User talk:ChE clarinetist

Welcome to Bulbapedia, ChE clarinetist!

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!

AGGRON989 18:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Signing

Please remember to always sign your comments. You can sign your comments with 4 tildes (~) or clicking the signature stamp ( ) on the top of the edit box. It should also be noted that once your comment has been marked as unsigned, you cannot replace it with your signature as it will give off the wrong time stamp. Thank you for taking your time to read this message, have a good day. --Force Fire 03:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, was my first talk page post and it slipped my mind.ChE clarinetist (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The other thing about Ash Hawlucnha it's not the second fighting type

It's actual the 5th fighting type pokemon. Others are in order Primeape, Harracross, Infernape, Scraggy, and Hawlucha --SilverioBOMB (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I wasn't even thinking that when I reverted the edit. ChE clarinetist (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

your welcome--SilverioBOMB (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

what was wrong with the personality of noiven

it seems to be accurate--SilverioBOMB (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The bit about the relationship with Hawlucha was already covered in my view, it didn't really add anything. Noivern also did not defeat Zapdos, it saved Zapdos from Team Rocket. You also focused a lot on the strength/power of Noivern, something you have also been warned to not include. In general the majority of your edit was focused on Noivern "defeating" Zapdos, which did not happen, so it was removed as inaccurate. ChE clarinetist (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

But it was proven to be strong enough to fight against Zapdos. Wouldn't that count for something

--SilverioBOMB (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also Ash Noivern did defeated Zapdos Ash and his pokemon look at Zapdos in fear as Zapdos was really bad shaped to fly in the air as it was falling showing it was defeated

Ash Noivern strength really became munch stronger as one blast of Boomburst did defeated Zapdos --SilverioBOMB (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Strength and power are subjective, as each person has a different view of what is strong and what is weak. That is why it is rarely, if ever, allowed to be presented here. No, Ash and Noivern did not defeat Zapdos. Zapdos was falling because its wings were bound by Team Rocket trying to capture it. That had nothing to do with Ash and Noivern. The "battle" they were having was effectively interrupted by Team Rocket, and neither Zapdos nor Noivern were defeated. Also, please remember to properly indent replies on talk pages to help show the flow of the conversation easier. You indent by putting the colon (:) character in front of your text. Finally, please do not try to discuss predictions for the future anime, or what you hope to see, on the site. It does not help improve the wiki in any way and belongs on the forums. I have removed the offending material as it is violating Bulbapedia policy and I do not wish it to attract its own side-tracking discussion to my talk page. ChE clarinetist (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wait you can see Zapdos falling down from the air as Ash looked scare thinking Zapdos wouldn't recover in time to fly back in the air and Team Rocket saw thde chance to grab Zapdos knowing it was too weak to fly. --SilverioBOMB (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just rewatched that portion. Yes Zapdos was falling, but there was no proof that it was defeated. Team Rocket moved so fast they did not give Zapdos a chance to recover. Also, if Zapdos were truly defeated, someone else would have added that to the trivia section of Ash's Noivern, since it is very rare for a normal Pokémon to defeat a legendary. I still stand by that it was not a defeat, and you also focused on comparing strength, something that you have been warned not to do as strength and power in the way you were talking about it is entirely subjective. ChE clarinetist (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

But Pokemon do grow on strength meaning Noverin have grown munch stronger as proven of evolution does increase strength and speed

Ash Talonflame as Fletchinder was grown munch stronger and greater speed against Moria Talonflame and evolved into Talonflame it was munch stronger with greater speed against Moltres

Proven Pokemon strength and power were grown each time as either hard training or evolution

Giovanni Persain was said in its biography against Ash's Pikachu to be able to defeated and it wasn't official battle seems similar in that matter.

Persian made a cameo appearance in In the Shadow of Zekrom!, being petted by Giovanni. It later appeared at the end of Unrest at the Nursery! with its Trainer and Matori. In the next episode, Persian was sent into ::battle against Ash's Pikachu and proved itself to be extremely powerful, taking an Iron Tail, then swiftly knocking Pikachu out with Power Gem. It briefly appeared in Farewell, Unova! Setting Sail for New Adventures! and ::The Dream Continues!.--SilverioBOMB (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

First, it is standard that ALL Pokémon have stat improvements when evolving. That is not notable, and should not be mentioned in articles about specific Pokémon. Second, your whole insistence on talking about how "powerful" Pokémon are based on how many attacks they can take is not allowed. You have been told several times from multiple staff members to stop with those comparisons, so please stop bringing it up. Your entire point about Noivern was subjective, not notable, or false information. ChE clarinetist (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Its not false info its true info what easily had been seen--SilverioBOMB (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Obviously others also disagree since no one mentioned on Noivern's trivia section that it defeated Zapdos. If you really feel it was true and belongs there, bring it up on the talk page to see if others agree with you. ChE clarinetist (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

How the forums seems to block like when i go its dosent pop up anymore it

it seems to be disable or soemthing --SilverioBOMB (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Sounds worse"

Hello, just to let you know I'm not going to revert that as there is an issue. What I would like to know is how does it sound worse? It seems like more of an opinion than fact.Sly Fox (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

do we really want to get into this again?

YesRatchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Also what is the point in reverting that edit when it removed redundant text?Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not redundant, it is your own personal crusade against a phrase that several higher staff on Bulbapedia said is perfectly acceptable. Just because you do not agree with it does not mean you can ignore staff orders and go around changing something that is viewed as proper English by a lot of grammar sites. ChE clarinetist (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A note

Hey! Let me start by saying, I certainly appreciate your efforts to inform users about the rules and help maintain order on the wiki. But when talking to other users, please be very mindful of your wording. Keep in mind that you are ultimately still one of their peers—you do not have a staff member's authority, so try not to give the impression that you do. I know that can be a bit subjective, but something that certainly crosses the line is telling a user that they "will" be blocked for something, as in your recent comment on Arbok7's talk page. (Even "may" probably edges just over that line.) If someone is being that troublesome, then it's staff's duty (as those with the power to follow through) to lay down that final line, so please try to leave that to staff. Remember, you can always leave a comment on a staff member's page.

Just try to keep it in mind in the future. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for doing that with 'Dutch'. I was just a bit too "overconcetrated" :) Lokki (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I figured it was a copy-paste error. Although I see that I missed the other instance of the correction as well. ChE clarinetist (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

I think there's a bit of leeway in what constitutes edit warring, but past a certain point, it's just ugly. You may know this, and/or you may feel you were absolutely in the right, but please keep this well in mind in the future: do not continually revert an edit. If an edit is continually being reverted, discuss it. At any point, there are many opportunities to discuss such an issue; please take advantage of one of them and resolve it that way. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this warning. When an edit is reverted to remove something and the other editor believes it should be added back, the burden of the discussion is on the person that supports adding the item back. Because of the disagreement, I feel the item should not be added back until the discussion is completed and a consensus is reached to have the item added back. Aside from that, my personal limit is 2 reverts by myself, and then I leave it in the hands of staff, as usually if an editor is going to listen and discuss it they will do so after 2 reverts by the same person. ChE clarinetist (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Make it 2 reverts period and I'd agree. 2 reverts for yourself could mean you're coming in on an edit war that's clearly egregious (perhaps it's already gone back and forth a half dozen times or more), and telling yourself another 2 for yourself on top of that would be okay just isn't kosher.

Besides that, the burden should not be on one person. Anyone can start a discussion. Anyone conscientious should. You don't get any points for declining any burden to start a discussion.

If you really want to press your policy, however, I recommend you address it with a higher staff member. If not, though, I'd ask you to accept some burden to start a discussion if an issue is clearly developing. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, clarification. If there's already multiple reverts before I get there, or if there's multiple reverts after my first, I stay out of it for the exact reason you said and bring it up on an online staff member's talk page. Normally make my 2nd edit summary a request to discuss, and that tends to either prompt a discussion or the other editor stops for some reason. I can adjust my point to start a discussion myself on a second reversion. Not sure who the best to contact about my view of "if its being discussed for a removed point, it should stay down until consensus is reached" though, so if a higher staff member happens to wander into this and wants to comment that's good, otherwise I'll try to exercise a more conservative approach when there's been one other reversion aside from my own. ChE clarinetist (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ash's Leavanny gender trivia

Why do you think that point on Ash's Leavanny's page is not notable? There is a point on Ash's Pikachu's page saying the episode in which it was confirmed. Ash's Sceptile also has a point saying that he was referred to as a male in specific episodes so why is Leavanny somehow an exception?Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Pikachu is special because he was introduced in Gen I, and was specifically referred to as male, before genders were applied to Pokémon. Sceptile was only referred to by the main characters, but was never confirmed. There are 14 other Pokémon Ash owns that have confirmed genders that do not have the trivia point for what episode the gender was confirmed in, that is why I removed the gender trivia from Leavanny's page. ChE clarinetist (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

How does a Pokémon being referred to as a gender only in the English dub qualify as a trivia point but not when it is confirmed in both. Probably every Pokémon that was confirmed in the English dub has a trivia point Misty's Psyduck for example has a point that says the episode in which it was referred to as a male so why not Leavanny or the other Pokémon. Think of it this way if someone is reading the article and sees it says male and what if they then want to know how it was confirmed, if there is a trivia point that says this they will find out exactly how without it how are they supposed to find out. Will it make articles any worse? I doubt it.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, because it was directly confirmed in both it is not needed as a trivia point. I did just check, and for a lot of the confirmed genders for Ash's Pokémon the episode it was confirmed in was listed their History section with a brief bit about how it was confirmed. That would be the appropriate place for that information, not a trivia point. ChE clarinetist (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding change in trivia section in XY044

Hey bro,why it is not notable?? Pokemon master sachin (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Mega Evolution was introduced in Gen VI. It would make sense that a gym leader from Gen VI would be the first one to use Mega Evolution in a gym battle, who first uses it is not really noteworthy. ChE clarinetist (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox says Leavanny is male, when and how it was confirmed is not notable

Are you sure about this because now nearly every Pokemon has a reference which sources when it was confirmed. It was never a case of it being 'notable' because to begin with how do you define 'notability' it was actually a case of it needing the information to ensure that the information is verifiable yet you made this claim and were very stubborn about it and believed that you were right well I guess not. As a result of this it turned out that Dawn's Buneary was not confirmed to be female but because there was no source everyone just took the page's word for it. Thanks and good luck with your erroneous views of 'notability' ThanksRatchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)