User talk:Pumpkinking0192/Archive 3

This is a talk page archive. It contains old discussions of topics relating to the user. Please do not add or remove any content from it.

Pumpkinking0192's Talk page archives
Archive 1 May 2012‑Aug 2013	Archive 2 Sept 2013‑Nov 2013	Archive 3 Dec 2013‑Feb 2014
Archive 4 Mar 2014‑Aug 2016	Archive 5 Sept 2016‑Jan 2017	Archive 6 Feb 2017‑Aug 2017

Please leave your message by creating a new section below. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding revision 2029507

I do not see how you ended up at that conclusion please logic. If anything, it's anything but fanon because I was the one who initially added it into the article when I wrote about the B2W2 Zoroark. --The Truth aka Relicant 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The assumption that Illusion does anything additional to its explicitly stated effect (in this case, speaking human language is additional to changing its visual appearance) is fanon. It doesn't matter whether you or someone else initially added it; it's fanon nonetheless. Pumpkinking0192(talk) 03:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC

No, it's not fanon, or else I wouldn't have added it in. fanon would be me stating Aroumshipping is canon on Serena's and Ash's articles. adding in an sentencr and adding "arguably" to the beggining isnt. --The Truth aka Relicant 06:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Anything that is not confirmed does not belong on Bulbapedia. Couching it with "arguably" doesn't make it any less unconfirmed. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet there's fanon speculation here on why some Pokémon in the anome use more than 4 moves in a single battle nobody's removed it or hidden it. --The Truth aka Relicant 11:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

For the trillionth time, Relicant, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. It just means the other stuff is also wrong. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting of Flannery's PWT announcement within Flannery's article

Regarding this edit, I disagree; how does Flannery's PWT announcement not warrant mention on her own page? The announcement is directly related to her, as it is an exclusive piece of dialogue that the PWT announcer reserves for her. Offhand quotes (as in, quotes about Flannery that are not said by Flannery herself) that stem from in-game sources, like Fame Checker and National Gymquirer, are listed on Flannery's page, so I don't see why her own PWT announcement merits exclusion from Flannery's article as well. Fenyx4 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't add anything to enhance an understanding of her the way the Fame Checker and Gymquirer quotes do; it's just a silly pun about the Fire type. It's only the slightest bit relevant to her because she happened to be the leader it's attached to, and frankly, I'd say it only belongs on the pop culture references article, not even in any Trivia sections anywhere at all. On top of that, the Reshiram bit is even more irrelevant to her and even if the PWT part is restored, the Reshiram part doesn't belong at all. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

While I admit that the quote is relatively minor, the same could be said for a lot of Gym Leaders' "defeated by player" quotes that attempt to make trivial/minor puns in relation to the Gym Leader's type specialty and/or hobby (although those essentially have to be included by virtue of being actual quotes of Gym Leaders). I still think that the "Flannery PWT announcement" merits mention in individual trivia sections (namely, the PWT page and the Flannery page only), seeing as the "pop culture references" article is essentially one giant trivia page, and it seems to be having difficulty in getting linked to by other articles (which reduces its purpose, if it's only going to become an orphaned article that's hard to find). However, the same could be said (regarding the restriction of the trivia to the "pop culture reference" page) for the numerous anime episodes wherein the title "references something in pop culture/incorporates a pop-culture pun in the title". As for the Reshiram thing, I mainly included it since it was on the PWT page as well, and it seemed to slightly warrant mention in that the identical pop-cultural/punny quote was used in Pokémon White Version and was used again in the Black/White sequels, despite the phrase being used in totally different situations (similar to how various articles mention something like an English item sharing the same Japanese name of a different item). I guess I might bring this issue up on the Flannery article's talk page to see what other users have to say.. Fenyx4 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, bringing it up on the talk page would be a good idea if you want to keep it. Most people are considerably more pro-trivia than I am. As far as I'm concerned, most of what you brought up is just further examples of things we shouldn't have cluttering up our articles. Better to keep things in one place than to sprawl them out over a bunch of different pages, in my opinion. Repetition is both boring for readers and a waste of server space. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Meloetta's item

The notice on the template's page clearly states
"WARNING: To those using this template, please only use this for Pokémon that legitimately appear in the wild in those games. For instance, Lunatone cannot be found in Emerald, so this does not apply to it. The only exception is for those for those in the Battle Pyramid and Battle Pike (Dusclops only). See here for details according to the Battle Pyramid. Please write it in the edit summary and write that it's possible only in the Battle Frontier with the parser Frontier."
Meloetta can't be found in-game, unlike eg. Victini. I am sure this still applies... Uploader (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but considering the example it gives, I'm guessing that was meant to address version exclusives, not event Pokemon. And as you can see on List of Pokémon by wild held item, Meloetta is indeed programmed with a Star Piece... Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

?? ?

