User talk:Ratchet and Clank 1995

See also:User talk:Ratchet and Clank 1995/Archive

Comprised of

Perhaps I can't help but be a little sensitive about this since it was recently a small issue, but I just want to let you know that "comprised of" isn't really wrong. While it's not worth it (or, after a fashion, justified) for me to revert your edit, I also just want to let you know that it's not actually something that needs to be "fixed". Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

As Tiddlywinks mentioned "comprised of" isn't wrong, so it's not something that should be fixed. Also, rather than revert an edit, discuss it with the user that reverted you.--ForceFire 11:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Just out of passing interest, I read that article you linked. And I thank you for the laugh. The article is comprised of numerous bits of hilarity. I found it interesting that one user's edit history is comprised of 47,000 edits including changing many quotations. Changing quotations is grounds for dismissal from Wikipedia, and he should be banned. Use of "comprised of" is not a guideline on Wikipedia, but rather one user's warped opinion. Please do not try to enforce the views of someone whose edits are comprised of quotation changes, thereby falsifying quotations, into Bulbapedia. You wouldn't last long here like that, and I will now use comprised of in whatever way I can myself now that this has come to my attention because there is nothing wrong with it. Thank you. CycloneGU (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ForceFire above told you to stop making edits like this, and now you are making more like this and this. You most surely remember this warning, as evidenced in your recent participation in User talk:ShinyGiratina#Comprised. Once again, please cease your war on this phrase. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I never actually received a warning, I did about the Kenya thing but not about this. You stated that they were "not needed" but revering them is not needed. You never explained why "comprised of" is incorrect.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry "correct"Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant "warning" a bit loosely. Also, this is not about me; it's about ForceFire's directions ("[comprised of is] not something that should be fixed"; ForceFire being a staff member, on the off chance you weren't clear on that).

Anywho, at this point, it's probably better if I just leave the rest to staff to sort out. Tiddlywinks (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@CycloneGU: Changing quotations is not actually grounds for dismissal on Wikipedia as you are allowed to paraphrase quotations so long as you keep the original person's meaning. It doesn't "falsify" quotations because by this logic if I translate someone's quote from let's say French to English does it falsify it? No it doesn't. You stated that there is nothing wrong with "comprised of" please explain why there isn't because if there truly isn't anything wrong with it why would anyone try to change it? There is something rather obviously wrong with it because comprises means "contains" so "comprised of" basically means "contained of" you wouldn't change "contains" to "contained of" and expect it to have the same meaning so treat "comprises" in the same way. The reason why I linked the article was because it gave an example where it says "This book comprises three chapters" and "This book is comprised of three chapters" don't mean the same thing because the latter is like saying "The book is contained within three chapters" that sentence doesn't make any sense so at least if an alternative is used it would avoid this issue. Thank you.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2015 (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! --Tyler53841 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, it was just when I was editing the page, I though I removed all of the irrelevant information but then I kept realising that more information should be removed. I'll try to do what you stated in the future.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"Talk:ROM hacks"

Why did you change it? Lokki(Talk) 14:09, 11 August 2015

Talk pages are meant to discuss improvements to the article, per Talk page policy. Meanwhile, the associated page was changed to only list notable hacks. Linking a full list of hacks has little to do with improving an article. Berrenta (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Berrenta answered your question for me. I thank him/her for the response. If anything I answered the question in the edit summary, the page should not be used to advertise ROM hacks and should only be used to discuss how the article should be improved. Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

If you have a problem with an edit, do not just simply revert them again and again. Discuss it with the user that reverted you. Yes, that is what you did, but you still reverted the edit anyway. Again, if you don't like an edit, go to the user first don't revert it.--ForceFire 12:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I did go to your page before, you just took a while to respond, in addition the information in the edit summary didn't really explain why the information should remain on the page.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Then you wait for my response. No response does not mean you can just revert the edit. Have a little patience.--ForceFire 12:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't "need" a reminder, but I really hate hate idea of perpetually playing out your disagreement on the Pokémon world in relation to the real world‎‎ page itself...

