User talk:Bastian964

Welcome
Hi and welcome to the One Piece Encyclopedia! Thanks for your edit to the Mero Mero no Mi page.

Kuja
The article pretty much covers all those types, that is why I just linked to that page. However it does not change the fact the manga specifically states they return pregant and give birth to female children, therefore SOMETHING biological is different to them, therefore that much is NOT speculation. One-Winged Hawk 17:20, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, this is a work of fiction and when there are mermaids and fishmen, giants and dwarves, its pointless to argue that as humans they can't do it. This is Oda's world and he can write what he wants. He gave a percific rule for them, so therefore that can't change. If theres something to correct, its the identification of the specific form of reproduction they have going, but not complete removal of the one pointing in the right direction. Please would you either kindly do that or just not remove it before you stop and think whats been written done on that page and within Oda's works. One-Winged Hawk 17:26, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Saying that they must be parthenogenic as opposed to one of the other types is speculation. For all we know it could be the island itself that causes them to give birth to females since they return to the island before they give birth. So, yes it is very much speculation. Stating that it is unknown how they always give birth to females though it's possible they use a real world method such as Parthenogenesis, Gynogenesis, Automixis, or Hybridogenesis wouldn't be speculation. Bastian964 17:27, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * For all we know it could be the island itself that causes them to give birth to females since they return to the island before they give birth. 


 * If that were true no other species would have males and yet we do see Kuja referencing male animals they own.


 * But please do correct whats written, just don't remove it as its not speculation to state a little bit of real world linking, otherwise no other reference to anything real world would be able to stand. One-Winged Hawk 17:32, August 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, thats better then flat out deleting it. One-Winged Hawk 17:41, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really but I don't really care enough to continue this debate. Bastian964 18:00, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong World citation
The statement from Oda about Strong World being the Luffy's last adventure as a 17 year old is just that. It does not necessarily mean that Luffy has celebrated his 18th birthday or a year has passed already.Mugiwara Franky 07:05, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you can interpret it any other way. Strong World happened between Saboady and Thriller Bark so his birthday had to have happened between Strong World and Saboady since Saboady or Impel Down would be his next adventure. I didn't say a year has past, after all we don't know when his last birthday was so he could very well have only been a few months from his birthday at the beginning of the series (or conversely he could have been many months, we really don't know). All we know is that after Strong World and before his next adventure (which would be Saboady or Impel Down) he turned 18 years old off screen. Bastian964 13:52, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * We can speculate that he turned 18 off screen but it isn't really a solid reasoning to a certain degree.Mugiwara Franky 04:34, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is literally nothing else that can fit that statement considering when Strong World is in the time line. Bastian964 04:44, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Char box
Please give your final formal vote regarding anime/manga pics on Template talk:Char box/change. --Ruxax 19:53, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Please Respond
Forum:Image Guidelines

After all the arguments over images, and clear notes that we need image issues to be adressed... I opened up the image guidelines to be discussed and the lack of response and interest is beginning to notice. I'm putting up this message to everyone, unless I see some response, then the guidelines are fated to remain the same. One-Winged Hawk 17:13, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Your cribs
As much as it seems like there seems to be an unfair admin treatment, it really isn't something you should get upset about. At least for a couple of things.


 * 1) Angel is not an admin so she can't be considered bad or otherwise.
 * 2) She was speaking out against the char box toggle because it was implemented without full consultation of the Image Guidelines and consent of the whole community.
 * 3) No consultation of the current guidelines then was bad because it breaks rules that were set up.
 * 4) Consent amongst only a few people was bad since it was a major change that effected the whole community.
 * 5) A lot of people were in favor of the char box toggle but not necessarily all for the right reasons.
 * 6) Many people including myself saw a potential but that potential was heavily overshadowed by use of the feature for decor.
 * 7) A lot people said they liked it but didn't give any other reason to support it.
 * 8) The opposition for the char box toggle was sufficient especially with the amount of reasons apart from them not liking it.
 * 9) Most of what has occurred in the wikia has been in accordance with the rules.
 * I'd admit that within the Luffy's age argument, I broke some of those rules. However, the argument in support of Luffy's new age was based heavily on a speculative interpretation of an unclear message against facts. The implementation of Luffy's new age was also implemented based on the same speculation.

So instead of being a sourpuss that you lost a few discussions, help out with the community if you can.Mugiwara Franky 04:20, September 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ditto what MF said, plus just a note I'm a former wikipedian and I've been here from day 1 more or less. I've also said before I'd make a lousey admin so never taken up the offer when I was put up for voting. There you go, thats who I, angel am - not a admin, just someone who has a lot to say and gets fustrated when people don't do things right and everything goes ahead, has to be redone in the end because they didn't do it right in the first place. 94.168.119.106 07:31, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't want to be contacted, so please don't contact me again. As for point 1, I said "Wikis with bad Admins" refering to the fact that I didn't want to edit any wiki with a bad admin, I wasn't referring to Hawk as an admin. Your actions during the age argument were understandable, even if they broke the rules. But as I said, I don't really care enough about this particular wiki any more to edit it much, I have better wikis to edit.Bastian964 12:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * You do know that your responses naturally warranted counter responses by the parties you were addressing to. I mean they were rather rude you know.


 * In any case, if you wish to leave, just leave. Responding anymore especially with what can be interpreted as sore loser behavior, only gets more waging fingers.Mugiwara Franky 12:24, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

re:Problems with Seaterror
I just gave him a warning. If he persists, then tell me or another admin, and we can ban him. 01:05, November 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * He had warnings in the past, this can be considered his last chance. 01:06, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bastian964 01:08, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Hana Hana no Mi revisions
heh i found the mention of her powers leaving petals & the clothes remaining post-timeskip unnecessary as well, but it fleshed it out a tad so i just edited their grammar..but if you wanna just delete 'em i concur, it is pointless.


 * Wasn't accusing you of anything, that's why I said nice job spotting the problems. Sorry if I came off that way. Bastian964 01:54, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Wanted!
Wat. Wanted isn't canon to One Piece. You're thinking of Monsters and that debate was long after it was confirmed that Monsters was canon. SeaTerror 19:04, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Bastian964 20:24, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

re:SeaTerror Again
I gave him one warning. Truth is, he already got nominated for a ban sometime ago, but most people actually didn't see his edits were rude and whatnot, for some reason. I told him that I would reactivate the nomination if he goes out of line again, so do keep me informed. 19:22, January 3, 2012 (UTC)