I've always had an image of at least 1000px on my page. I don't see why u are suddenly raising concern over it. --The Truth aka Relicant 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've grown more and more irritated by it the more you change it. It's just now that it's reached the final straw. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You seemed fine when I had a 7000px image of Siebold on there and even reverted an edit when someone reduced the size of said image. Give me an idea on how to be less annoying, mayhap? --The Truth aka Relicant 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That was because the other person was violating the userspace policy. It had nothing to do with your image. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

is this better?? ? ? --The Truth aka Relicant 15:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC) ? --The Truth aka Relicant 17:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Can you answer my question please?- unsigned comment from Relicant (talk • contribs)

Please stop harassing me over this. Since you seem to be keeping track of my complaints on User talk:Jo The Marten, you're clearly aware that I have a problem with both your misuse of images and your obsession with the word "mayhap", and substituting one for the other and then repeatedly posting about it on my talk page will not endear you to me. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Physics-defying Magneton/Magcargo

You brought up Magcargo being hotter than the sun when removing the Magneton trivia...but do you realize that what you said actually is a piece of Magcargo trivia currently? (I'm just looking for some consistency, since I imagine you would have seen that in Magcargo's trivia at some point...)

For my money, the fact that Magcargo is hotter than the sun is definitely interesting, and also isn't something I would likely ever be cognizant of spontaneously, so I would consider that very fine trivia. More than physics, Magneton is actually defying basic math, and since I'm not likely to notice Magnemite's and Magneton's weights - and since I do think it's interesting that it becomes significantly larger than common sense would suggest - I also think its weight is a perfectly fine piece of trivia.

You're hammering on the point that Pokemon commonly defies physics/logic and that it's a common thing; but IMO that doesn't stop particular aspects from being interesting still. No one's crying that Magcargo shouldn't be hotter than the sun or that Magneton shouldn't be so heavy; they're just saying it's interesting. I don't think you should be removing the trivia about Magneton's weight. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not that it's not interesting; it's that the trivia point was trying to present it as a valid argument against Magneton being a combination of three Magnemite. If you want, feel free to reinstate the point, but please don't reinstate it as a subpoint of that discussion, because that kind of logic just doesn't work in Pokemon. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I glossed over it being nested the first time around and then noticed it when I took a closer look after posting. I'm glad to hear you're not completely against it, so I'll go ahead and do as you suggest, and make it a regular trivia point. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Relicant

It's clear that you have an issue with Relicant. While some of your complaints are legitimate, there are others where there is absolutely nothing wrong with the edits you're complaining about. Whether this is a misunderstanding of our policies or something else, I can't say. But if you can't get along, then you need to make sure that you don't become just as disruptive in response. Because that's what is happening at the moment - your behaviour is as bad as theirs.

I'd recommend trying to ignore Relicant. Don't go to their user or talk pages. Let other people deal with their talk page comments, and edits if you have to. Pretend they don't exist.

On a related note, please check your attitude. You have an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude with everyone, and it frequently hinders discussion. It's especially an issue when there's a difference between what you think our policies are and what they actually are, and attempt to correct staff members who had a hand in their development. Werdnae (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll point out that Jo The Marten explicitly told me to take any issues I have with Relicant to a staff member, which is why I've filled her talk page with those issues. All your other points are taken. I'll try to tone things down. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

(Second note that just occurred to me after I saved that comment: Most of "what I think policies are" are observations I've made based on what does and doesn't get removed. Clearly some of this isn't by staff members and/or isn't binding in all cases. Having our actual policies finalized ASAP would be really helpful on this front.) Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, all of our policies are located at BP:Policy and anything in the Category:Bulbapedia proposed policies. If you feel that an consistent action that is taken, but it is not a policy, you can create one using the Policy creation for information --Super goku (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC).