Do not edit war. Discuss your issue. If discussion cannot bring the solution you want: too bad. You do not get your way simply by continually trying to make the article like you want it to be. Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Block

Hello. Due to you continual edit warring one multiple pages on a subject you have been told to drop, you have been given a 30 day block. During this block, I want you to understand that if you don't like how things are done, you have to discuss it with others first. Do not just go ahead and make the edits, and do not just continually revert them when they get reverted. Thank you.--ForceFire 07:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the only person who believes that "comprised of" is incorrect. SnorlaxMonster reverted your edit on the Sinnoh page to replace "comprised of" with "composed of" why don't you drop the issue and just allow people to replace "comprised of" with an alternative as it would avoid all of the issues associated with "comprised of". Did any of the edits make the pages worse? No I don't think so and you didn't exactly give a reason for reverting my edits.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, again

I have clearly, clearly stated why the Kenya point stays and you simply refuse to let it go. I have also clearly, clearly stated why the Paris point may not be a reference to the city, but you refuse to take the hint. I have clearly, clearly said to let this go, but you simply refuse to let it go. You do not, do not continue adding back/removing information. You do not, do not make edits just to get your way. You are being salty and your attitude is not helping your situation. If you come back here after your block to do the same thing, I may not be so lenient.--ForceFire 03:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't Paris a reference. Kenya is a given name, the Spearow could be called Kenya just as a given name.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also.. why is it "most likely the country" and not the mountain from where the name originates and if you say something like "it's the first thing that comes into people's head" so too could be the French capital. Given the character's background in fashion her name probably is a reference to the city. I think you're just trying to have it both ways that Kenya apparently mentions the country but you also stated that it couldn't be the mountain.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Because there are people whose name are Paris. No one, repeat, NO ONE has the name Kenya as far as I know.

People would know the country more than the mountain. Period. Not sure how clear I can get with that, that's is the most clearest thing anyone could ever read. Honestly, just let it go, the decision is final.--ForceFire 04:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Check the site "behind the name" and search for "Kenya" although the name might come from the country which in turn comes from the mountain it states that it has been used as a name since the 1960. Apparently it ranks 700 in the US. There are people with the name Kenya, you just have to look Kenya Moore for example an actress who has a wiki page. If Kenya is a given name that has been used since the 1960s the Spearow could just have the name Kenya. I don't mean to be rude but do your research before saying no one has the name Kenya.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

That's why I said "as far as I know". I can name a few Paris off of my head, but not a Kenya. And Paris is ranked higher on that user-based site you cited, see where I'm getting at? Paris is just as commonly known to be a given name as the country, but Kenya is more commonly known as the country not a given name.--ForceFire 10:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because Paris is ranked higher that doesn't mean Kenya is not significant. Kenya is a given name they could have just given it the name Kenya, just because you didn't know any Kenyas that doesn't mean that the name mentions the country as whoever gave the Spearow the name could have just called it Kenya, maybe they named it after a relative. If the Paris point doesn't apply then neither should Kenya as it is a name and no other information was given to suggest that it mentions the country.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Just going to boil this down to one line since you keep skipping this: "The country is more well known than the mountain or anyone named Kenya, so it is most likely a reference to the country".--ForceFire 10:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The city Paris is more well known than the name. By your logic this would make the character called Paris a reference to the city. As you used the words "most likely" this makes it an assumption at best and even then the name Kenya is probably still well known so it probably isn't a reference to the country and is instead just called Kenya. Your other arguments where "Kenya could refer to nothing but the country" as I mentioned before it is the name of a mountain so that point is invalid. Your argument for why Paris might not refer to the city is "Paris is a common name Kenya isn't" I just showed that Kenya is so again your argument is invalid. I have at least provided facts all of your arguments are assumptions like the one about the country coming to people's heads, that isn't a reason as no other information is provided to show that it is a reference to the country and it could reference the mountain. Some people might think of the mountain before the country, can you provide any evidence to show that this is not the case? If anything I think you're being "salty"Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The name and the City Paris are equally well known, the same can't be said about Kenya. Just because there are people with the name Kenya, doesn't automatically mean the name is well known. You had to look up people whose names are Kenya, what does that tell you?

I'm not the one trying to fight a moot point, you're just trying to get your way even after I have said that the decision was final.--ForceFire 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Equally well know can you prove that? Provide evidence to show that it is true. Just because you're an admin doesn't mean you're always right and you have only got your way because of it. Maybe I should discuss it with others to see if they agree because so far only four people have been involved and only you have seen this discussion. Just because one person had to look it up doesn't mean that others have to.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you can name a couple of Paris's of off your head without searching. I'm not saying I'm always right, you've clearly proven otherwise, what I'm saying is that my decision is final and that the Paris point stays off. You can ask another staff member's opinion if you want to.--ForceFire 09:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring 2

You've been warned above rather amply about edit warring. Please be very careful about this. Personally, I'm willing to allow a bit of leeway on when a dispute is edit warring, but when you added the gender trivia to Ash's Leavanny's page for a third time, that's crossing a line. When you have a conflict, do not edit back and forth with reversions, discuss your issues. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

