a message on Force Fire’s talk page. I have done literally nothing wrong, and my edit is completely correct. I did not choose to edit war, you chose to revert me without using the talk page. You are not exempt from the rules--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I chose to revert you because you simply redid your edit with no explanation or message whatsoever, I cannot understand where you are coming from until you have explained your reasoning, which is why I reached out to you on your talk page. However, I decided to compromise and change the wording so it is neither confirmed nor denied that it is indeed the same Dodrio, because it's is clear that it's supposed to at least be in reference to the original, if not an effort for continuity. --Pokemaster97 18:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor Appearances 2

As stated above and agreed by me as well, there is no evidence that Gyarados is meant to be the same Pokémon in both cases. Now please stop trying to re-add that information or it will result in a block next time. G50 22:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You’re threatening me with a block because I added valid information you disagreed with, and thought it was acceptable to make your own section about it when it was already discussed two sections above. Two people can agree about obviously wrong things, but that doesn’t make it right.--KnightGalarie (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Gyarados, plus all Pokémon that have similar cases need to have confirmation that they are the same. Confirmation is very important when it comes anime, and Bulbapedia information as whole. G50 22:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This is G50's edit summary that I was talking about, Knight. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
They made that edit without consensus. He didn’t consult me, he didn’t consult a fellow admin. After a compromise had been put in place. G50 is breaking the rules for his own gain. They threatened to block me for the very thing they did. They didn’t come to any involved talk page for a good-faith discussion, they came to impose their divine will on someone who had already been wrongfully blocked and dragged through the mud by another admin. If they were a regular user and they had done this, they’d be blocked for edit warring and threatening other users.--KnightGalarie (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see what they have to gain from any of this. This is the first time they've gotten themselves involved in this kind of debate. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It really isn’t, and they’ve reacted poorly--KnightGalarie (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Huh? I meant this is the first time G50 started undoing your edits and initiated a discussion with you about this. The admin who was the most involved in this was Force Fire. Then Pokemaster97 got themselves involved a little. Unless you're talking about a forum discussion, which I'm not privy to, this is the first time G50 inserted themselves into this. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Pokémaster was fine, but G50 decided, like Force Fire not to address the holes in their reasoning and instead accused those they disagreed with of “edit warring” . If there was actual edit warring they’d hold themselves culpable instead of immediately resorting to threats and discipline. They call it “edit warring” so they feel justified in exerting their power, and make their reversions immune to the same standards--KnightGalarie (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I contacted Pokemaster and told them to start a discussion amongst the admins about this scenario. But I do agree with G50 and Force Fire that confirmation is everything. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Galarian Slowbro & other edits

I just wondering that according in the biology of Galarian Slowbro, it's mouth is purple. But in it's appearance, Galarian Slowbro's mouth is grey, not purple. His head, paws, & tail are purple. But his mouth is grey. Also you been removing my edits where in the Sun & Moon Series, Pikachu & Meowth got a redesign where Pikachu eye's are more close, and the outline edges of Meowth's Eyes are removed. Just why did you sometimes remove my edits though?--Sir Y (talk) 01:2, 15 June 2020 (EST)

I explained why. They were written with poor grammar. Also, Galarian Slowbro’s mouth is purple, not gray. It’s just a lighter purple than the more concentrated levels elsewhere on its body--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

So what was wrong why I wrote.

I did what i was told. I can edit in the personality and characteristics so others can read it. I have a feeling i no one read it and just deleted. No is giving me a reason what wrong with it. Maybe their nothing wrong with it. Just that no one wants to hear my thoughts. That's all. I must be a loser to everyone.Gian9456 00:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is people can’t understand what you’re writing--KnightGalarie (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
So why not come to me and I'll explain instead of deleting.Gian9456 01:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you look once again on Goh darmination --Gian9456 01:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay I looked. The grammar was still very poor--KnightGalarie (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, but you didn't say you couldn't understand it. So its poor but you were able to understand it:)--Gian9456 01:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't. I was trying to fix it. So you can understand it better. Never mind. I'll talk to BigDocFan about it. Maybe he can understand.--Gian9456 01:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
No need--KnightGalarie (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
no need for what? You didn't explain--Gian9456 01:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC).


