User talk:KojiDude: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:41, 7 September 2006

Wikipedia vandalism information
(abuse log)

Low to moderate level of vandalism

[view • purge • update]

3.47 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 01:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my talk page (me being KojiDude). Feel free to leave me a message if you want, as long as you follow a couple rules. Yeah, I know what you're thinking. "Rules? Wtf? Why should I waste my time reading your rules when I can just leave a message?" Well, because if you break any of these the entire comment you made will be deleted.

The number one rule would be no personal attacks please. If I have angered you in any way, or reverted any edits you made, I was likley following Wikipedia policy. Even if I didn't have a legitmit reason to anger you, you still shouldn't insult me.
Please sign your posts. It's very disruptive and against policy not to. Just type: --~~~~ after your comments.
Please don't edit your comments after making them, unless you're fixing a typo. It grinds my gears when you do that.

Don't vandalize. It can and will get you blocked

Don't troll. Seriousley, no good comes out of it. All you'll get is a {{subst:test2-n}} on your talk page.

Don't be a dick

SSJ5

SSJ5 is covered in the article Dragon Ball AF. I don't think it is specifically stated that SSJ5 doesn't exist, but since a picture is shown of Goku as one, and it is said in the article that the picture is just fanart, that would imply that SSJ5 is non-existant by association. However, I will try to edit the article when I have the chance to make it more clear that SSJ5 doesn't exist.

Daishokaioshin 21:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thankyou. I like you a lot because of that removal - but be damned careful he doesn't complain about you to the admins, because what we did is probably quite naughty. In future, let's keep everyone else quiet, but let the troll talk himself to death, that way, he ignores the article. HawkerTyphoon 02:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get in. I think we win. I'll check back on this tomorrow. Manga is worth precious little in my eyes, and it hurts me to see people arguin over it. To each his own. Goodnight, fair prince. HawkerTyphoon 03:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball timelines

Since the information on the article is based on the series and manga itself, then you can conclude that all of the information there is conon. This means that there would be no place to add the events that occurred in a movie to a specific timeline in the article. Always remember that DBZ movies are Non-Canon, no matter how close to the events of the series or manga the movie may seem. You can speculate, but you can never be 100% sure about the actual time in which the movie could have taken place, and speculation is not "allowed" (by Wikipedia policy) on Wikipedia. The movies won't fall into Timeline 4 because that timeline is based on a completely different Future Trunks universe. Multiple sections would have to be created for the movies' timelines since not all of the movies follow the events of the previous ones. I really wouldn't want to get into doing that since it would just be too complicated to comprehend, but if you think you are up for a challenge then by all means go for it. Something that should be mentioned to a certain extent, however, is basically what I stated above. That DBZ movies are Non-Canon, no matter how close to the events of the series or manga they may seem to be, their events would have to fall into their own timeline.-3bulletproof16 04:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to help.-3bulletproof16 04:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star

I've reported him on the 3RR board, here: [1] Feel free to leave comments.

Daishokaioshin 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Cool. I would've reported him but...The reporting thing is confusng. @.@ KojiDude 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also broke 3rr on Majin Buu so I blocked you for 3 hours, I blocked Wiki-star for a week. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I had a feeling this'd happen. Sorry for breaking the rule man it won't happen again. KojiDude 04:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown copyright?

The SSJ4 Gogeta image you uploaded (Image:GogetaSuperSaiyan4.jpg) has a copyright violation as the image is copyrighted by Toei Animation. The tag on your image claims that you are the creator of the work, which is obviously not true. Thus, it has a copyright violation. For more information on using correct copyright/license tags, please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Hope that clears it up a bit. --3bulletproof16 02:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Bojack.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bojack.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it for you KojiDude. --3bulletproof16 22:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude. KojiDude 22:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images on your userpage

I removed them. You have clearly used some copyrighted material in creating them. Therefore they are derivative works, and thusly copyrighted by the original copyright holder. I will be nominating them for deletion shortly. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I thought if I made it on my computer with my paint program it would be considered my creation. The image uploading always confuses me here...Anyways sorry for breaking the copyright rule. KojiDude 23:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... read my comment above...--3bulletproof16 23:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

You said you wanted an admin for something? Anything I can help you with? --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell Page

You're never gonna get sleep again? How in the blue hell do you think I feel!?!? And It's only the fourth time the IP has added the link! I wonder if he's into that sort of thing... eww... Now hold on a sec. You actually clicked on the link? lmao Dude...--3bulletproof16 00:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a "fan devoted to Cell" lmao. Was the screen jiggling all around? lol.--3bulletproof16 00:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet Daishokaioshin clicked on the link as well! lmao, Imagine what she must have felt...--3bulletproof16 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, sort of caught me off guard.--3bulletproof16 01:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Apocoslypse Is Comin'

