User talk:ExLight

Welcome to Bulbapedia, ExLight!

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!   --ZestyCactus 02:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

If a user removes an edit you made, do not simply re-add it; that is considered edit warring and is a blockable offense. If you disagree with the removal of your edit, bring it up on the talk page of the article or the talk page of the user who reverted your edit. In the case of your edit, "goll" is not even a word. Do not make up words and declare them to be part of a Pokémon's name origin. Thank you. --Carmen★ (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

ugh, sorry 'bout it. The word goll does exist tho.

(ExLight (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC))

Again, when someone reverts your edit, you are supposed to start a discussion and not re-do your edit until you reach an accord. After you've found proof of the bullete's copyright status, contact an Editorial Board member about adding it. glik^glak 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but if a member just undo some edits without providing a decent reason for doing so I feel like he's the one who should explain himself. As I stated previously on my edit, Bulette doesn't seem and isn't copyrighted, which was his only point and worry; even so he kept editing frenetically based on a biased assumption that can be clarified on a quick search.

The list of creatures treated as trademark products is the following: beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, kuo-toa, mind flayer, slaad, umber hulk, and yuan-ti.

So, from the very beginning the edit was alright. And when I mentioned a staff interference I meant one to verify the Origin viability, not related to copyright. So, will I really need a Editorial Board member to re-add a perfectly-fine-from-the-start post?

Anyway, if so, any specific Editorial Board members I should contact?

ExLight (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Contacted Kogoro. Awaiting her answer on this subject. ExLight (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Pumpkinking's reason was entirely valid, as a quick search doesn't prove wrong an assumption that the creature is under copyright. I checked. Pumpkinking merely beat me to the punch on your first edit. All I could find in a quick search was people saying that same legally vague "treated as trademark products" list, none of which provide an actual source for it, mind you. Even after a more thorough search all I've found are off-hand references to how the bulette was released to the public domain, again with no sources.

And your reason for redoing your edit is wholly unacceptable. If you could objectively show he was wrong that'd be one thing (not a correct thing, as you should still use talk pages instead of back-and-forth reversions), but you only guessed that you were correct. Which is just saying you think he's wrong. That's just edit warring. Starting a discussion about how you believe it's not copyrighted was the correct course of action.

On whether or not I think bulette is actually a plausible design inspiration, I don't see anything actually sharklike about it. Calling it a "land shark" seems to only be because of it being a predator that "swims" through the ground, which there's no reference of Garchomp doing. Most things mention how it flies instead. I don't think it's plausible and I'd remove it, dubious copyright or not. glik^glak 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If you search ' D&D copyrighted creatures ', the official SRD appears as a result on the second result page. It IS a quick and simple search and it seems both failed to do so.

It is sad you seem skeptical about Garchomp being inspired on a shark since it is really visible; regardless, you can easily read about it on, not only his but also on Gabite's and Gible's, Biology section since all of them describe such features in detail. Most of the names in other languages seem to point as well, some include literally 'land shark' in their meaning. About it flying, I'm not sure how much research on origin you do, but yes, that's probably another link to sharks, but I won't waste my time explaining it here; also, try not to take dex entries too literally. ((EDIT): uh, sorry, I was half asleep when I wrote this, I see now that you were referring to the Landshark. Well, Bulette has been around for 40+ years, it had many different designs. But Bulette's concept still one of a shark/dinosaur like terrestrial creature, just as Garchomp, which is one of the main points here.)

Abouy my reasoning on it being based on a landshark my reason vary from design, typing and even name and ability, but I only added the essential to the page, trying to avoid unnecessary info.

Oh, talking about Gible and Gabite, they both are treated as landsharks in their origins. Why didn't you notice such? Why was only Garchomp's the one that was removed? Both of you didn't even check their pages to see if they were all right. It seems both you and Pumpking have been failling to do some basic stuff.

Sorry if I sound rude, but having you on my page calling me a liar, and then trying to explain yourself with non-sensical excuses. Sorry, but that really feels offensive to me and is looking more like a personal attack. I REALLY hope it isnt't, since I'm just a member adding plausible origins accordingly to the rules.

ExLight (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I just want to pop in real quick to say: if the search is so simple for you, how about you provide the link you're seeing directly here rather than make people redo the work you've done/can do (and potentially mistaking the page you meant)? That'd just be much simpler. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure: http://www.d20srd.org/faq.htm

That's the official site open database. In the FAQ we can find a list of creatures treated as products. If you wanted to confirm Bulette situation once per all you just need to search its name on the database, if it appeared that would mean it's fine. I also verified it, and yes, it is all right as I states previously.

ExLight (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Preview Button

Instead of editing a page several times in a row, try using the preview button to make sure your edit looks the way you want it to. It's right next to the Save Page button. Please try it out, so as not to clog up the Recent Changes. Also, if you want to edit multiple sections of the page, make sure that you click "edit this page" at the top of the page rather than editing it by section. Thanks! --Tiddlywinks (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

oops, sorry 'bout it. It's kinda awkward but sometimes I see the need for some really small changes/corrections and so I just it. Didn't think this would be inconvenient.

I hope I didn't break any kind of rule. ExLight (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Tatsugiri

I noticed you removed the reference to Tatsugiri's Dragon typing potentially being based on dragon rolls. I'm curious what your reasoning for this might have been? Landfish7 06:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I removed it because it didn't make much sense. All Tatsugiri forms hint at it being a single piece nigirizushi. A dragon roll is a series of unorthodox and extremely distinct looking uramakis with avocado and no fish in it. A very different type of dish.

It seems extremely unlikely a Dragon type would be given to it purely based on the name of a extremely western take of Japanese food (like California rolls, Dragon Rolls are considered american-style sushi), specially when everything in its design seems to point towards extremely traditional ones.

As I proposed, the Dragon type likely comes from the draconian aspect of a Shachihoko. It might also just be referencing its in-game quest (False Dragon Titan), alluding to the Banyoles monster, as it's mentioned in Dondozo's Trivia. I'd be willing to discuss these further if you want.

ExLight (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ok I suppose that makes sense. Thank you! Landfish7 19:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)