They didn't discuss it before removing it and their edit summaries where just wrong.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Not the point. Do not edit war: DISCUSS it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also be considered edit warring if a user kept reverting me without discussing?Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to worry about others right now. Even if you feel others were in the wrong, that doesn't make it okay for you to also do wrong. All you need to think about right now is this: Do. NOT. Edit war. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

comprises

hi i just wanted to say that i agree that comprised of is incorrect, and i think comprises or composed of is better. do you have any suggestions on what we should do?--EternalDragonX (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Multiple staff have said that "comprised of" is perfectly acceptable, as have several other regular users like myself. This is a dead topic at this point, please stop bringing this up. If you don't like "comprised of" then do not use it in your own additions, but the ruling of staff has been that current instances of "comprised of" are to be left alone. ChE clarinetist (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EternalDragonX what I don't get is what is the issue with changing "comprised of" to an alternative. The phrase is completely redundant a lot of them say "it is comprised of" how about "it comprises" instead it removes the unnecessary "is" and "of". The user ForceFire really seems to have a fondness for the phrase and will revert anyone who tries to change it and believes he is right even though he should brush up his English skills as he believed or still does that less and fewer mean the same thing which I saw in one of his edit summaries. Completely wrong in the same way that "comprised" and "composed" can't mean the same thing. Why should ForceFire be allowed to do that? The alternatives are slightly different which would make the sentence more expressive if a specific word is used and not using "comprised of". There could be a way which is to change the entire sentence and not solely change "comprised of" for example removing an entire point that happens to use the disputed phrase.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not make any edits that have the sole goal of removing "comprised of". Even if you change other things around it, if you're just running around looking for instances of "comprised of" and then editing whole sentences to "justify" the change, that will not be appreciated. It simply does not need to be changed and we do not want people bending their efforts in a vendetta against it. There are many other things you can do on this wiki instead. Please let it lie and put your mind to other things. Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the reply ratchet tho it looks like this is a lost cause unfortunately. :(--EternalDragonX (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Articuno, Zapdos, and Moltres

Okay. Now you're being ridiculous. We have name origins for all Pokémon. In English and Japanese. No matter how obvious it is. It's just the way it is.--ForceFire 12:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Kenya

You have been told to drop this matter countless times, yet you simply refuse. You went to Kogoro and she told you exactly what I've been telling you. The Kenya point stays, whether you like it or not, this debate is over. Any attempt at bringing this back up will lead have consequences.--ForceFire 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please explain to me why in this instance an assumption is allowed yet Charizard isn't stated to be male even though he is most likely male. You were also very clear about Pangoro's slash that assumptions aren't allowed. You haven't answered this question even though you've had the opportunity to do so. Please do because at the moment you are only avoiding the question.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Because you very clearly did not read the page properly, or else you could very clearly see the speculation template at the top of the page. You're bringing up two completely different things.--ForceFire 03:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

How is that an excuse all of the other points actually mention a place. In this instance why is the speculation allowed yet not on Ash's Charizard or Pangoro's slash. Maybe that template should be used on those pages to exuse those points, maybe it should be used on every page. If it's also just speculation why are your views more valid? Bottom line you have said don't assume yet you are doing this right now. It's hypocrisy.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of the things on that page is speculation. You're being ridiculous and stubborn. You are just continuing this moot point to get your way, so just drop it.--ForceFire 09:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Moot means in dispute so any point being discussed is moot so that is just pointing out the obvious. You didn't answer my question if speculation is allowed on that page then why isn't it allowed on Ash's Charizard? What about on Zapdos you didn't agree with the tengu in the origin section when that is entirely speculation so why is Kenya allowed but that isn't? You are being equally stubborn you are so far the only person to add the Kenya point back. You are also stubborn about "comprised of" you ensist that it is correct but you should brush up your English skills because I saw in one of your edit summaries you stated that less and fewer mean the same thing, come on that's basic English.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Because that page is mostly speculation. Ash's Charizard and the Slash thing is not for speculation. The Zapdos debate is because there's only one thing in common, so that's a weak speculation. I've already told you countless times why the Kenya point stays, but you are completely refusing to read the reason.--ForceFire 10:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

