User talk:Ilovefoxes

A note
Okay... I'm going to have to tell you off for this because its a core issue. On the bounties page you rewrote a lot of stuff *HOWEVER* the stuff you added in was not sourced... I would allow it if it was. But it isn't so I've had to revert it. Please can you replace sourced stuff with stuff that is equally sourced itself.

Reason:
 * 1) Sourced stuff can stand as legit as everyone knows where to look and check, this means it can at least be considered legit. If proven otherwise, then fine, we can correct it.
 * 2) Unsourced stuff could be crap someone has produced at the back of their head and you have no idea if it true or not and the only way to check is for some poor soul has to sit there and work it out if its true or not and trust me, researching the info can take several hours to sort out.

I won't say this more then once, because once is enough I consider and its not big enough to warrant a warning on the level of vandalism. But please, just add those sources for the sake of everyone else if you must reword that piece of text again, it just makes life so much easier for everyone else.

Also, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but Oda's only word that I've seen in the SBSs is that bounties are based on threat level. As I said, correct me on that, point to the bit where Oda says otherwise. --One-Winged Hawk 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will find out sources. And, about what I said "vandalism", the problem is that there was lots of things wrote around, especially in the bounty listing. And I don't agree to someone remove EVERY change in the page, just because of the upper paragraph. If you look, I attempt to keep everything that was changed after if I revert a page.
 * Ilovefoxes 22:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, if user X write something, and them user Y add something else, it's unfair to user Z revert the page to before X without taking in count Y.
 * Either I was looking, and Oda doesn't stated in SBS that "a bounty merely measure the threat", it was saying that the threat would increase Crocodile bounty, which is different of saying that the power is totally out of count. I remember pretty well of reading that it take in count both power and threat, I am trying to search the chapter now...
 * Ilovefoxes


 * Rather strange, either Vol. 36 SBSs are retranslated or thats the wrong reference... Regardless the fact that weak character can have a strong bounty and vice versa still kills some of it.  One could also argue "strength" is still a form of "threat" if your not on the WGs side.  Perhaps you are right in that sense in changing it, but please note you must still keep to sourcing info.  I actually have a go at those who don't add it on days when we get a lot of unsourced info, especially the ones who add speculations and rumors to pages.


 * We still have a few backlogs to sort from the dat of wikipedia. It was now about 2 years ago, but we rushed to have two thouand pages or more and are now suffering with keeping up with it.  Figures.  Lol.  The other half of the problem is Oda himself doesn't exactly allow us the time to keep up with him.  Every chapter is filled with about twenty references we need to sort out. X-D


 * Its actually rather embarressing we have a backlog of problems. But it keeps everyone busy, and I'm reminded how there are bigger wikias out there with a lot less organisation put into.  One-Winged Hawk 09:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably you are right in asking sources... I have already seen there (sure I removed) those famous Shanks & Ace bounties...


 * Yeah... We see those two (and Mihawk) a lot. Along with Whitebeard and Roger as well.  It bores me seeing them.  If you remove them, find the person out who posted them and leavbe a message on the mythbusters page directing them there.  If they insist its right... Let the rest of us handle it.  We're used to crap like that, we see it a lot. -_-' One-Winged Hawk 08:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not such a good idea
Ah... Had to remove something. You should avoid mathmatics if your not actually going to work out if the amount is 100% correct or not.

The average bounty isn't 300,000,000, its 259,250,000. Thats with Crocodile andnot Teach. With Teach instead of Croc its 239,000,000. And we don't know Boa Hancock's bounty nor Jinbei's and Mihawk. If we include them... As "0" numbers because of the missing bounty; With Croc its 148,142,857 and with Teach its 136,571,429. One-Winged Hawk 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand. "Average" was a bad term. You are right.
 * But it's about the greatest bounties in the world, them Crocodile doesn't count for that. Maybe it could be write "most of the know Shichibukai bounties are around 300 millions"?


 * Even thats dodgey... Of the five Shichibukai we know bounties for, only two are over 300 mil mark. For 'most' to be considered, over 50% would need to be known to be over the 300mil mark.  One-Winged Hawk 07:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I may agree with you. Ilovefoxes 02:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats the one method of putting it on the page I didn't think of... I'm embarressed. One-Winged Hawk 07:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You did it again
My reaction just now: hjuy76

(Translation; I slammed my head against the keyboard)

Okay please put some sources on the Haki page... You once again removed sourced information and didn't replace it with sourced info yourself. Don't do this again plese, seriously, its annoying. Have sympathy - it takes hours for someone to look these things up in the first place.

If its not done by tomorrow evening (24 hours from now) the whole page gets reverted because I can't allow you to keep doing this. Once, fine I'll ignore it, tell you off and forget it. Second time I start getting serious. One-Winged Hawk 21:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just that I don't put any material that can be "obscure" to the readers. If you want to I place a source when I say that Garp hit Luffy head, them I do it.
 * Either what I almost removed was what is not relevant, basically the page early was an almost the entirely usage of Haki during the series. It's not like I don't appreciate people writing, but since Haki became clearly, there is no need for the page having that look.
 * Ilovefoxes 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a comment on the matter if I must. Maybe it's just me but I'm not exactly sure which of the two is better. The contents of the first one indeed needed to be written in context of new information, but the second one seems too, pardon me, sub standard. Without even reading it, it looks weaker. It maybe probably because it is not written in paragraph form. The placement of the newly added references seems to add to this as they seem a bit haphazard in looks. In any case, that's my opinion.Mugiwara Franky 23:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No comments to add there, my opinion is neutral on that matter as I consider my job here to monitor pages and research sources as I find them as thats what I did back on wikipedia. I just want to see references made MF.  50% of the stress I had on wikipedia was related to the removal of such things.  One-Winged Hawk 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)