User talk:10X Kamehameha

Welcome
Welcome to Bleach Wiki! Thanks for your edit to Kenpachi Zaraki page, and thanks for joining our community! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.


 * Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what pages other people have been editing, and where you can help.


 * Questions? You can ask on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page!


 * Need help? You can find it right here! You can also find a full list of help pages here.


 * Don't know what to do? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and has links to pages to get you started!


 * Please sign in every time you edit, so that we can recognize you!


 * Here are some more pages you might find useful:


 * Policy - follow this to ensure harmony on the wiki
 * Manual of Style - a guide to how articles here are organized and written
 * Spoiler Policy - follow this to not ruin upcoming stories for those yet to read or watch the new chapter or episode


 * Sign your name in discussions by typing ~ , which automatically adds your signature and the date, so we know who's talking!

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Salubri (Talk) 04:48, February 2, 2010

Gin
You are entirely misunderstanding the situation here. You make several assumptions in your argument. You assume that Gin told Aizen exactly what he told Ichigo. There is no proof of this. You assume that we are not a credible source yet we reference everything we write. We make it our business to know Bleach. By your name, I am guessing you are from the dragonball wiki. It is obvious that you do not know Bleach as well as we do then if your focus is another wiki. When we write something on an article, it is the truth as dictated by the manga and/or the anime in cases that fit our Anime policy. Gin gave a clear description of the length and speed of his Bankai. He later told someone else, whose original conversation with Gin we did not get to see, that he had lied about the length and speed to HIM. There is no proof that he lied to Ichigo. Therefore, we go with what was shown and told and that is what is on the article. We do not allow speculation on articles and saying that Gin lied to Ichigo is speculation. As well, the way in which you have gone about this has been extremely rude. If you disagree with something we have here, so be it but to say that you will go to other channels and tell them that we are wrong is just plain rude. If you want to discuss something, do so civilly--


 * Um, I don't think you read what I wrote. I said, "I'm not considering the conversations with Ichigo and with Aizen as the same, I'm inferring that Gin spoke with Aizen previously, since that's what you said." When you say, "You assume that Gin told Aizen exactly what he told Ichigo," sends me the message that you care more about me being wrong than you do about the correctness of the information. I'm not saying I'm correct, and in fact I conceded the point already, but if you were going to reply to my statements, you should have read them all first.


 * Now let's talk about rudeness:


 * "You assume that Gin told Aizen exactly what he told Ichigo. There is no proof of this." - Hmm no, I said the opposite. Please read before replying.
 * "It is obvious that you do not know Bleach as well as we do." - It's obvious? Really? If it were to turn out that I was incorrect about a single quote, it would be obvious to you that every editor on this site knows more about Bleach than me?
 * "Extremely rude" - No polite request for civility, just an immediate jump to extremely rude. Thanks a lot.
 * "just plain rude" - If i didn't get the message from your last sentence, I surely got the point here.
 * "If you want to discuss something, do so civilly." - Yup, three sentences in a row about how rude I am. The very definition of civility to a new user.


 * So in conclusion, please reflect on what you've just done: completely scare off a new user who just had a question about one line. -- 10X Kamehameha


 * New user you say? Not according to your join date and contributions which showcase that you brought up another already debated and solved issue on Yammy's talk page and once we gave you the clear proof, you said it was just a technicality. You knew when to give up then but you do not know how to now. If you are scared off, so be it but you asked about the line, were given the answer, debated, proved wrong again, continued and finally Salubri had the sense to just close the topic. If you are not saying that the two conversations are the same then your point is moot as that conversation with Aizen is the only thing that could contradict Gin's statements to Ichigo if they were the same. Otherwise you are just assuming Gin randomly lied to Ichigo which goes against our Speculation policy. I highly suggest you read our Bleach Wiki:Speculation Policy.--

Before today I had 7 edits, and I haven't edited here in a year. Whether by inexperience or unfamiliarity with current goings on, I'm new. Um, I don't think you read what I wrote. I said, "In any case, I'm satisfied with the issue," and "I am satisfied with the above topic." When you say, "You knew when to give up then but you do not know how to now," it sends me the message that you care more about me being wrong than you do about the correctness of what you are saying.

