User talk:SeaTerror

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12

Look and learn
Look here. Now editing on talk pages seems to be allowed. --Meganoide (talk) 13:14, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Uhm. I noticed that it is allowed only for redlinks. Ok, I did it wrong. But since I've already edited those links, don't waste your time correcting them. Please leave them as they are now. --Meganoide (talk) 13:20, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

wat
wat little kitty fig bomb. (talk) 15:21, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Wat
Wat the wat Roranoa Drake II (talk) 16:24, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

I'm watting about the thing we were watting about earlier. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 16:31, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Wat the wat are you watting about now? Roranoa Drake II (talk) 16:54, June 26, 2014 (UTC)

Chat
Get on chat as soon as you can. I just found a hilarious Koromo lemon. Coffee-chan (talk) 18:38, July 14, 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy
Adding the dash was accurate in keeping true to the arc titles.JoJolion (talk) 01:42, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

You never change. Those things are USELESS. "Story impact" is "what in the future will change because of this arc". NO ONE cares to know that Doflamingo had the Hobi Hobi user among his underlings. And who cares that the losers of the tournament falls in the basement. It isn't caused by things happened before, and it doesn't make other things in the future to happen. But since you never learn from your mistakes, why am I trying to make you learn? Let the good editors to do their work. --Meganoide (talk) 18:36, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

i've heard of torrents but i'm not risking my pc by downloading a video that could have a virus attached to it. i'm taking enough of a damn risk by surfing the internet. if you dipshits want a better picture of misspelled Franky, go find it your damn self. the site i located the video on wouldn't just pause when in the broswer, it would put a damned ad over the player. was fullscreen shot or nothing, fullscreen it was and you jackasses just can't let the picture be for the time being until a better one can be acquired.

Freyka Dragon-Crusher (talk) 21:25, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

v
http://i1056.photobucket.com/albums/t364/weirdowithcoffee/acevarg_zps4a6dbaf9.jpg --Coffee-chan (talk) 02:25, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Hi
Hi, I'm still alive but not really "around"… Hope things go well on here.

Yup, sorry, I'm not really available to do new things. Though if you need help with some of my previous contribs, I'll do my best.

Chat
Get ye on chat Roranoa Drake II (talk) 23:05, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

re:wat
barely, I have been slipping in and out of a coma 16:46, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

a metaphorical one 19:28, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

I know right. 21:14, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

not today, maybe when i have some more free time 03:12, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

I know its late but could Gol D. Roger had Mera Mera no Mi ..

Roger
In Chapter 551(Episode 460) it shows that the Lamps blow's up but again lighten up as shame way as  Portgas D. Ace lighten up the cigarette of Sanji in Chapter 159(Episode 95   ).I know roger is handcuff might be Kairoseki hancuffs. But may be he still can do it you know  Pirate King & all.

I just thought.

Re: Episode Guide Link
Fixed. There was a second link to the page, in another episode's summary. 03:43, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

Ahoy~
Hey SpeedoBoo,

Sorry, I didn't get back to you sooner :( I was checking out some stuff about the last chapter and I thought of you, just checking to see how you are doing :P   00:10, August 20, 2014 (UTC)Zori

How did Brook "shatter Robin's normally limitless patience". I deleted that statement because there was no hyperlink to an example in a chapter. Don't write something like that unless you have a source.

I deleted the part about Robin and Brook talking in a filler arc because...it's filler (ergo, not canon).

Ro781727 (talk) 04:52, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

There was also no example (source via hyperlink to a chapter) for Robin forcing Brook to stop fooling around and continue his explanation.

Ro781727 (talk) 04:57, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

When (how) did Robin force Brook to quit fooling around and continue his story? I looked at your source but in that particular chapter (and page) all she does is agree with Frank when Frank says he wants to hit Brook ("yes, you should hit him"). She doesn't make him stop fooling around and continue his story in any way in that chapter/page.