Who told you to remove ALL THE TEXT I PUT ON KORRINA?When creating content, no one appears to help, but to undo what others do, is it on time?Hikaru Wazana (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove all the text. You undid my grammatical corrections--KnightGalarie (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
No, only 99% of text. u_uHikaru Wazana (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
And? What’s your point? I’m not under any obligation to preserve it if the grammar is incorrect and the text is overall poorly written--KnightGalarie (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The point is: if you have a mistake, fix it. Do not remove something.When I set up the page from scratch, I went after images, text, episodes, nobody came to help me. Now removing other people's work is cool, right?But don't worry, I'll take the case to an admin- unsigned comment from Hikaru Wazana (talkcontribs)
Why would you do that? You think revenge is the best option? That doesn’t speak well of you--KnightGalarie (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing messages

Hey there. Just for the future reference, it's better to make a new comment than to edit the old one, even if the most recent one is your's. Editing the message somewhat falsifies the signature's original timestamp. Have a good day! AdilTalk page 10:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


Heya. So, it's been apparent that you have some concerns with staff in general, and with Force Fire in particular. Unfortunately, you keep bringing them up in the middle of other substantial questions and I think it kind of gets lost in the midst of trying to stay on topic.

So I'd like to take some time to try to discuss the issues you have, here, without other topics mixing in to distract from them. I'd like to ask you to start off by framing your concerns for yourself. What are some of your concerns?

(Perhaps you want to choose one thing, and detail and focus on that first. I think that might be easier than throwing out several things at once. But if you want to get it all off your chest, I'll try to wrangle it as best I can.)

Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with the fact that they’re crafting policy to suit their own bias, trying to outlaw inference?--KnightGalarie (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Are you talking about Korrina's Mienfoo's evolution, or is there more or something else? Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Renaming other users' sandbox articles

I don't think it's a good idea to spontaneously rename another user's sandbox, especially without their permission. It's their sandbox article; they can do whatever they wish to it. And if it's mainspaced by an admin, I'm sure the admin will keep the new series title in mind when they do so. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I knew it was risky but I took it anyway. I don’t see the circumstances recurring enough where the temptation would resurface anyway, so it’s likely a one-time thing--KnightGalarie (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't be mistaken, I understand the need and urgency to rename it, given the new series title and all, but it's probably for the best to be courteous to our fellow users and give them a heads-up beforehand should this come up again. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not move a page in another person's user space without explicit permission. There are no special exemptions; it's not your page, just don't do it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Third Block

Good day. While I appreciate the attention that you've drawn to some of the gaps within some of Bulbapedia's pages and policies, some of your conduct has escalated and amounted to what can be considered intimidating behavior/harassment. As a non-member of staff edits like this are inappropriate and feels like you are assuming bad-faith in nature. It is also apparent that you are still edit warring and taking it upon yourself to try to enforce policy. Here, Force Fire was correct because he was restoring the status of an article back to the condition it was before a large controversial edit was made. Even though you used the talk page, you took it upon yourself to insert yourself into making sure others were following the policies/rules in the way you interpreted them. This is not the place of a general user, if you feel rules/policies/procedures are not being followed, you are to contact staff and you are to give them the time needed to mediate the situation. While there's no issue with you disagreeing with staff or individual members of staff, it becomes problematic when these disagreements becomes attitudes of general vindictiveness that influence conduct and edit wars you've inserted yourself into. You have been blocked for a week. Upon your return, I hope that you are able to assume less bad-faith and to try to be less combative while editing so we can ensure Bulbapedia remains a positive experience for everyone. --Pokemaster97 18:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Right or wrong, it doesn’t matter, Force Fire didn’t have consensus, and he was edit warring. If you believe that Force Fire wasn’t edit warring, then what are the rules for? Intimidating and harassing lower users when they follow them? The fact that you framed my actions as “vindictive” based on a single edit shows that the block was not in good faith. The fact that you’re calling this a third block when the first two were never legitimate shows that good faith was never the intention. Making sure others follow the rules isn’t me imposing powers that I don’t have, it’s ensuring that double standards are not being held on non-powered users. Defending such bypasses shows where the priorities are. My block should never have been imposed. You blocked me accusing me of things you never actually proved--KnightGalarie (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"Has nothing to do with what precedes it"

