User talk:EpicDeino: Difference between revisions
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Tiddlywinks (talk | contribs) m title |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:::Ahh, that'd make sense. In any case, thanks for pointing this out! I'd never have noticed myself. XD [[User:EpicDeino|EpicDeino]] ([[User talk:EpicDeino|talk]]) 23:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC) | :::Ahh, that'd make sense. In any case, thanks for pointing this out! I'd never have noticed myself. XD [[User:EpicDeino|EpicDeino]] ([[User talk:EpicDeino|talk]]) 23:15, 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".) | 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".) | ||
Revision as of 09:38, 26 March 2016
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.
- Sorry, forgot to sign! That was me, at 04:00, July 11, 2015 (UTC). EpicDeino (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
- Hmm. It's possible they caught it after the Mexico shows, as one would assume they'd use Spanish for them. glikglak 23:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ahh, that'd make sense. In any case, thanks for pointing this out! I'd never have noticed myself. XD EpicDeino (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. It's possible they caught it after the Mexico shows, as one would assume they'd use Spanish for them. glikglak 23:10, 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.