User talk:10X Kamehameha

Zanpakuto
I noticed that you didn't give any reason for reverting my edits to the Zanpakutō page. Why did you undo the edit? P.S. An edit summary would have saved you the time of writing your response ; ) 14:14, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * The zanpakuto page is not for video game characters. We allow them to have their own pages on the site but they are not featured at all in the continuity of the manga or even the anime. Despite that the characters you are referring to dont have a set description or qualification for their zanpakuto. Adding them to a page also serves no purpose as their existence has no continuity with the series for them to be recognizable characters except within the game they are in. (In other words they arent important, they dont add anything to the page). --Salubri (Talk)  03:56, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay. I actually found out that those two characters had Bankais because they were listed on the Zanpakutō page. Would it be helpful for me to remove them? 14:14, July 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes they can be removed im not sure why they are on there. --Salubri (Talk)  04:01, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Done. I pick up on little inconsistencies like that across wikias easily, so I'll keep a lookout. 14:14, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Gotek
X10 Kamehameha from the Dragon Ball Wiki? I didn't know you liked Bleach. :) July 24


 * Yup, haha. I do like Bleach, I just don't like this site much, cause it's not much fun, lol. I'll still answer messages though. 14:14, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

This Wiki
this wiki is like a polar opposite of db wiki i wud say more but the admins check evthing I Am THE Dangalang Man (talk) 02:56, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * hit me up here cus PZ banned meI Am THE Dangalang Man (talk) 02:56, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean because you're not allowed to socialize freely here? I'm honestly confused by the motivation of things here, for example the user profile editing restrictions here, because a bad editor is basically encouraged to mess up the articles in order to edit their user page, but whatever, db wiki ftw. 05:45, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * xactly imean the strictness is so bad here i cnt enter a chat without getting blocked for not being an admin, rollback yu know wat imean, a normal user cnt be on there I Am THE Dangalang Man (talk) 02:26, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

I feel like maybe this site would do better on a privately managed server where just the admins could do what they want, since very little input or activeity from others is allowed. Then maybe there could be a separate Bleach wikia with a truer wikia style. It's not that what they have here is bad, it's just not wikia-esque. 03:16, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

odisme

 * If you do not like it here, you do not need to be here. Anyone can edit this wiki but they need to follow our policies. It is those policies that have made this site receive so much praise as one of the most organized and informative wikis there are instead of a pile of unreferenced information such as your own wiki. Forgive us for wanting users to focus on the content of the wiki rather than becoming a social networking site. Again, if you do not like it here, you do not need to be here but know that we are not going anywhere and what you call "wikia-esque" has only become "wikia-esque" in the last year during staffs big push away from the content of the site and their focus on making wikia into a facebook like site.--

I don't like it here as much as wikia sites, and I barely edit... I don't know who is externally praising this site, as I've never heard anyone do so. In fact, I've only heard bad things (see this topic). As for comparing this thing to DB Wiki, Scoreboard : ) Social networking is Wikia's current direction, and they have designed it as to not be detrimental or even to affect the articles. Preventing that interaction between fans is limiting the potential of this site, and has unfortunately hindered it's overall user activity. Even aside from the information issues here, the lack of friendly communication here is losing membership by fighting wikia's intentions. Now, before responding if you choose to, remember how deliberately I speak and that any assumptions you might make beyond my words are not my own, but yours. For instance, I said that I feel this site would make a good independently run information site, just a poor wikia. Also, no offense, but I wasn't directing this at you or the people running this site. This is a conversation between me and someone else that you just kind of jumped into. 03:42, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * A wiki and its content are freely editable by anyone, that includes talk page messages. If you are insulting our wiki I am going to jump in. The wikia.com rankings are based purely on page views and deal nothing with content. We are a traditional wiki, the way a wiki was meant to be, content oriented. We do not want wikia to be a social networking site and we will not use it as such like you do. I am quite active on Wikia's community central and staff blog after staff blog, when I bring up how Bleach Wiki does things we receive quite a bit of praise. Bleach Wiki has also been used as an example for several features on staff blogs while I have yet to see Dragon ball wiki mentioned once. We make a fine wikia wiki and our policies have not hindered any user activity. We have many regulars. Scrolling through Dragon Ball Wiki's recent changes, all I see is blog comments and user talk messages. You have no pages being edited and looking at your pages, it is almost entirely unreferenced. As for Wikia's current direction, it has become detrimental when they put out features that hinder content such as the blue linking of non existent categories, the RTE, the horrible admin dashboard and now the updates to the user page header. All of this detracts from the content, the main part of the wiki. If you want to be a social networking wiki, go ahead, just don't tell us to do the same when we are perfectly happy having the most organized content of any wiki I have ever seen.--