Why does it matter? ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 03:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Because you were talking about something being false that you claimed was caused by your added content but was unrelated--KnightGalarie (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
It is related. Initially there wasn't going to be any new shadow Pokemon, but it turned out to be false. How is that unrelated? ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Having viewed the diff, I think what KnightGalarie was meaning to say is that the paragraph in question didn't mention Shadow Pokémon anywhere else in it, so the topic just comes out of nowhere. Either you inserted it into the wrong paragraph, or you need to write a new one. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
But I put it in the same paragraph. ¿¡Unowninator?! (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, as things that don’t mention Shadow Pokémon. Same does not mean correct. What you put does not make anything before it false as you claimed.--KnightGalarie (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure about that, Unowninator? That's not what the diff tells me. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Volbeat edit

Original sentence: "Before a fight broke out, Volbeat, along with the other Pokémon, was calmed down by Celebi."

Your new sentence: "Celebi calmed all attackers down before a fight could break out."

I'm not sure what you interpreted from the original sentence, but from my perspective, nothing looks wrong, and if it ain't broke, it probably shouldn't be fixed. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Then stop breaking it--KnightGalarie (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Huh? You were the one who was breaking it first. It's not really a good use of editing capabilities to just reword a sentence to a version that pretty much means the same thing, unless there's a grammatical or punctuation problem. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
It does not mean the same thing! “Before a fight broke out” means the fight happened after. “Before a fight could break out” means the fight was prevented.--KnightGalarie (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Next time, clarify that part of your argument right away instead of just saying things like "There was no reason to change this back" and "It’s implying that a fight broke out after everyone calmed down". The presence of "before" in the original version still threw me off. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
For clarification, it's good to be as specific as possible about the issue right away in order to cut down on misunderstandings and potential edit-wars that ensue because of it. Don't start off with "There was no reason to change this back". GrammarFreak01 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When reverting someone, make sure that you provide a clear reason in your edit summary. Just saying that something was removed "for a reason" doesn't make it clear to the other user why they were reverted. If the addition was incorrect, say that; if there's some stylistic reason, say what it is. --SnorlaxMonster 14:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought this explanation I made on Dusclops was pretty clear. I didn’t think I’d have to repeat myself--KnightGalarie (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It's better the provide the explanation each time you revert an edit, or at the very least leave a message on the talk page of the user you reverted. It's not necessarily obvious that they would need to look to another page's history to understand why the edit was reverted. --SnorlaxMonster 02:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


How am I blocked again when I went to the edit warring user’s talkpage and they ignored my warning about their edits? How is it that only when I’m involved reverted edits that I’m always blocked? What did I do wrong this time?--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

You have been blocked for edit warring on EP001. If you have a disagreement with another user, you discuss it with them, you don't keep trying to make your edit. And discussing doesn't mean using the edit summaries; you use the article's talk page or go directly to the person you're having a conflict with.