You were just told to ignore Relicant. But you didn't. You even did it knowing you shouldn't. In the future, unless they're blatantly vandalizing, I suggest you leave Relicant's edits to staff. In light of your recent behavior, you have been blocked for one week. Crystal Talian 02:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Silly me

To be honest, I forgot about Skorupi. *sigh* Now I feel like an idiot... Berrenta (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No big. Technically, it's Poison/Bug, so it's easy to overlook on our Bug and Poison pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And it evolving into a Poison/Dark didn't help matters either. X_x But hey, it happens. Berrenta (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Something to Note

While I agree that Additionally is better than Notably in that instance, I think you should tone the criticism down. You're an active user, so I see many of your edits. Your summaries often come off as mean-spirited ridicule. Notably is not an inherently bad word; it's used to point out something fairly interesting/important that the previous text did not explicitly say. Though I think that Characteristics sections are subjective garbage and a poor substitute for actual type match-up summaries, it really doesn't change anything if Notably or Additionally is used.

Believe me, I sympathize. I've been told that I'm too critical and hard to please as of late (trying to fix that), and a grammarian long before (not trying to fix that). Just try to be less inflamed by what some neanderthal on the Internet wrote, correct it in a neutral mood, and go on your merry way. I mostly do the same as you, and we both only want Bulbapedia to be a polished reference site, so we're on the same team! --IWannaBeTheVeryBest 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that I'm not enflamed and I do almost always write things in a neutral mood; people just don't read it that way for some reason. I have strong opinions that I give to explain my revisions (and one of those opinions is that there are inherently poor words for certain situations, like "notably" on an encyclopedia, where everything is supposed to be notable or it wouldn't be included), but as far as I'm aware I don't insult or talk down to people*. There's just something in my tone that people read in a negative way, and I don't know what it is or I'd fix it. In my head I'm doing exactly what you're telling me to try to do, but for some reason people don't seem to read anything the way I mean it. Sigh. Well, I'm done with my maudlin monologue, so back to editing. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe you, as the same has been said of me. It is your style of writing that gives off the odor of negativity, then. For example, in the edit I linked to, your exaggerated simile makes me imagine that you're mocking me, like I'm a fool for using a certain word. It would've been much better to summarize with "everything is supposed to be notable or it wouldn't be included." I suggest that you look at other users' summaries who can combine logical explanation with diplomatic presentation. (Good luck finding them, since even admins write downright mean summaries.) --IWannaBeTheVeryBest 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Why?

Dude, I like to know what is your problem with me! I'm not trying to be rude to you, I was just wondering why? I'm doing the best I can here on bulbapedia. I'm doing my best to follow the rules here and I'm still trying to get use to things here on this site too. So, can you please just don't bug me anymore please. Marioiscool765 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you at all, and I've neither thought you were rude nor intended to be rude to you. I just fix mistakes anyone makes. If this is about the Kayzie Rogers thing, I went to your talk page only to clarify the situation because you called me out in that edit summary; I wasn't trying to do anything negative. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. =( Marioiscool765 (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, please note that it's against the rules to remove comments on a talk page. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry that I called you out when I was editing the Ash Ketchum article, I'll leave the info box alone. I was just a little upset and didn't understand about that, I'm sorry kid. =( Marioiscool765 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also yes, I forgot again that It was against the rules to remove messages. I have a bad memory, but now I remembered. Marioiscool765 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Friends?

Since we talked this over of the Kayzie Rogers thing and got everything settled, because now I understand. Do you want to be friends? Marioiscool765 (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm still sorry for calling you out before on the Ash Ketchum article. Also, thank you for fixing my mistakes. Marioiscool765 (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Air date stuff

I didn't get why I wasn't informed via edit summary that it was on bulbanews. Otherwise, I wouldn't have reverted this since users are required to provide a source regarding airdates. This was a rule that was placed on the episode articles. Not upset or anything, just saying what was going on. PattyMan 20:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Type edit and friends

Now look what I'm trying to edit to fix the order, now you took out and edit it for yourself and now I have to start again. So do you want to become friends? Cinday123 (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