These statements: "We do not want wikia to be a social networking site" and "our policies have not hindered any user activity" are not compatible. It's nice to hear that you say/hear nice things, but I have not. "Scrolling through Dragon Ball Wiki's recent changes, all I see is blog comments and user talk messages" - this is expected for a site based on a manga that ended 16 years ago. "You have no pages being edited" - ridiculously false. I double-dare you to tell this to Jeangabin666, who as far as I know edits exclusively on DB Wiki, has not edited a blog in at least 500 edits, and is the Top Editor this week on Anime Wikis. Like I said, the social interaction does not impact the article content, so just because there is a lot of blogging does not mean there is not a lot of editing. In reality, you can easily see that both are in great abundance over at the DB Wiki. References are indeed an issue, and I'm willing to admit it since I'm more about facts than biases. However, blogging does not impact referencing in articles, so that's off topic, friend. As for the private server issue, you may not be up do date with the DB Wiki, but we actually did expand to a private server, the DB Encyclopedia. This site is not a Wikia, and is purely information based, which sounds like the direction you would like the people running this site to reach toward. In light of wikia's intentions, we directed the DB Wiki toward social interaction in addition to the massive content already available. By having a privately run, content-oriented site in addition to the Wikia-style Wiki, it's the best of both worlds. When users come here looking for something like DB Wiki, and instead find something like the DB Encyclopedia, it's disorienting for them. I hope this gives you some background on where I'm coming from, and that you can separate yourself personally thereby. 04:14, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Users can be as social as they want here, just keep it to forums and chat. The main namespace belongs purely to content and so does the talk namespace. As for the anime top editor thing, its glitched. I have made over 700 edits to this wiki in a week in which it displayed that the top editor on an anime wiki had only 500. That is not a good gauge so you know. Our point here is to create the best content we can and allowing social networking has proven by far to degrade content. I cite Glee Wiki, probably the most social of all wikis. A wiki who's content goes so unmonitored that a plethora of fake pages exist, hardly anyone ever actually edits pages and I had to help them with removing triplicate categories on pages. Other wikis that suffer from this are the True Blood Wiki and many others. We do not want to become these wikis and instead follow the traditional definition of a wiki as a website who uses a WYSIWIG editor to build encyclopedic information on one of more subjects. This is what wikia was founded for and this is still what the official description of the site says it is. It does not say "a social networking site". You moved your encyclopedic content to its own server, we do not want nor need to do this. It was the decision of this wiki to be about the content. If you would rather just talk about bleach, go to the chat. You guys seem to believe we are elitist or something but we are not. Anyone can go on chat and talk, someone may not always be there but you are free to go there. Anyone can edit a page, you just need to follow the policies. They aren't hard to learn and they are not there to be detrimental but rather improve the content of this site. We discourage heavy userpage editing because we have had too many problems with it in the past. We have had users that have made hundreds of edits to their talk pages and not to the site. They do not do anything else and are then not helping the site. We ask them to then start editing or take it elsewhere. Social networking does not help a wiki's content and I have told staff this same thing many many times, usually on a daily basis.--

I didn't say you didn't edit much, I said that we do. I also made the point that you were mistaken in thinking that our articles aren't edited much, which is again both true and unrelated to your own editing, so please do try and respond appropriately if you choose to. This apparent non-sequitur of yours makes me think that you feel offended by my statements, and so I'll remind you that you shouldn't be. I haven't been to Glee Wiki, but I'll take your word for it. However I haven't read anything anywhere, including what you've written, that correlates a social atmosphere with bad editing. Frankly, pages needing deletion falls to their admins. I don't think the site is elitist, just inhibiting in some ways. For instance, I'm not sure why new users can't edit their own user pages freely (emphasis on freely, I realize that you can do it to some extent by "earning" the right to, so to speak). It's not like the people making policies here are paying for bandwidth or something, and it'd be less work for people like you to let people who know they are bad editors avoid actual articles if they want. 04:52, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I object to the statement about non-sociality! The reason we don't seem social is because no one feels like being social barring mostly our top few people but occasionally some other people! If you decided to get on chat during a time in which Monchoman45, God, SunXia, plus maybe Morpheus and I and other particularly outgoing people, you'd realize that we can be VERY social. However, this wiki is not for US, it is something we sacrifice time, brain cells, and effort to keep in order for anybody to view and keep in order for anybody who wants reliable information to get it! Barring that, new users CAN edit their own user pages as much as they wish, but if that's all they do then I'm not sure what's the point of staying here. Much of what we do is for the benefit of others, and anyone who selfishly cares for only their own content is immediately frowned upon. Besides that, not liking a wiki is one thing, but throwing derogatory comments about it is a complete other! Forgive me for typing like SunXia, but I am a little bit aggravated right now. With the User Blog comments far, far, FAR outweighing page edits, it looks very much like people do not care about the state of the pages! Believe me, I've seen a wiki which has had so much slapstick that it was entertaining but rather discouraging.