Please keep this in mind when your block is lifted. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I went to the user's talkpage twice and they ignored me. Including right before you blocked me. My block shouldn’t exist--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Let me highlight your error.
If you have a disagreement with another user, you discuss it with them, you don't keep trying to make your edit. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Then why do admins get to? The only person edit warring was Apikachu. The only error here is that I was blocked for removing unconstructive edits, and the unconstructive editor ignored their messages. The disagreement was Apikachu's, not mine. I was restoring the page to the status quo, as is procedure on Bulbapedia. You can’t keep blocking me for following the rules. I tried discussing it with the user, the fact that you’re blatantly overlooking that to justify your block and your message when it doesn’t apply means my block should not exist--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you think "admins get to", but you're not an admin. Nowhere should a reasonable person expect that staff and users are bound by exactly the same rules. Staff fundamentally have certain responsibilities to enforce order.
You were disagreeing with Apikachu. I'm not overlooking anything at all. I'm carrying out our rules.
You do not decide if you are right; if we "allowed" that, everyone would be right because of course they are, who's going to think differently about what they want. You don't judge your rightness. You follow the site's rules. And that means no edit warring. If you have a problem, talk with the user. If that's not working, go to staff. But you don't get a free pass on breaking rules. The rules are clear enough. Just follow them. Tiddlywinks (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
If admins are not held to the same standards as regular users then there shouldn’t be admins at all. You have not proven that I edit warred. You don’t get to block people just because you didn’t like that I followed standards and procedures to a T. It wasn’t my edit that I was reverting to, it was the website’s. And unless you’re saying Bulbapedia is wrong, I should not be blocked. If my block is upheld, then you are conceding it is about rightness because you continue to feel right about blocking me when all the other evidence says otherwise--KnightGalarie (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
You do understand that Bulbapedia has rules, yes? And if you break those rules, there are consequences...yes?
Can you describe to me where in our rules your actions were permitted? Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
May’s Blaziken, Dawn’s Piplup, Serena’s Braixen. Force Fire reverts first without explanation or consensus. He then has me blocked for edit warring and “Intimidating behavior” with no evidence because they weren’t following the rules. They were never blocked for his part in the edit war. He also previously blocked me (but not themselves) for allegedly edit warring over the use of “western”, which I successfully appealed. Every time they blocked me, they restored it to their preferred version, just so they could win, like getting upset that the toys you’re not supposed to keep to yourself are being played with, so you incapacitate the person who dared to stand near it. And on my previous block, the blocking policy was crafted in such a way that admins can do whatever they want, get away with it, and win every disagreement they get involved in, using aspects directly inspired by what Force Fire did to get me blocked. That was a straight power grab and everyone can see it. You shouldn’t be changing the rules just because they’re used against you. You shouldn’t be blocking lower users who follow the rules exactly as you do as best they can. My block is invalid. End of story.--KnightGalarie (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I understand you disagree with something that happened a while ago. I'd be happy to discuss that, but at this point, that's only a distraction. If we can settle the current issue, I'll come back to that^.
So, just to repeat: Can you describe to me where in our rules your actions were permitted? Tiddlywinks (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
It’s not a past issue. It’s the same issue: Punishing me for following the rules. I showed that there was precedent for my actions, actions which are not against the rules. It’s not a distraction either because it shows that policy is riddled with flaws that are designed to hurt instead of help. What you are pulling is selective enforcement. For someone who blocked me for allegedly breaking the rules, you still haven’t proven I’ve broken any, and the burden of proof is on you. Considering Force Fire was upset that I wasn’t following unwritten rules, I’m seeing a lot of hypocrisy, and again, selective enforcement. If you can’t prove your reasons for blocking me, I shouldn’t be blocked--KnightGalarie (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Burden of proof? Sure, I'll follow that for a step or two.
Bulbapedia:Blocking policy outlines how we block users. This establishes what a block is, how we enact them, and what violations we carry them out for.
Under Procedure, it says: If a user fails to follow the policies and guidelines of Bulbapedia, official warnings should be issued by a member of staff, guiding them away from inappropriate behavior. A user who does not adhere to warnings and persists in rule breaking behavior, or substantially violates Bulbapedia's rules, may be blocked. There are several reasons you should be aware of edit warring, the infraction at issue currently. One: it's in your welcome template: Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page. I honestly don't expect everyone to read it, but it's there. Two: in your first block, you were warned about edit warring. You were told it was a blockable offense. Three: in the topic about GalarPony, ForceFire explained edit warring in detail again. Four: in the topic PeakA and GrammarFreak, you were warned against edit warring yet again. Five: in your second block, you were blocked for edit warring. Six: in the section Minor Appearances, Pokemaster97 reminded you about edit warring. Seven: your Third Block was in part for edit warring again.
(The short version of all that is: you were warned, as our policy suggests...and amply. Honestly, I didn't realize it was explicitly so much. Consider yourself lucky this block is only 4 days. But anyway, back to your proof.)
Under the section Blockable offenses of the blocking policy is the section Edit/revert wars. It says: An edit war occurs when users who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Bulbapedia generally treats three reverts/back-and-forth edits to determine if an edit war is taking place. So, this is the crux of your block. This is the rule you broke. On EP001, you reverted Apikachu a total of six times. And 6 >= 3. Even allowing for what happened in the past few hours, you reverted Apikachu four times. And 4 >= 3. Since you reverted another user at least three times, you were blocked for edit warring.
That's my burden of proof.
Now. If you'd like to read our policy/policies and try to explain, as I suggested, where your actions were allowed, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. I'm not speaking about unwritten rules or whatever you want to complain about. This site has written rules. You violated the written rules. You were punished according to the written rules. So if you want to complain, you can tell me where it was written that your actions were permitted. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
See, this is what I mean about you overlooking the rules and ignoring them to justify your blocks. I used the other person’s talk page twice, and they made no such communications, using edit summaries only, and the entire paragraph above what you quoted is about using talk pages to resolve disputes. They did not listen to either warning, and yet somehow I’m the bad guy for trying to avoid the very block you gave me. You did not warn me I was going to be blocked for this time. I was not told I was edit warring. Being told I was edit warring does not prove that I was edit warring. If Force Fire’s continual reversions of conteny he disagrees with is not an edit war, then the definition provided in the rules means nothing. If their excuses for edit warring are valid, then it applies to everyone. Precedent states that I was not edit warring. Unconstructive edits are allowed to be reverted. Therefore, the block is unwarranted and must be either lifted or reduced to a single day, because you did not follow procedure. Context matters, and you completely disregarded it in making your decision. It seems even when I follow staff directives, I get blocked for it--KnightGalarie (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(resetting indent)You are reading into our rules what you think they should say when they do not.