Rejoice my son... Rejoice! For the end to a pain in the arse has come. --3bulletproof16 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah, HA-LLE-LU-JAH!!!! --3bulletproof16 00:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry my son... I know of a lord... (whom I think you are familiar with)... The lord that vanished the Dragon Emperor infestation. See his miracles. It is Lord Deskana, and yes... ^{HE VALUES OUR OPINIONS} --3bulletproof16 01:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a song in my heart ~~

You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well you just might find... you get what you need. Papacha 05:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't that always true, my good friend... You know, kinda makes you wonder if he'd really clean up his act this time around... ... ... NAH... --3bulletproof16 06:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The second anyone un-blocked him he'd revert the Majin Buu back to his version, no doubt about it. KojiDude (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However... I am going to miss his dramatic way of writing... that Final Atonement speech almost (ahem... ALMOST) brought a tear to my eye. Well not really, but still pretty dramatic. --3bulletproof16 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It made me feel a little sorry for the dude, but not alot. And it was kinda corny how he used the Final Atonment title from the episode of DBZ where Vegeta kills himself...Almost takes away the coolness of the title. KojiDude (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that kind of killed it for me too... Oh well, whatever gives him a sense a drama... Keep up the good work Wiki-star! --3bulletproof16 06:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dende

If you can expand Dende's article with notable info the second pic can stay, otherwise it needs to go or the text must be rearranged per image use policy. Voice of Treason 05:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the article best I could, I'm not really worried about the picture anymore. That article was lacking way too much important information. KojiDude (talk) 05:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAZ UP!!

Waz up man I was wondering if you may want to sing a duet of "I believe I can fly" by R.Kelly on your talk page I'll star it off

I used to think that I could not go on

And life was nothing but an awful song

But now I know the meaning of true love

I'm leaning on the everlasting arms

...Uh, no thanks. Sorry. KojiDude (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nameks

You should probably upload the picture under a different name; trying to overwrite information is troublesome sometimes. Then put the original up for deletion. I'll help out if there's any problems. Voice of Treason 07:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll get right on it. Sorry for the little copyright mishap thing by the way. I'll try not to let it happen again. KojiDude (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I didn't want you to think you were being "targeted" for not knowing Wikipedia's copyright policy. Voice of Treason 07:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did what you said, see if it works now. I didn't nominate the other one for deletion though, I uh...Kinda don't know how. KojiDude (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, the template is now correct. But you still need to add copyright info. See this picture for an example from Excel Saga, a featured article. Name all the studios and the source, and the reason you uploaded it and feel it's covered by fair use. Again, I'll help you wherever I can. Voice of Treason 07:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and did it. Just put {{db-author}} at the top of the other to have it speedily deleted. Voice of Treason 07:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of Wiki-Star

Well for once I'm somewhat flattered that he actually addressed me this time. Though I'm not too fond of him saying that he was going to kill me, I do, however, manage to find some comedic relief in all this at the thought of him attempting to kill me. Here's my analysis: He can't write at all so my guess is another Dragon Emperor "Sockpuppet". However, the IPs responsible for the recent vandalism are AOL trolls so there is a slim possibility that Wiki-star could indeed be making himself look like an ass again... --3bulletproof16 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, either Wiki-star's finally snapped or some IP adress saw his bad reputation and wants to make it worse. That doesn't sound like Wiki-star, though...If he was back he'd be all "Hello, fellow contributors! It is I, Wiki-star!" ect. KojiDude (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, so true... You make a very good impersonation of Wiki-star, BTW --3bulletproof16 03:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powerlevels discussion

Hi,well i think we need to take a decision about the power levels by consensus,thank you by your atention.Victtorio 20:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Victtorio[reply]

Why don't we take a straw poll? KojiDude (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"atention", it is Dragon Emperor --3bulletproof16 20:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that explains alot. You got a good eye for catching his sock puppets don't you? Welcome back by the way. KojiDude (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still haven't left yet but thanks anyways... Stupid plane got delayed. Good thing I brought my laptop, though! --3bulletproof16 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well looks like its time for me to board... Yes after 8 hours of waiting... finally! I'm off to Seattle! I'll try to go on Wikipedia if I have time during the week. Be back in 7 Days. --3bulletproof16 00:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z:_Budokai_Tenkaichi_2