Ro781727 (talk) 05:39, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Robin only agreed that Franky should hit Brook. She DID NOT make stop goofing around and continue his story. Therefore, the source for that comment is wrong.

Ro781727 (talk) 00:20, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Wat???
. *sock uses bite* Roranoa Drake II (talk) 21:21, August 30, 2014 (UTC)

. *sock uses flame thrower* Roranoa Drake II (talk) 16:23, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

. I'll admit that was kind of clever. *sock uses hydro cannon* Roranoa Drake II (talk) 16:27, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

. *sock uses struggle* D: Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:04, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

. *the wild sock flees* Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:17, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

I don't know ._. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:25, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. This is Staw's fault XD Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:34, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Blame Fin Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:41, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Rematch time! Roranoa Drake II (talk) 20:26, September 26, 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant >___> Roranoa Drake II (talk) 19:35, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

A real fight. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 19:57, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

A classic Street Fighter fight Roranoa Drake II (talk) 20:01, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Sure. That or Mortal Kombat IX. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 14:30, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. A new one is coming out soon. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:14, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

It's very popular. Roranoa Drake II (talk) 19:13, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Like Double Dragon Neon? Roranoa Drake II (talk) 19:32, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does. Do you live under a rock? Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:37, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

Re:TRAITOR
Wat         The Will of Deez (talk) 02:37, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

Your move... ~_~ The Will of Deez (talk) 06:45, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Too Stupid for Tor Browsing
Hurdurrrr, how do I use TOR!

Yeah, I saw your stupid comment in the chat yesterday. TOR is something I've known how to use for years. Try harder next time. 93.115.84.125 07:25, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Rematch
No Roranoa Drake II (talk) 20:13, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

Staph Roranoa Drake II (talk) 20:21, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

re:ban
I've only been doing that for anons who are obviously vandalizing like people who blank pages or put in random false information. Most of them don't even know how to check their talk pages to see a warning. By the way, what's that video from? 19:17, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Ushi to Ox
You'd be right about keeping those pages to redirect to Dalton's fruit, but Kaku's official English fruit name translates to "Ox-Ox". 21:26, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

A favor
Hey ST, can you check out Forum:New Editing Policies? I just re-vamped it to have 1 section per new rule in order to be easier to post on, and it would be awesome if you could post on at least one of them. We really need to get the ball rolling on that forum. I know you'll probably hate them, but having that kind of input is what we need to refine them (or to never have them at all). Thanks. 04:34, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Dracule Mihawk
In regards to the Dracule Mihawk page, why reverse my edits when there is still one Shichibukai that has yet to be revealed who may be another exception?

The Dreamer (talk) 16:45, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

Hola!
Where are you SpeedoBoo? :P 02:26, October 29, 2014 (UTC)Zori

You lazy a$$:P Why don't you leave message with a new title? It took me a while to find your last response. If you a have problem with my talk page, then fix it:D

P.S. Sorry, I don't know how to archive it. TTYL  16:08, October 29, 2014 (UTC)Zori

Yeah I meant to tell you this for a while now that it's taking me a while to find your latest msg on my TP but I thought you will eventually make a new title someday. :P Really! You watch TWD too? I am a big fan of that show. :P 16:47, October 29, 2014 (UTC)Zori

Pika Pika no Mi
In regards to the fruit's page, why is it necessary to keep the information about the FUNimation subs when literally everwhere else, the dub information replaces it? Non-canon movie or not, it's still the FUNimation dub. The Dreamer (talk) 14:36, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Hey SpeedoBoo~

http://i1070.photobucket.com/albums/u487/Zori9/happy-halloween-pumpkins_zpsvjg9s8z6.gif 05:00, October 31, 2014 (UTC)Zori