What were you trying to edit? Like I said in my edit summary, it's a ranked list, not a type-order list. Unless I misunderstood you? You're not explaining yourself very clearly. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see; you meant the types needed to be ordered within each tied rank. You didn't explain that at all, so I misunderstood you. Sorry about that! Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Type Trivia

I didn't see a rule saying that the top two trivia MUST be the same on all (except Fairy) types, so what's up with that? - unsigned comment from CamjChari (talk • contribs)

It's a stock trivium; changing that messes up the pattern. It's not a policy (that I know of), but it's common sense; consistency is important in order to look professional. I'd be more comfortable with it changing if an admin approved it first. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Aerodactyl

I understand the dislike of speculation entirely (though I think it's an obvious reference and doesn't count, but that's opinion). But, no references to copyrighted works? Pokemon makes tons of references to other things, why would they not be allowed to be noted? Drake Clawfang (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm just citing the precedent on Talk:Keldeo (Pokémon), which generally gets applied when it comes to references to copyrighted works (unless the reference is canonically clear, such as in Tyranitar's Japanese name). Talk to an admin if you want to argue about the reasoning behind it; I don't have the power to change policy or precedent. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah, there's so many policies and rules here I couldn't begin to try and argue them. It's not a big deal anyway. Drake Clawfang (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon Bank

Hey Pumpkinking0192. I wanted to say sorry about overriding your edit to the Pokémon Bank article. I kept getting the Edit Conflict section several times in a row and I thought that I had altered my edit to match the edits that had been made. Considering what happened, I did not do so for your edit and I would like to apologize for my actions. Sincerely, Super goku (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No big deal. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.  :) Just as a question of curiosity, was the first word in the tt section meant to be lowercase? --Super goku (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks aesthetically better to use all-lowercase for tts that are just short phrases (not complete sentences), but I don't know whether we have an official policy on it. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Eevee as a starter

When you say that Eevee is a rival's starter, you are missing the point entirely. When you say "Eevee is a rival's starter", the answer (as I answered previously) to that is, "No, it's your starter in XD." If you just say that it's not a "real" starter, I don't have any trouble (and I'd guess others wouldn't) guessing that you'd only consider the main-series starters to be "real" starters. When you bring rivals into it, you imply that that's what they meant and confuse the issue, when the other person is almost assuredly thinking of XD. I ask you: please, don't continue to fail at recognizing that some people consider Eevee a starter for XD. All you need to say is "Eevee is not a real starter." Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I will jump on the bandwagon here due to the edit warring since it is a stater Pokémon per the article called "Starter Pokémon", the the Starter Pokémon template, and the Category called Starter Pokémon. I would prefer that we follow what has already been established and then discuss changing it on the talk page of the Starter Pokémon article. --Super goku (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want, we can bring it up on the Starter Pokemon talk page again, but as you can see from older posts, SnorlaxMonster asked that the page be distinguished between the Grass/Fire/Water trios (actual starter Pokemon) and everything else that Trainers in some media start with, but nothing came of that request. I have low expectations that anything would come of a second one. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I believe that discussion is better than a storm of edits and counter edits. Considering everything, I will post a reply on the talk page of the article for the more appropriate discussion. --Super goku (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pokémon-Amie Experiment

Well, since it seems most of the other Pokémon I have gotten through Wonder Trade have never been played with in Pokémon-Amie save for my Deerling, perhaps you could help me test this out? I can feed and play with some Pokémon and get them to different affections and fullness levels, and you do the same. We then see the results, as to if the affection resets like friendship does. Then we trade back and see if the affection (if it does reset or go to zero for the new trainer) returns once they are back with their original trainer.

For the experiment we can use Scatterbug. They're readily available so catching a large amount will be no hassle. I already have more then I want due to chaining for a shiny >,>;

We should use at least 5 in this experiment, nicknaming them by number and then feeding them to that number and getting their affection to that number.