You say: I used the other personal l’s talk page twice, and they made no such communications, using edit summaries only, and the entire paragraph above what you quoted is about using talk pages to resolve disputes. They did not listen to either warning, and yet somehow I’m the bad guy for trying to avoid the very block you gave me. The fact of the matter is, our rules do not make any allowance for a user to continue reverting another just because they're "trying" to communicate. Our rules are very clear. If you revert someone three times, that's an edit war and blockable. That's it. Simple. It tells you what you should do INSTEAD of edit warring. But "trying" to communicate does not mean that it's now impossible for your actions to constitute edit warring. You're supposed to discuss it...period. Not try to discuss it and keep reverting if they don't answer. If they don't answer, as I said: bring it to staff. If you revert three times, you're edit warring.

You say: You did not warn me I was going to be blocked for this time. I was not told I was edit warring. Being told I was edit warring does not prove that I was edit warring. The rules do not say that a user must be warned before they can be blocked in every instance. Warnings are meant to make users aware of inappropriate behavior. If they continue that behavior despite past warnings, they will be blocked. You have had many warnings. We are not required to warn someone who should already know they're misbehaving. If you don't understand it, especially after many warnings, that's your problem much more than ours. And you harp on about "proof"; what you're really saying is that no one should be able to enforce consequences on you unless you agree to them, and that's just not how it works.

ForceFire is staff, staff enforce site policy. You are not staff. You do not get to act like staff just because you think you should be allowed to. Your comparison is invalid.

You say: Unconstructive edits are allowed to be reverted. There is definitely no absolute permission for any user to revert "unconstructive" edits. That's a value judgement. No regular user gets to make those decisions all on their own; they can't, or the result would simply be anarchy, with everyone thinking they're right and not required to abide by anyone else. What's true is: any edit is allowed to be reverted. If you do it too much, it becomes edit warring. Pretty simple.

Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

If you weren’t supposed to give me a warning, why bring it up at all? In essence, regular users following standards and procedures, ie, site policy, is against site policy. YOU BLOCKED ME FOR FOLLOWING SITE POLICY AND PRECEDENT. That’s what you’re saying out loud. You can’t block me for interpreting what I’ve been told differently than you. You are selectively enforcing the rules in an effort to maintain powers you have accumulated too much of. If my edits can’t enforce site policy, then why have a site policy at all? Once again, I’m being picked on for edit warring I did not commit, and I have proven my innocence. You are so steadfast in your interpretations that anyone who happened to veer slightly from yours is a criminal. You are too prideful to admit you are wrong.--KnightGalarie (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I brought it up because you wanted "proof". I was trying to be thorough and touch on our whole process.
Otherwise: I'm out of ideas. I'm impressed by your single-mindedness.
Just to give one last ditch effort to hammer the point home: if you make three reversions, you're edit warring and will be blocked. Take it to staff before you reach that point in the future. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Proof that I was edit warring. Which you still haven’t provided. Proof that I was warned previously for a different incident does not prove that I have ever edit-warred. Calling me single-minded is a breach of the code of conduct and shows that the block is unfounded. Your only choice left is to unblock me, because you still have yet to prove my block is valid.--KnightGalarie (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)