Also, why did you replace the comment I tried to delete? I noticed that you didn't do so when Salubri made a comment and deleted it. Furthermore, you abused your Rollback power in doing so, since it wasn't vandalism. I highly suggest you read Help:Reverting. Please delete my comment as it is unwanted by the author, applies to no one, and is irrelevant to the article. -- 10X Kamehameha


 * Sorry for butting in. Kamehameha, I think the problem is that you edited a closed discussion. God apparently thought what you said is legitimate or something, and closed it. But closed discussions cannot be edited further. Anyway, as long as you're sorry for how rude it might have sounded, which came across more to me as disappointment, I think you'll be ok. Anyway, it looks like God understands, since it's not already back. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk)  02:18, June 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, and one last thing. God usually means well, but sometimes comes across as a coldly imperious to editors he doesn’t know well, which gives people the wrong idea sometimes. It happened to me, and I got the wrong idea. So don’t take it personally. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk)  02:18, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comments. See, I get what you mean about editing a closed topic, but that's actually not what happened. If you check out the page history, it went like this:

1. I made the comment.

2. I deleted the comment.

3. Godisme added my comment back in.

4. Godisme closed the topic.

5. I delete, he adds back in, etc.

So as you can see, I actually removed it before the discussion was closed, which makes Godisme's motives a mystery to me :< (maybe he should use edit summaries like I was doing). So what's fun on here, are there any good forums? 03:53, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, people used to do the forums alot, but the past year no one's been paying much attention to them. And on the topic of the edit undone, redone etc., Sun said it all. God's at the head of the Policy and Standards committee, and he can sort of be the "bad cop" alot when talking to people who violate the policies on this wiki. Overall, the first few times it's kind of hurtful but after a bit you stop paying attention to the tone and look for the meaning in his words that can help you be a better editor. In the long run, God's words are extremely helpful. He abides strictly by the policies on the wiki so we don't end up in chaos. That's his motive behind everything; he never means anything personally (unless said person is being a total jerk/real vandal), he's just trying to do what's best for the wiki, which he may view as different from everyone else. And trying to change his opinion is like trying to move a mountain, honestly. Doable, but barely.

You may not feel like your comment was legitimate, but it seemed to God like it was, and it is now a part of the page. If you don't like it being there, that's ok. No one really pays much attention to closed discussions anyway, and eventually that's going to be history. Gin's dead, so there won't be much point to editing his talk page after awhile, and that'll just fade to distant memory. Sometimes God confounds me as well. But embrace the higher-ups on the wiki as friends, or shake hands like acquaintances anyway. They're here mostly to help. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk)  12:28, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

One last thing: not very wise to ask for the blocking of a P&S committee member. I know I may sound like I'm taking their side, but a few things will happen:

1) You will be viewed in a bad light, because such a thing looks childish, and God has been an extremely big help to the wiki. He's been on for more than a year, and the admins all know what he's like.

2) Suppose God was actually blocked. They'd have to find a new Taicho, and find not three but four people to fill in the missing slots on the P&S committee. With God around, a lot of the vandals have been stopped, and articles have been improved. God has to take quick action to stop definite vandals, so he may sometimes overreact. But there will be a noticeable hole in the wiki if he leaves.

I'm not an expert, but I have been around here for awhile and have seen how things work here. I've butted heads with the higher ups several times, but more progress was made I think when I treated them like my teachers. Asking politely first, then go for the calm questions. That's the safe way to go. I apologize if I sound arrogant and obnoxious; just like God has a tendency to be cold and imperious to people who violate standards, I can be a little arrogantly thinking I'm all-knowing in my messages. Aeron Solo wuz here (If you wanna talk)  12:46, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Closed Discussions
This is a warning. It does not matter if you are the only contributor to a discussion. Once it is closed, do not touch it. It remains on the talk page. Do it again and you will be blocked from editing.--


 * Actually, I removed it before it was closed. Check the history and please stop harassing me. 04:10, June 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * And I added it back in and closed it as it should be. You brought it up, it stays up. I am not harassing you, I am doing my job on this wiki as a member of the policy and standards committee. Now leave it.--

"You brought it up, it stays up" - Could you please tell me where in the rules this is said? Thanks. 04:13, June 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that if anyone had ever shown me a single piece of existing policy that gave a reason for you to add my comment back in and then close the topic afterward, through edit summaries or talk, then I would let it be. Since I have not, I assume that I am allowed to edit my own comments. 04:16, June 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not once the topic is closed. Removal of content from pages is vandalism. Do it again and I will place you up to be blocked.--

Fine. I'll stop editing until I can get an admin to weigh in. 04:19, June 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * You want an explanation, here it is. You left that comment up for over a half hour and it was only after Salubri deleted his own comment to end the argument that you decided to delete it. At that point it was a genuine topic in the talk page which others had seen and edited. You removed it and I put it back in as it should. Deleting it does not make it go away, it is still in the history. I then closed the topic as it should be. You removed it again, violating our closed discussion policy. I reverted it. I am allowed to use rollback as I see fit. The wikia help page is a guideline. Wikia has many guidelines but no one follows them all. They have all sorts of guidelines such as leaving your main page unprotected and not blocking users for more than a day or two. It is not required, just suggested. Take my advice, as head of the policy and standards committee, I know what I am doing. I did not use edit summaries as I used rollback, which does not allow for custom edit summaries unless you have specific js ones coded into your personal js and that does not work in Firefox.--