What do you think?Yamitora1 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd be fine with helping, but my parents' house (where I'm staying for the holidays) has ancient Internet that I haven't figured out how to reconcile with my 3DS. Once I get back to college, I'll have more reliable Internet but much less free time, so if it'd be more convenient for you to find someone else in the meantime, I think that would allow you to get the information a lot faster. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lysandre Cafe

Then why does Lysandre Cafe redirect to Lumiose City which links to Lysandre Labs as the main article? Drake Clawfang (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. That was a misuse of the {{main}} template. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you. Drake Clawfang (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Eon duo trivia

Last week, why did you remove the trivia about height in a legendary duo page? Cinday123 (Talk) 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you read in my edit summary, it's ridiculous to point out that one is taller and one is not. It's obvious that whichever one isn't taller is going to be the shortest, and vice versa. I don't like tallest/shortest/heaviest/lightest trivia at all, but it's particularly egregious with duos, for which you're pointing out literally every member if you include those trivia. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You know what to do, like the comment that someone tells you to stop removing trivia, stop removing trivia about height, that's because the Eon duo's heights are true and heights can be found in this page, doesn't mean you can remove it, you need to know the Pokémon's height. Cinday123 (Talk) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because something is true does not make it worthwhile. If we listed every fact that was true in Pokémon, nobody would be able to find anything useful or interesting because of all the junk cluttering up the pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition, if we needed to know the height of the Pokémon, it would not belong in the trivia. Trivia is for significant, intentional, or unusual facts. It could belong in the base of the article, but it should not be in the trivia, unless there is something about it that could be notable. --Super goku (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sylveon's highest stat

Why did you undo my edit, the Fairy type's highest stat is Special Defense and Sylveon has a trait among Fairy-type Pokémon like Flabébé so its highest stat is Special Defense along with Umbreon. Cinday123 (Talk) 03:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read my edit summary. If you still have a question after you've read it, come back and ask me that question, but don't come here asking why I made an edit when I explained very clearly why I did it in the edit summary. This is the second time you've done this in as many days (see the above section), and frankly, it's annoying to have to explain things twice. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop acting like staff, and I did read your summary, you just need to act like a normal user and be nice to me, so like the welcome template, you need to be nice to everyone, thank you! Cinday123 (Talk) 05:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little harsh with you, but I hope you can see the frustration when you ask a question that is answered by something I have already said and that you already read. (I still don't see how I'm "acting like staff," but whatever...)

To answer your original question, your edit made no logical sense at all. Even though Umbreon and Sylveon both have a Special Defense of 130, somehow Sylveon is "unlike" Umbreon because its Special Defense is "higher" than Umbreon's??? 130 and 130 are the same thing — neither is higher because they're the same, and "unlike" is exactly the opposite of the situation, because they're the same. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Sylveon and Umbreon's highest stats are the same, so that's true. Cinday123 (Talk) 07:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Evolution

I agree with your edit, but just to answer the question you posed, it was split up that way because one paragraph explained an uncommon method, and the next ones were added to note completely unique methods (so Pancham's doesn't fit there anyway, since it's one of the party composition ones). Also, there was just the ones extra paragraph for a while, until someone decided to add another one for Generation VI.

Not that saying this is particularly useful, but I hate to leave a question unanswered. -- EnosShayrem_talk 07:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Malva/Looker

There is evidence in the dialogue that Looker is forcing Malva to help him:

Malva in Lysandre Labs: "Oh. And one last thing... Tell that partner of yours... Tell that infuriating man... Yes, tell him I fulfilled my end of the bargain. And he should keep in mind what will happen to him if he doesn't do the same. Good day."

Keeping in mind that she is not arrested by Looker at the end of the chapter, he must have had something on her that is prison-worthy, yet a deal was struck. So in reality, she was blackmailed into giving the player elevator access, in return for not being captured by Looker.

