Welcome to my talk page. There isn't anything to put here yet.EpicDeino (talk) 03:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
| Welcome to Bulbapedia, EpicDeino! | |
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:
| |
Thank you, and have a good time editing here! |
Talk page discussion
Just because no further discussion has been made on the matter, does not mean a decision has been made and that the debate is over. It just means the conversation is dead and needs to be brought up again. You have been here long enough to know that. Thank you.--ForceFire 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- It already was brought up again, many times. That wasn't the first conversation about Deoxys, and if nobody was going to explain why it SHOULD be included and I was already the last one to post and couldn't exactly start arguing with myself, I see absolutely no reason why it should remain that way.
Pokédex number at Symphonic Evolutions
Which show were you at that had Sycamore's Pokédex evaluation say there are 721 Pokémon? Their show last week had 720. glikglak 11:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- You sure? I haven't been any since adding the trivia, but I have gone to several, including the very first, and paid very close attention to verify whenever it got to that part. They might've changed it after the fact (which is likely, if it really said 720 rather than 719, because even Hoopa wasn't revealed at the time Symphonic Evolutions first happened), but it definitely said 721.
- In fact, before adding the trivia, I verified with several YouTube recordings such as [this one] (1:58; it should be perfectly legible) and made absolutely sure that it said 721 so I wasn't just going off of my sometimes-faulty memory. I can assure you that this was the same at every single concert I attended, so while they may or may not have changed it by now, it did happen, which is what the trivia meant to express. Feel free to reword it if you feel the need! EpicDeino (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Beheeyem/TM51
You said: "Now, I know that if I remove it again now without explaining, I'll probably just get in trouble for "edit warring," because its removal was reverted once." So if you know that, don't make us have to respond... There doesn't need to be a "but" (or "That said") afterwards; if it's probably wrong, don't do it. You had options. You waited months already. At any point in the interim, you could have poked Force Fire (or Glik, or anyone on staff) or made a comment on Beheeyem/Elgyem's talk page—especially if you thought Force Fire didn't actually think the trivia belonged. You could have done that now, rather than jumping straight to what you acknowledge may be edit warring. There was NO urgency. (And posting your "explanation" on the talk page afterwards doesn't make it all "okay".)
Long story short: Try following through on your better judgement next time. Thanks.
Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Uh... What?
- The quote you just copied specifically said "if I remove it again now without explaining." I was clarifying why it was necessary to explain, which I then did, so I wasn't going against any of my own former judgment. And then I pointed out that, since Force Fire had already said it was a mistake, there wasn't an "edit war" in the first place, because the only one who re-added it outright said he did so by mistake and not because it needed to be there. I don't know how it's edit warring if I DID post on the talk page and if it wasn't a case of disagreement in the first place...
- I apologize if this was the wrong course of action, but perhaps this may at least clarify that I didn't realize it was still wrong with the explanation, as opposed to knowing it was wrong and then going through with it as you seem to think I did. EpicDeino (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- With your response, I can see everything being a bit more benign. I apologize for not being able to see it before. (I still can't help but think that there was some better step you could have taken in the whole thing (witness: all this, here), but I don't have an easy answer there, so I'll just leave you to ruminate on it as you may (or may not).)
- I admit, when I saw it at first, I thought you were re-removing what Glik and Force Fire had both re-added. And Force Fire's comment on his talk page is actually pretty ambiguous about anything beyond a "mistaken identity" IMO. (So your claim that there wasn't any disagreement was also dubious to me.) And furthermore, when I read your edit summary and talk page comment, my attention kind of jumped to what I saw as a forceful tone in places. So. FWIW, all that's why I read you and the situation like I did.
- Re: "I don't know how it's edit warring if I DID post on the talk page" (which, yes, disregards the "and [...]", but let's just roll with it): Consider this. Suppose someone adds a blatantly bad piece of trivia and it gets removed by staff. Suppose they then revert it and explain on the talk page. And it gets removed again. And they revert again and post on the talk page again, and so on... In short, an "edit war" is not avoided just by explaining yourself. That's half the point (or more) I was trying to convey: if you are edit warring, "explaining" isn't a panacea. (FYI/FWIW. =P ) Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)