Edit removal
Under relationships, under the title "World Government", please tell me how Shanks being a friend of Mihawk's has anything to do with his relationship with the World Government. Polaris (talk) 23:55, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Re:History Sections
Yeah, I know. I did that since the the talk page said "before the timeskip" and "Post Timeskip". It didn't seem consistent to do before/post and not before/after or pre/post. Pre sounded weird to me, so I just went with before/after for consistency's sake. It all means the same thing anyways. 21:02, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

Demi Cannon
You may wanna give some opinions on this. 06:48, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

Peekaboo :P
Where r u SpeedoBoo? U up for chat? 05:44, December 12, 2014 (UTC)Zori

Sorry, I should've put down the time but I meant "now" only if you were available that is. :P That's alright, we will catch up soon. Where is your Christmas hat? :D  17:38, December 16, 2014 (UTC)Zori9

Hey SpeedoBoo~ Happy New Year! 07:03, January 1, 2015 (UTC)Zori9

Haha you found my name P: BTW Christmas is over now XDXDXD

Sorry I don't feel like adding a new section, I guess since it's close to the end of your TP it will do .:D see ya  07:59, January 13, 2015 (UTC)Zori

'Secret' Santa
http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag62/stalhein61/ChristmasBeer_zpsf69bceca.gif

Ho ho fucking ho.

22:34, January 5, 2015 (UTC)

You. Chat. Now. 23:55, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Flintlock
A response to your undo. First of all, it isn't just about pistols, that very sentance starts by saying "Most of the flintlock weaponry in One Piece" (my italics). No where in that paragraph does it say it is only talking about pistols. Secondly, even if it was only talking about pistols (which it's not), I don't see how that is relevant to my edit which did not say anything about either pistols or non-pistols. A volley gun is a generic name for any gun with multiple stationary barrels, be it pistols, rifles, or cannon. ◄► Tephra ◄► 20:02, January 10, 2015 (UTC)

Shanks
Do you just enjoy undoing edits or something? What was the purpose for undoing the wording changes in the Shanks article? I changed them for a reason; they were repetitive, repeating words used in previous sentences. I did not change the meaning, only the words used to convey it. You reverted them back to words that are still synonymous, but now are, once again, repetitive. ◄► Tephra ◄► 12:57, January 15, 2015 (UTC)

Stricter Edit Wars & Shanks talk
Can you please answer my question here? It's really annoying to ask a question as part of what's supposed to be a discussion and have it not answered. You're the only one who raised the concern, you need to respond or else I won't know if I addressed it sufficiently. Thanks. 04:54, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

And also, check Talk:Shanks too, as you need to be involved there too. 05:15, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on you to respond to the Shanks talk page. I really don't want to see a potential good editor pushed away because you don't want to take part in disputes you start. You are aware the wiki is losing too many good editors, right? 22:03, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Trial 004
Hey can you do me a favor and kill Cardes so I can use him as a leader? :D Roranoa Drake II (talk) 16:46, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

RIP194.199.224.109 09:23, February 6, 2015 (UTC)

Unreleased Template
Hey ST, we're having a new discussion in Forum:Unreleased Template on Chapter Articles about the unreleased template again. Please post in it. And even though I don't agree with it, the last time this issue was discussed, more people were in favor of leaving the template up on chapter pages, so until that forum closes, please do not remove it again. I will consider doing so to be a ban-able offense because it is an edit war, and I know you and Klobis have been doing it silently for every chapter for a very long time. Due to new rules made in Forum:New Editing Policies, I will not tolerate this behavior from either of you two in the future. 05:29, February 14, 2015 (UTC)

Your Ban
Alright, ST. I just took a look at your post on Talk:Chapter 777 and I think your post there is too insulting to be allowed. More details are there, but I don't want to see this again, and you have been warned before. Therefore, I have decided it's time for a ban.

According to what we decided in Forum:New Editing Policies, since you have been banned before, your ban should be for 2 weeks. I decided to lighten it significantly, and go for 3 days instead. I've also allowed you to edit your own talk page if you do want to discuss it more.