I did another revert of Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z:_Budokai_Tenkaichi_2 due to the vandalism, the removal of content, and the puppet shows he is running using other names (see my talk page, last entry if you want more info.). Since you gave him a warning earlier, it would be good to report him. Thanks Seicer (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I didn't notice the message you left for me until just now (Onikage725 left a message the same day). If you still need help and information on creating articles, Help:Starting a new page is an easy way to get started. You should have little trouble making one from there. Help:Editing is available for the rest. Voice of Treason 10:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

81.36.29.122 and WP:AVI

There appears to be a content dispute element in your dealings with 81.36.29.122, and it isn't clear to me that actual vandalism is going on. I therefore suggest you take the matter to WP:ANI where they can deal with more complicated cased like this one. WP:AVI is only for very blatant vandalism (addition of profanity, article blanking, etc.) Thanks. JoshuaZ 20:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited :)

Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject Bodybuilding, a WikiProject dedicated to improving bodybuilding related articles. Simply click here to accept! ~~~~

Buu

Could you help me with trimming down the Synopsis part of the Buu article? I'm having a hard time figuring out what should be cut. I would like to see it become a good article. Thanks. Nemu 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your report on WP:AIV

What is going on? Those IPs come from several diferent ISPS is there some significance of (~)?Geni 19:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The significance is in the edits. All the IPs added the exact same characters each time they vandalised the page, so either its the same person or a conspiracy. Also, most of them are definitly the same person, due to personallity traits. If you check the talk page's history you'll see. KojiDude (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude... what is it with trolls these days? --3bulletproof16 20:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hummm zombie machines perhaps. But that would be a lot of effort. The IP patturn is odd though. Something strange going on here.Geni 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When isn't something strange going on? --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

Per the fair use policy, I have removed fair use images from your userpage. Please do not use fair use images outside of article space. They should be linked (like this... Image:Example.jpg) rather than being included on the page. Thank you. --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Honey

Nobody has concrete proof that she is Saiyan, thus, putting her on the Saiyans page is not correct, she should go into aliens.

There is no proof that she is a different alien. Just leave her at Saiyans, that's the most logical place to put her.--KojiDude (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

When editing AIV, pleaes remember to include "LIST EMPTY", "LIST NOT EMPTY", or some variant thereof in your edit summary. Isopropyl 05:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it kind of slipped my mind. Sorry about that.--Koji Dude 05:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: VandalBot

I should have checked the users block and contribution log before reporting to AIV and I tried to remove the report after realizing my mistake but Woohookitty reviewed it before I could revert it. Sorry --1568 08:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be sorry. I didn't mean to come off in that kind of tone, I was just advising you for future reference. As long as your intetnions are good, apologies aren't needed. =) --Koji Dude 08:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the reminder (I sort of needed it) seems like my mind got stuck in anti-vandal mode just reverting and reporting without thinking!--1568 07:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oozaru page editing

I didn't mean to make the page look "sloppy". In fact I only edited it the two times prior to your recent edit. On my Mozilla Firefox browser the text was smudged between the two pictures in the 'Golden Oozaru' section. I also like the pic of Oozaru Bebi Vegeta grabbing SSJ4 Goku and thought of putting it back to where it was in the 'Abilities' section. I appreciate your concern for this article since Im also a Dragonball fan! :D Maphisto86 12:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who's back...

Ooh... I have the power to vanquish someone now. Hehehe... I'm flattered. --3bulletproof16 16:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how he came up with this name? Hmm... -- 3:16 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's official, Dragon Emperor has no life whatsoever.--Koji Dude 16:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you just witnessed is what I deal with every friggin' day... I think its time for another Wiki-break. What do you think? -- 3:16 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So soon?--Koji Dude 05:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what... We'll see how today goes. -- 3:16 15:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball canon

Stop reverting that, it's not "fact", it's the opinion of some fans. It would only be fact if Toriyama or Toei said that was true. TJ Spyke 22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact. Toriyama had very little to do with the series. Opinion doesn't over-rule facts. If it did, 2+2 could equal chicken. The sky could be cows running on water. Morgan Freeman could be white. It is a fact that he had very little to do with it, thus it is lower in canon than the other two (which he CREATED).--Koji Dude 22:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is NOT fact and I can't understand why you can't realize that. He has NEVER said it was below DB and DBZ, and neither has Toei. The only ones saying that are fans like you. GT is just as canon as DB and DBZ(the same way that all Star Trek shows created after Roddenberry died are just as canon as ones he created. TJ Spyke 22:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toriyama has stated that he had very little involvment with it. If the CREATOR has very little to do with it, it isn't as canon as something he created.--Koji Dude 23:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if TJ really understands english... Toriyama has nothing to do with GT except a few designs. That is a fact. You're saying Toriyama wrote GT from the beginning to the end ? prove it.