I appreciate you finally giving some sort of explanation for your actions. However, it sounds like you were using rollback solely because it is slightly faster, which is not a good reason for not using edit summaries. You gave no explanation for your actions for a very long time, and have still cited zero policy reason for what you did. I will accept nothing other than a policy stating that what you did was appropriate, specifically something like, "do not edit your own comments after posting them." There were zero replies when I removed it, and it was not closed when I removed it. 04:34, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Actually there was a history reply, Salubri made a comment and then removed it when he did not feel like bothering with you any longer. Also, you will accept nothing less than a policy? Who are you to make demands? I used rollback because you were removing content from pages, also known as an act of vandalism. I know what I am doing here. Ever since you came to this site, you have done nothing but bring up old topics and be extremely rude when we tell you you are not right. Yet you only call that last comment rude? I am done with this little topic, I already know the admins response to this so Ill just stop.--


 * Ok so explain something to me. I made a comment, then Salubri made a reply. He deleted his, then I deleted mine. Then, you only added mine back, and closed the topic. Why didn't you add Salubri's comment back in, which was created and deleted under the same exact circumstances. I feel personally targeted and harassed because of this. And yes, if you are going to edit someone else's comment, especially something very significant like adding in something totally deleted, then you need to be doing it for some reason other than just a whim. Without a policy informing your decision, or your reversion of editing my comment based on a whim, I will not take down my block request. You did all the things I gave as reasoning for it. 04:49, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at the disputed comment made my Salubri, his comment must have been made in error dueto the fact it was little more than a copy and paste of a comment Godisme made elsewhere!! Quite clearly an error as Salubri is not Godisme and so he obviously removed the comment since it was not his comment in the first place, he didn't even sign it, which is something Salubri would never have done if not by mistake!! Now you left your comment on the page for a period of time and thus these rules apply here!! Now if you look at the bottom of said rules "Never delete talk page posts" which you did do under a reason that it was abusive which it wasn't!! Godisme is the head of the Policy and Standards Committee on this site and uses his judgement when necessary!! To him, you had left the comment for wellover and hour and thus it was to stay and Salubri's comment was hardly a comment, it was a posting of somebody else's comment!! Godisme knows the rules here, and you were in violation of those rules and thus your edit was undone!! There's no point in crying out harrassment when there's nothing to harrass just because you don't want what you originally stated to stand!! The rules were followed, there's no point in trying to get a very valuable member of our team here blocked for no reason!! Salubri intervened because it was a pointless and tedious issue to get worked up over!! SunXia  (Chat)  06:04, June 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for using policy, something Godisme has still not done. If you made an edit that you thought was good, and someone else undid it without saying why over and over while calling you rude and threatening to block you, I'm sure you would be upset as well. Also, I am not in violation of the rules, as it says, "Exceptions to this rule include: When the criteria on the talk page has nothing to do with the page content ." If you read the history of that talk page, this should look familiar, since my edit summary when I deleted the comment included, "comment topic back it as it is irrelevant to Gin." Salubri clearly agreed, and deleted it recently stating that, "the content has nothin to do with the talk page required material." Thus, according to the administration and the policy here, I am quite clearly in the right. Also, it was certainly not up for well over an hour, according to the history it was up for less than half an hour. I have no personal vendetta, I just think that if there is a user who is reverting edits without explanation, edit warring, ignoring policy, and harassing new users, then they should be warned at the very least. The only way I would take down my block request would be if Godisme apologized to me, showing that he has learned and will change his ways. 06:19, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

He won't be blocked though, he contributes too much to this and he wasn't harrassing you, he was folloing policy!! I've had plenty of my edits reverted hat I thought wasright and rather than taking the maintenance of the site personal, I simply looked up the policies!! That's how I got to where I am here, I learnt from my edits and corrections!! As I said before, you should note that Godisme is one of the highest contributors here, he's head of the Policy & Standards Committee, which, at the moment, has seen some lack of activity!! Even Admins will tell you that if your edit was undone, ather than starting an edit war, it would be simpler to request why on the user's talk page!! Instead, you did the former and continued an edit war instead of addressing Godisme directly which appears rude considering his position here!! Now he's not perfect and doesn't get everything right but if he's undoing edits he's doing it for a reason and not to harrass anybody, he's merely following the procedures that have meant that contributed to this site being of such high quality!! He has a lot of responsibility here and starting an edit war when he stated in the summary that it shouldn't have been there appears rude to him as well!! And with all due respect, you were still arguing a certain point about Gin's article and something yu felt belonged there so it did belong on that page, it was the edit war that followed that the Admins disagreed on!! Godisme took your name off the Block list because you eventually stopped the edit war, he's not taking it personal and is giving you the benefit of the doubt even though both of you were as rude as each other!! I'm also a member of the P&S Committee and had I been online at the time, I'd have done the same thing, maintenance is our duty here, it's nothing personal to any of the members!! SunXia  (Chat)  10:11, June 24, 2011 (UTC)