In closing, I don't really want to ban you for that, but based on experience, I feel that merely a warning will not lead to positive change. I know you're probably going to argue about this a little bit, but I want to say ahead of this, that your response to Meganoide was not meant to help our wiki, and was counterproductive to maintaining a peaceful, relaxed, and most importantly cooperative work environment. If you are going to argue about anything, please consider that as the main reason for the ban, not rule loopholes or anything else, please focus on you actions. Also, if you would like to apologize to Meganoide and the wiki, I would be willing to shorten it further, based on your attitude. 18:41, February 20, 2015 (UTC)

Not going to argue about it. Just figured it was a harmless meme. Anyway I'm not sure how I could apologize if I'm banned since I can only edit my talk page. SeaTerror (talk) 03:02, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

If you promise to make (and subsequently follow through on) an appolog, I will gladly unban you at this point. I would have done it sooner but I've been working/roadtripping for the past day or so. 22:34, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

I need to know where you need me to apologize exactly though since you also mentioned the wiki. Just Meganoide's talk page or where else? SeaTerror (talk) 04:49, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Just his talk page. I've just unbanned you too, fyi. 04:59, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I'm still banned. Giving me some weird message about my IP being banned. Makes no sense since I never edit as an IP so I wouldn't have used my IP. Plus I was busy today. SeaTerror (talk) 05:18, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tried to use the "unblock" function, so that might have glitched it. But I just banned you again for only 1 minute, so maybe when that ends, whatever ban on your IP will end too. 05:36, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

That didn't work either. Try unbanning 70.176.75.157 even though it isn't blocked under any log. SeaTerror (talk) 05:43, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

I did that, and the unblock went through. So hopefully that worked. 05:46, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Friends???
Actually I don't believe that you can change your behaviour, and I think you were lying when you said you hope to become my friend just to get unblocked. That's simply my opinion, so my sentence shouldn't be taken as an accusation of anything. However only time will give the answer. Follow my suggestion: don't undo my edits. If you're against them just wait for someone else to undo them. --Meganoide (talk) 12:03, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Pop
15:31, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Raid Battle
http://i957.photobucket.com/albums/ae52/RoranoaDrake/RaidBattle_zpsnjjq1uhp.jpg

Prepare yourself Roranoa Drake II (talk) 22:35, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Paramecia
Comment on here and give reasons why you think these trivia are valid. 12:58, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Stricter Edit War Rule
ST, please remember that it is now against the rules to edit war without summaries. You have done this a couple times during these "trivia wars". It is also my opinion that saying "Valid trivia" without explaining why it is valid trivia is an inadequate edit summary. You will not be the only one receiving warnings like this, so please inform others of this rule if you see more like this in the future. Please keep this in mind in the future. Thanks. 16:48, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Ehi ST! I'm proud of asking you to forgive me for my unacceptable behaviour! I hope we will become best friends in the future! --Meganoide (talk) 15:14, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I, Too, Have an Important Question
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? --&#34;The good mean well. We just don&#39;t always end up doing well.&#34; ~ Isaac (talk) 01:40, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey ST. Thanks for the acknowledgement for the draft pages on the Zombie talk page a while back. I never thanked you and it meant a lot to me that someone actually knows that I make those draft pages. 02:38, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Inadequate Edit Summary
Hey ST, while I agree with you edit here, the summary is inadequate. Joekido adding that is not in any way vandalism. You must assume that when other editors add content to pages, they do it in good faith. In the future please use an edit summary that addresses the specific content of the edit. As an example, in this situation, my summary would have been "That is far too speculative, wait for an SBS". Keep this in the mind in the future, as this is technically the second warning you've gotten for this rule. 22:13, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

I'll talk to Joekido about that edit. But the content that you removed was definitely not vandalism, so your edit summary is still false. 22:27, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about Joe's edit. And if it is written down somewhere that you cannot conceal things with another edit summary, please link me the page so I can pass that on to Joe.