 * Bad editors or no, we still give them a chance. I'm not all that good compared to the top few, but that didn't stop me from doing an entire Episode summary and take on a few article improvements, although I still need to finish them. Also, I hope you realize that it's against policy to change the posts of another user, including signatures! You may find God's signature offensive, but it's all meant in good spirit. He is not ACTUALLY trying to antagonize people. If one person changed it, another would think it acceptable to do something similar, and then all bloody Hell would break loose! True wiki or no, it is extremely insulting to everybody who put their blood, sweat, and assorted brain fluids into a wiki if you call their wiki false ON THEIR OWN WIKI!!!!!!! It's one thing to sling free speech around, but if you want to voice such blatantly insulting comments, do it somewhere where it won't be seen by the very people you do not want to see it! We are not stalkers. Or rather, MOST of us aren't. Forgive me for sounding like a raving lunatic, but when my berserk button has been pressed, I tend to be honest. BRUTALLY honest. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk)  11:55, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * And before you call me a hypocrite for saying that God's signature can stay that way but your comment is unacceptable, they're two different things. God's signature, something that he didn't do intentionally and doesn't hurt you. Derogatory comment about how this isn't a true wiki, it insults everybody who had a hand in making it how it is today, top-notch or no. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk)  12:06, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

To clear this up, in my religion it is considered profanity to write the Lord's name casually. I do not think anyone intended to offend me initially, but changing an "o" to a "-" would not hurt anyone, again this is just what I want to do on my talk page. This is obviously not vandalism, but the user avoiding this change clearly just doesn't like me. As evidence, SunXia made a comment today without any permission with the edit summary, "Do not want offensive talk on my talk page." That is exactly how I feel, and I even asked permission. I am being specifically targeted, since his major edit was allowed, and my minor edit is not, and the edits are of the same nature. 17:25, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * If you dont like my sig, archive your talk page. This is the one and only solution. If it is not suitable for you then too bad. You don't ever have to come on this wiki again and see it. There are a plethora of mentions of the word God around this site, if you find it offensive then this is not the wiki for you.--

This is not the only solution, and I have shown you an alternative already. Whether or not I stay is not up to you, and you have to more right to the site than I. Your bullying me and targeting me and insulting me and others serves only to make the content of your character very clear. 17:39, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * You vandlised and abused a member on my talk page!! You have stated your case elsewhere, we only need to read the same thing once and do not say blatantly calling someone disrespectful is not Abuse!! I have never called you one thing!! SunXia   (Chat)  17:40, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to G-disme, please stop vandalizing the site, thank you. 17:43, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Do not touch my page again, the rules state I am allowed to revert Abuse on my own talk page!! I am 2nd Seat here, and I know the rules!! SunXia  (Chat)  17:51, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Today's Discussions
Okay, it is time to put an end to this please. There is no issue with Godisme's signature. It was already explained to you that his username and sig are in reference to Aizen wanting to be a god/god-like being. Whether it hinders anyone to change it is beside the point. It is his sig and he is under no obligation to change it if he does not want to and he has declined to change it. No offense was meant by it. The message you left on SunXia's page should not have been left there. You should have responded on Godisme's page rather than bothering her with it. You should also have considered what you wanted to say more carefully. Then there would be no row with her. Additionally do not go around trying to make points through edit summaries (which smack of poking fun at and trying to antagonise other users) and nobody "sanctioned" you to do anything - saying such things is disingenuous at best. This whole thing is a waste of everyone's time and is creating a hostile environment that benefits nobody. So just let it be please. 19:28, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Other users are allowed to remove posts on their talks pages which they find offensive without consulting anyone else. I am not being allowed to do so and I am only requesting the same right that everyone else has. SunXia removed my signature from his talk page, along with a helpful tip for another user. I am being called a vandal for wanting to do a fraction of what he is being praised for. 19:35, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * "Do not touch my page again, the rules state I am allowed to revert Abuse on my own talk page!! I am 2nd Seat here, and I know the rules!! SunXia   (Chat)  17:51, August 11, 2011 (UTC)".
 * There is no abuse in that, therefore you are not allowed to remove it. Do not do so again. You have been told this before.

Reminder of Rules
Removing content (in particular criticism) is viewed as an attempt to whitewash your reputation and it demonstrates an unwillingness to comply with the rules and a disrespect toward the Admins and the community as a whole I stated what you did, you called a member names on my page!! SunXia  (Chat)  19:42, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * You are the epitome of hypocritical. The "name" I called a member was disrespectful, and I did so rightfully after he insulted me with a falsehood. You are now claiming to be in the right while calling me disrespectful. I would blank this page like you did in the exact same situation, but i won't so that you can see exactly how hypocritical you are being. 19:46, August 11, 2011 (UTC)