(resetting indent)That's a completely arbitrary reason for allowing speculation. By your logic of Zapdos only having one thing in common the Kenya point won't apply because the Spearow only has one thing in common, the name, therefore it should be removed because it's only a name it in no way mentions the country, it has nothing else in common. Pokémon's gender should have speculation because a lot are most likely a certain gender and why is that page a place for speculation and not them, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia by the way. Perhaps the whole page should be removed because of this. There is an easy way to resolve it provide a source which states that the developers named it after the country and not the mountain or just the name. None of the other points have this issue because the characters talk about a place. ForceFire I have made more contributions to the page than you if it weren't for me it would still have points like the US bavy base one even though there isn't one in Littleroot Town and that fact about the Portuguese and Dutch being allowed into Japan even though it has nothing to do with its Pokémon counterpart. The only major thing you have done is add back the Kenya point and remove the point about Mount Kenya even though it is a significant landmark and you are using your own ignorance to justify your point.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You've made more edits than me? You're hilarious kid. Not even close. The real world page is a completely different subject to the other pages. Some of the things on that page are based off visual references, because you have it in your head that a reference can only be verbal, which is ridiculous. You're just grasping at straws and trying to get your way, it;s tiring for you and it's tiring for me, so I'd suggest you drop it.--ForceFire 18:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I was talking about only that page I counted 37 that I made as for you I counted 11 so yeah I have definitely made more contributions to the page than you. The section is called "Real World locations mentioned" so in order for it to be mentioned it must be explicitly stated visual references should belong in another section as it doesn't mention a place. You're poking me for the visual references thing but at least I haven't made edits that changed fewer to less when fewer was correct, that's basic English a 10 year old could probably tell you that, that is truly hilarious. This site is supposed to be an encyclopedia so why is any speculation allowed? You haven't explained why that page is allowed speculation but not others what is the criteria that allows speculation for some pages but not others? Unless there is objective criteria that differentiates pages then every page should be allowed speculation. Speaking about getting ways another user on your talk page said to you that you can get your way on this site but that's not how the real world works. How do you know that it's tiring for me, I'll tell you it's not. How people spend their free time should be of no one else's concern so that point is "moot".Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't a competition. I couldn't care less if you've made more edits to the page, edit count don't mean anything, you're not going to get a medal for it. Because the entire page is speculation, unless there is concrete evidence for some of the things on that page, most of it is speculation. And we allow it on that page because that is its purpose. It's that simple. I'm not the one beating the dead horse here, do you think I'm doing this on purpose? Do you think I'm enjoying having to tell you the same thing over and over again? No, I'm not. This is not a game. It is very tiring to have to repeat to you that the Kenya pint stays and that the debate is no longer up for discussion, but you are refusing to listen.--ForceFire 03:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You again haven't argued against my points in my previous comment. You keep saying that it's no longer up for discussion but it obviously is as I am still able to comment on it. What is the objective criteria that allows speculation on this page but not others. If the entire page is speculation then the Mount Kenya point should be allowed because how can you determine one piece of speculation to be more important than the other. I don't care if it's tiring for you, you choose how to spend your time and that is none of my concern. Again why is the tengu point on the Zapdos not allowed but the Kenya point is your argument was they only have one thing in common. The Spearow called Kenya only has one thing in common with the country but it also has it in common with the mountain you haven't stated why it is allowed in this instance. ForceFire may I ask do you have a personal attachment to the Kenya point because why is it so important to the overall page (and to you) at least the other points actually state a name. You said that it wasn't a competition then why did you compare edit count I only compared our edit count on that page because you linked those two pages. You are at the moment only using your postion as an administrator to get your way but as someone on your talk page said that's not how the real world works.Ratchet and Clank 1995 (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about the Kenya point anymore, this is about you not respecting authority when they tell you to drop a subject. You will not get your way if you outright disobey the staff's messages or warnings. Show some respect by dropping the subject. End of discussion.--ForceFire 11:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please...

Don't drag me and my past idiocy into your battles with staff. I was being stupid that day I argued about genders, and I have done all I can to make up for that. I respectfully ask this:If you're going to go into a futile war over grammar and trivia with staff, please don't do any of the following:Quote, reference or include me or my posts or ask me to join your protest. I want to be a better editor than I was then, and by quoting me, you're reminding the staff of/ that moronic moment(which I REALLY want to make up for), influencing them to define me by said statement(of which I FULLY REDACT as of now)and treating me like an ally, which is nether true nor a possibility. Have a nice day, and don't include me in/appropriate my posts into your ill-defined "protests" w/o permission, which you have none of. --BlisseyandtheAquaJets (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Genders

I'd like to suggest, instead of immediately editing a page suggesting that a Pokemon's gender is suspect, try asking on the talk page first. It seems clear that some of this could easily be resolved that way. It would probably be a little smoother all around. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Permanent Block

Over the past couple of years, edit warring has been a recurring and consistent issue with you. Despite many warnings and two previous blocks, it's apparent that you have not grasped how edit warring and having an uncooperative attitude is disruptive to the editing process and the overall mission of Bulbapedia. As you show no sign or desire to improve or change these behaviors, the Editorial Board has decided that you will be permanently blocked from editing Bulbapedia. Wishing you the best, --Pokemaster97 20:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)