However the part that you removed was what Joe assumes to be good content, and his that content was made in good faith. The circumstances around how it was made are irrelevant to the issue we are having. The content that you removed was not obvious vandalism, therefore your edit summary was not sufficient. This is not a discussion, this is a warning. 22:44, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what was going on but all I did was add that not all Phoneglyph are found in the Grand Line, not even sure how that piece of trivia Sea Terror removed is added back in. Must be a clinch (right spelling?) So I have no clue

Joekido (talk) 23:09, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JSD on this. 04:32, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

You Were Right
Hey ST. I know that I said I left. I did, and I will not be editing for probably a long time. I just had to call a "time out" on that to say that you were right. I was checking up on the stub team page to see how it has been after my departure, and Besty has just been removing templates without adding info. I don't want to get involved because I said I would leave and don't have the time, but I thought I should let you know that history has repeated itself. Orevwa. 23:15, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Flintlock
If you're gonna argue against the info in there, at least put your own info back in as replacement. Don't just empty the entire section and expect someone else to clean up for you. 22:49, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

There was also descriptive information on how a flintlock/musket functions. If you're gonna delete those non-historical info as well, then your entire edit was rather harsh. 00:26, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Well, blanking out the entire section without refilling it with some meaningful info is even worse. 01:18, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

That template doesn't negate the fact that there is no info left, when there is plenty of info we can add easily. I much rather have info on flintlock in general than a blanked out section. 02:49, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

WUT?!!!!
Oi SpeedoBoo! :O  15:51, April 19, 2015 (UTC)Zori

You Ban 2
Meganoide used a summary. You did not. You also tried to "hide" that you did it by not using an "undo" but you also marked the edit as minor, which it is not. Reversions are never minor. You know better, as I've warned you before. Your ban is 3 days, there will be no shortening of it. And if you break the same rule again, the ban will increase. 14:22, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Your Ban 3
Since you broke the same edit summary rule in an edit war, you've been banned again for two weeks. I strongly suggest working very hard to not break this rule again, as the next ban will be for 1 month. You're getting into the higher reaches of the ban ladder now. 13:42, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

LOL
You're the best user of this wiki lol. &#123;&#123;SUBST:Usuario:Khaliszt/Firma&#125;&#125; (talk) 17:46, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Get on Chat
Seeing that you're unbanned now get on chat. I have FB news to share ~___~ And try to behave this time >:/

Roranoa Drake II (talk) 14:53, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Chat
Get on Roranoa Drake II (talk) 18:31, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm
Have you heard of the word before? Did you ever laugh? Want me to sent a clown to your house to teach you how to laugh? Was your life so bitter? Need a consular? You poor baby

Joekido (talk) 20:15, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Black Leg Style
What do you mean the link "Doesn't say anything"? 'Hachis' was erroneously corrected to 'hachée' because it was confused for the Spanish word 'hachís', which does refer to hashish, or cannabis. The French word being 'hachisch.'

'Hachis' is a noun, a cooking term, and a closer fit for the Japanese pronunciation. Dragonus Nesha (talk) 18:01, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

Shandora
I don't know what is in that article that made you slap a "cleanup" template on it but you should at least fix or provide just what is wrong with the article. And because Awaikage is watching my ass, it's pity I can't do anything to you but one day I will. For now let's discuss this

Joekido (talk) 21:38, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

Ban Template
Why do you keep on changing it? Lelouch Di Britannia Talk  03:33, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

What rule are you referring to? Lelouch Di Britannia Talk  10:39, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Well, this "rule" you added did not make sense. At least the wording was wrong and the sentence was grammatically incorrect. Lelouch Di Britannia Talk  06:58, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Nami drinking
Im pretty sure Nami proved she could outdrink the crew at Whiskey Peak.