Of course, this view entirely depends on your definition of blackmail, however, she was definitely forced by Looker into doing something she resented - quite the definition of blackmail, I believe. Xolotl (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily get that at all. The fact that he is "infuriating" and they have a "bargain" doesn't necessarily mean there was any forcing, blackmail, or prison-worthiness at all. It just means she's working with him when she'd rather not be. Personally, I read it more as she dislikes Xerosic and would rather cooperate with her enemies to take him down than let him go free. Either way, it's ambiguous, so we shouldn't be stating anything solid on the matter at all. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well on Malva's own page, it is stated that she is being blackmailed by Looker - maybe you need to change that as well. Xolotl (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think that she hates Xerosic more than the player, every time the player challenges her in the Elite Four, she bluntly points out her hate. As well as in the Hotel Richissime. As a Team Flare Admin (and due to the Pyroars, the most likely candidate for Lysandre's lover), I would feel that she still has a duty to Team Flare, and being a grass does not seem like her at all. Xolotl (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. It's your right to have it, but since it is just an interpretation, it shouldn't be on our mainspace pages. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad Formatting

There has been issues every since someone messed with the abuse Filters. I know a few days ago I tried editing something, and it said abuse filter 2. I tried to get the incident rectified by a staff member (I forget who) but was unable to write on their talk page because of the same filter. Every since a staff member fiddled with those filters, this kind of thing has been happening. I also got a 404 error when I tried to submit this. Yamitora1 (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I can answer this. According to the Abuse Filter log, nothing has triggered the anti-vandal 2 filter since the 12th. As for the bad formatting, if the content being edited contains a <br> it will trigger the bad formatting filter. This is explained further in forum post by Kogoro. If you experience any more issues, bad filter related or otherwise, please let a member of Staff know instead of a regular user. Thanks. --Pokemaster97 21:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, Sorry! I was trying to answer the question he had asked in a edit summary. Some circumstantial evidence I saw led me to believe some coding bugs developed after the filters were changed. I am not the most tech savey guy on the wiki, but I know it doesn't take much to make a wiki break. From my POV I saw the filters were being changed around right when I started getting anti-abuse filter 2 errors. It just kind of fell together and I pieced it together wrong, my bad. Yamitora1 (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Pokémon food

No problem, I don't edit that often so I'm not used to customs. My views about Pokémon and what they eat could stem from the fact that I don't watch the anime at all, so I have no idea how they're portrayed there, and how it's changed over the years. All I know about how Pokémon behave is what their Pokédex entries say, and I firmly believe that how Pokémon are portrayed in the anime is a completely different story to how they're portrayed in the games (after all, they are different canons). But yes, I do agree that ultimately it is less prevalent today, despite the fact that it is still referenced even up to Gen VI Pokémon (Scatterbug), but I have noticed that modern entries tend to say more of "This Pokémon dances around lolz" rather than (Kabutops for example) "It slices its prey with its sharp sickles and drinks the body fluids." Chaos Rush (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Latin-based

I hadn't seen that edit summary on Noibat's page, but thanks for letting me know. Looking it up though, now I have no doubt that English should be considered a "European language" (which is what I'm used to using to group it with French, German, Italian and Spanish anyway). --SnorlaxMonster 05:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I haven't actually seen anyone use the argument (on Bulbapedia, at least) that it wouldn't count because it's not Continental, but I did want to nip the possibility in the bud. Moot point by now anyway, though. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Regice

My contribution alludes to Regice's apparent ability to control air pressure around itself, which is a completely valid assumption. Either that or it's a miss in the game itself, since it is physically impossible for air to stay gaseous at normal air pressure and that low a temperature. (Yes, this is not the real world, but just as you can assume that the sun in Pokéverse emits light through nuclear fusion, you could at least bring up the notion of similar natural laws.) I don't see how that does not belong in the trivia section - even on that same page, there are trivia entries that lack any real factual value and are generally uninteresting. Otherwise we could just add other similar and just as obvious facts, like: "Regice is the only golem in the trio that is not Rock- or Steel-type." HerrKrask (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC) HerrKrask

You say it's "a completely valid assumption," but that's just it — it's an assumption. It doesn't belong on a fact-based wiki. Other than that, I agree with you that most of our trivia entries are shallow, boring and not useful. It's just that getting rid of them is an uphill battle, and most of the time I only have the energy to argue against trivia that there's already a consensus against, such as (in this case) trivia applying the laws of science to the world of Pokémon, some of which has already been repeatedly removed from Wailord's page. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a reminder that your interaction ban with Relicant is still active. This means your revert on the Steel page is unacceptable. As you've been blocked for this before, this will be your only warning. Any further interaction will result in a block. Thank you. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 15:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I didn't even pay attention to who made that edit; it was just outright wrong, so I reverted it without checking. I'll be more attentive in the future. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)