98.116.249.142 21:52, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate on these "many times" that Zoro was shown to drink more than Nami. As far as I can remember Zoro is simply shown to be drinking regularly, that does not automatically make him someone who is capable of drinking more than Nami. In fact the only time they are shown in a competitive light, Zoro takes the cake before Nami does. Even if they both decided to fake it, Nami obviously was able to go longer, especially given Zoro's competitive streak. The scene clearly shows that Zoro pulled out so that he would not pass out because he did not trust the surroundings.

98.116.249.142 22:58, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Ope Ope no Mi reference
(Sorry for my bad english) I add the "|chap = 768" because when it doesn't exist, the reference box looks:

In the previous version, only the name of the reference was added, not the name of the chapter. So it shows anything. After I added the "|chap = 768", it showed the chapter name. If you don't believe me, you can try yourself.Buggy Der Clown (talk) 22:00, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Dressrosa Arc
I know want their called, but they were called the Straw Hats a few times.DragonEmeperor (talk) 04:35, July 10, 2015 (UTC)

You're not listening, I said in the show a few characters just called them Straw Hats, I know what the official name is. DragonEmeperor (talk) 02:47:32, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Finish what you start
Hey ST, can you please be sure to keep up with (and continue posting on) this? If we're going to have to discuss the merits of every summary, we need to make sure that each discussion doesn't last longer than it takes for the next episode/chapter to come out. We should not assume that more people are magically going to post on the discussions. We should work to reach a usable version of the summary through discussion, and everyone in the discussion should be prepared to make some concessions. This will get easier over time, but we really need to sit down and WORK at this, no matter how hard it is. It's the only solution I can see actually working to stop these near-constant editing disputes. I'm copy/pasting this to just about everyone who's involved regularly in these disputes, so I'm not singling you out. I hope you'll help us get through this hard time for the wiki. Thanks. 03:08, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

re:IP User Talk Pages
There was nothing on their talk pages except the ban request template. What's the point of keeping that? 20:00, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, I just chose to ignore the standard, automatic at-all-times template, a welcome template that no vandals deserve. 20:08, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Your Ban 4
So this time, you pulled basically the same shit as #2, except on the page Daidalos. You need to start using explanations and the undo function (yes, you can still partially undo edits and still use the undo function), and you MUST stop marking edits like that as minor. It's a one month ban, you can edit your talk page if you want. 22:31, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't hiding an edit. I ALWAYS mark my site navigation edits that I do like that as minor. Look at the 2nd edit. I didn't mark it as minor since Meganoide disputed the first one. SeaTerror (talk) 22:46, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Found an example finally. http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Gimlet?diff=prev&oldid=1268755 SeaTerror (talk) 22:59, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism template
AWC + one clear vandalism edit = ban. *points at Kage* 20:05, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

It's also what the Vandalism Rules seem to suggest, but okay, I'll talk with him. 21:53, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

Opinion
Hey, just wanna ask you: does User:Givemeagoddamnusername sound like an offensive username to you? The guy says no when I told him, please give him or her your thoughts on the matter. 07:14, September 6, 2015 (UTC)

Category Issue
Actually, Noreplyz was fixing a category issue. If you look at the other episode pages in that category, you would notice that they did not have Category:Filler Episodes at the end of their pages, meaning the Template:Episode Box did the sorting. 02:40, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's still some issue with the category. :/ It doesn't seem to work on those three pages. Anyhow, please don't revert any edits and just leave it as it is for now. I'm working on fixing it. Thanks! 03:02, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

About Marco editting
About Marco

I don't know what kind of "talk page" you're talking about, but it has been confirmed that Marco is not capable of 1 on 1ing Blackbeard with the Gura Gura. Marco is nowhere near that level and only the ones on the top (the yonkos) are. It even said right there on chapter 594 page 2 that Marco AND the remnants of the WB pirates can beat Blackbeard. Please fix this. I made my account just because of your errors and if this website is supposed to be accurate then that should be fixed. Whatever you guys believe is not as important as what is cannonly confirmed in the manga. Your discussion does not help, it just shows how inaccurate this website can be.

22:18, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Re:Again
Don't go to my talk page just to try and belittle my decisions. 09:40, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

Speedreading
This probably won't fit in an edit summary, so I'll put it here:
 * Chapter 700: "Three samurai as well as Momonosuke... Four in total set out for Zou, but... we met with disaster... Momonosuke and two of us samurai drifted ashore on Dressrosa."
 * Chapter 803: "Indeed... when we first left Wano, it was Zou that was our destination!! We want to know that Momonosuke is safe... and that our other companion, lost at sea, has arrived here as well... the ninja, Raizo!!

It's clearly referring to the same guy. In short, he is a samurai. A ninja samurai. 124.189.180.35 01:42, October 24, 2015 (UTC)

"first" trivias
In mean opinion stuff like these: http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Coby?diff=1300907&oldid=1300851 http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Morgan?diff=1300906&oldid=1300852 and all the rest should just be mentioned in the history section, not the trivia. Adds redundancy. 01:38, October 26, 2015 (UTC)

Well?
Care to explain this? http://onepiece.wikia.com/index.php?title=Jack&diff=1302381&oldid=1302380  05:01, October 31, 2015 (UTC)

why you removed my contribution? Was it not true ? Eastprince (talk) 23:13, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

Interlanguage links
Please, do not remove interlanguage links.

Oh Christmas Weave, oh christmas weave...
You get a quadruple gift for no apparent reason. Merry festivities, ya lil' feking shit <3

[1 ]

[2 ]

[3 ]

[4 ]

50.181.44.226 18:00, December 22, 2015 (UTC)

Swordsman
The discussion is stack. I gave plenty of reasons why she should be considered a swordswoman based on her fighting, her carry-on weapons and in comparison to other characters on the gallery, and all arguments against it was "Nah". As I said several times on the talk page, keep Baby 5 or delete all those I listed. Now there are more characters that fit those notes that should be deleted as well (including Nightmare Luffy that I added according to your demand if I'll add Baby 5). You called the discussion "Definition of Swordsman" so how about you tell me what is the Definition of Swordsman so we all can have a proper guidelines to who should and shouldn't be add, till then don't reject others definitions. Rhavkin (talk) 18:39, December 30, 2015 (UTC)

To the haki page they use haki in subs and dubsAmmolite1 (talk) 03:38, January 2, 2016 (UTC)Ammolite1Ammolite1 (talk) 03:38, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

Bartolomeo
Isn't this obvious? diff

" When  Doflamingo  put a price on their heads during his survival game, Bartolomeo did not turn on them like the former toys who swore their loyalty to  Usopp ."

Eg5cue (talk) 05:53, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeello, there is something i need to tell you and you need to listen okay



Category:Articles Without an Infobox Image
No, it seems you haven't understood what I said. This category is only used on articles that HAVE AN INFOBOX, but DO NOT HAVE AN IMAGE IN THE INFOBOX. Infobox Image ≠ Infobox 09:39, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The category should only be tagged to articles that do not have an image for the infobox. Non-Canon‎‎ doesn't even have an infobox. Anyways, let's continue the discussion on the article's talk page. 09:47, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Underworld Page Under The Organizations Category
The Underworld is a system of organizations. 06:04, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Also, could you explain what you meant by this, which was in your edit summary. 06:07, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Emergency tutorial
Reverting for dummies:

1) Is something removed?

YES: Go to step 2

NO: Go to step 3

2) Is it blatant and obvious vandalism?

YES: Undo without explanation

NO: Hmm, looks like we have an opinion difference here. What should we do? Oh, I know: explain it in the edit summary! This way I can make my views clear to others so no edit war breaks out!

3) Is something added?

YES: Go to step 2

NO: No problem then

This is your last warning. One more edit war that could have been prevented on your side via edit summary explanation, your ban forum gets reopened, regardless whether you are right or not. And might I kindly remind you that the ban ladder will continue to go higher and higher? If you see someone else doing this exact thing, don't come complaining and tell them to explain their shit as well. I hope this is clear to you, I don't want to see you banned again. 17:06, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

You also forgot to add this: that if someone is still reverting edits and he does not like and revert it back with explaintion but kept reverting it back anyway and not take this matter to the talk page; how should this be addessed?

Joekido (talk) 18:41, February 9, 2016 (UTC)

Episode Summaries
No way are most of the episodes you've marked stubs. Every section is filled out, and both short and long summaries are proper in length. Your standards for summary length are unrealistic and unnecessary. There is no "set length" for long summaries as the amount of content varies from episode to episode. Episode 19's summary, which I'll point out has many issues of its own, is that long because of the amount of detail in the episode. That detail isn't always present in those episodes. Episode 734, for example, has a long summary about as short as many of the rosters you marked. I wouldn't dream of extending it, however, because it covers every part of the episode in detail, but it's the episode itself that isn't detailed. Extending summaries like that will only add pointless words and information that makes the summary less appealing to read.

I also don't understand why you're pointing to Forum:Removal of Short Summaries because it has no relation to long summary length whatsoever. The discussions we have had about summary length, like Talk:Chapter 778 and Forum:Long Summary Trimming have all stressed about not going into too much detail. It's a summary, not a play by play. Certain events can be described in succinct detail without describing everything characters said and did.

This isn't like the issue with Meganoide, where important parts of the summary were being removed. The episodes have all necessary information. This send even like an anti-Meganoide where summaries are being made too long instead of too short. At least Mega made the effort to change the summaries himself instead of plastering a template and leaving it for others to do.

Finally, placing the stub template on episodes like these oversaturate the stub category, preventing editors from easily getting to real stubs like this and expanding those. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 21:45, April 7, 2016 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly said before, quality is what counts, not the quantity. These episode summaries are perfectly fine, and cover the important details of the episodes. Why should we expand the summaries when they're just fine? You said summaries need to have details in them. I agree. I agree that we need to have relevant and important details of the episodes in the summaries, NOT irrelevant and trivial details. I don't think you understand the definition of a summary is, so I was kind enough to google that for you. I'd like you to pay attention to the bit when it says "a brief statement or account of the main points of something". When I'm reading a summary, I'd like to know all of the important events of the episode, i.e. details that contributes to the story both in the episode and the overall story. I most definitely do not want to know what are background characters saying, or the colors of a character's clothes, names of attacks or an appearance made by Pandaman.

You keep using Episode 19 as your standard for the length of a long summary should be, but I'd like to remind you that this wiki has no official ruling on how long a long summary should be, as long as the summary's description of the events in the episodes are sufficient, because we prefer quality over quantity. As Kaido said, the amount of content caries from episode to episode, and our summaries reflect that.

I don't understand why are you using the forum as your excuse to revert Kaido and my edits. Stop pointing to the forum as your excuse. It's not about long summaries AT ALL. It's about short summaries, and whether they're important to keep in the articles or not. Absolutely zero mention about long summaries, or how long the long summaries should be. And even if it's in any sort of way related to the edit wars, you still cannot use the forum as an excuse because the discussion is ongoing, and nothing have been decided yet.

Finally, as I said before in the chat, if you really have a problem with the length of the summaries, instead of slapping the stub template on the articles and flood the stub category (as Kaido brought up), you can just go rewrite the summaries yourself, and actually do something that help the wiki. 23:53, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Marine Bases
If the names of the larger Marine Bases are all just G, then why do G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-5 all have the name "Marine Grand Line # Branch" in their infoboxes? The G-5 page has it right in the introductory paragraph. The Japanese text given matches the Romanized text, though Grand Line is written as G・L. If the raws do not agree, then this is a bigger issue than just the one page.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 04:58, April 8, 2016 (UTC)