What is canon is what was created by the original author. It is a fact. You want to say otherwise ? prove it.

Were did Tôei and Toriyama said that GT was 100% canon and more canon than the manga ? The only ones saying that are fans like you.

Basically, we don't care about what Star Treck fans can say. Have you already forgotten ? Folken de Fanel 23:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing, Folken. Very well said.--Koji Dude 23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that was a cheap shot... -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, GT was non-canon. GT was never part of the written manga so most of it is void of canonical facts. The movies are proven to be non-canon (not only not written by Toriyama, but doesn't even fit into the rest of the story), how does that make the 64 episode long flop series called Dragonball Grand Tour any different? If you say the movies are non-canon (which they are), then GT has to be non-canon as well. -- Majin Vegeta 12:31, August 30 2006 (UTC)

My signature

Hey. I tried to add my Esperanza page into my signature, but when I use the ~, it comes up like this: [[User:Sasuke-kun27|'''Sasuk'''[[User:Sasuke-kun27/Esperanza|'''e''']][[User:Sasuke-kun27|'''-kun''']][[User talk:Sasuke-kun27|'''27''']]]] 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC). I tried typing it the way I wanted it (Sasuke -kun27) and then copying/pasting it into my preferences, but it didn't work. You helped me before and I was hoping you could help me again.[reply]

P.S. You can delete this after you read it and post your comment on my talk page. - Sasuke -kun27

Dragon Ball GT

Please do not put false warnings on my page. The policy is to use the official ENGLISH name, and since there is no English manga of GT, that would mean the FUNimation dub. TJ Spyke 03:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been disputed before. Talk to User:Daishokaioshin about it. She's the expert on thsi subject. And it wasn't a "false" warning, you added nonsense to Wikipedia (the line in the first paragraph), which is considered vandalism.--Koji Dude 03:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one vandalizing the page? Haha, I put a neutral statement, that some fans don't consider him canon. What YOU put is that he isn't canon, something that violated WP:V since you can't prove it. Others editos have agreed that it IS canon, and everytime I present evidence you just dismiss it even though mine is just as valid as yours. So YOU are the one vandalizing the page. Stop reverting my changes or you are the one who will be reported. TJ Spyke 21:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, basically you haven't done anything except say "I think GT is canon, so it's canon! Whatever I say is right!". If GT was canon, then the movies would be canon, which they aren't. You aren't trying to say that they are, which proves that you are doing this soley out of selfishness, which would be bad faith. You are now trolling due to this fact, which is a type of vandalism. Please stop.--Koji Dude 21:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movies have been announced as non-canon, they never said that about GT. If you revert once more I will report you for violating WP:3RR. TJ Spyke 21:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you report me, you will be blocked as well, and for a longer period of time because you are trolling. I am reverting vandalism, so I can't be blocked for 3RR due to WP:IAR.--Koji Dude 21:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be blocked depending on the person. Some won't consider that vandalism. Nemu 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it vandalism? I made some correct edits(saying that his canonicity is debateable), and all you do is keep reverting it. I have offered compromises but you continue to just revert. I have made a edit that should make both of us happy so neither of us get in trouble. TJ Spyke 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it can't be debated, GT is NON-CANON. It's a FACT, which can't be debated. If you debate against a fact, pushing your own opinion and ignoring everyone else, you are vandalizing Wikipedia.--Koji Dude 22:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "fact" when no official sources have said it's not canon? So yes it CAN be debated. TJ Spyke 22:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon comes from the original source. GT did not come from the original source. Nemu 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that TORIYAMA, THE CRATOR OF DRAGON BALL, didn't write it, and the plot holes, the fact that it doesn't fit with the continuity of the original manga (as Nemu said), and the Pilaf plot hole, make it NON-CANON. YOU haven't done anything yet but say "Your "facts" are wrong", and then you vandalize. Why don't you provide ONE thing that says otherwise?--Koji Dude 22:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to assert your OPINION as "fact" and not accepted my compromise of it being debatable, I listed this at Wikipedia:Third Opinion. Your opinion of it being non-canon doesn't make that a fact. Even though Toriyama did do designs for the show, gave it his approval, encouraged people to watch it, said the writers more or less took it where he would have. Him not creating it does not automatically make it not canon. Has he ever come out and say somthing like he doesn't consider it canon? NO. TJ Spyke 02:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, you're not listening. That isn't my only fact. Your ONLY argument is that TOEI and Toriyama have said nothing abotu it, which doesn't fucking matter one little bit. GT is non-canon because of the plot holes, the fact that it wasn't created by Toriyama, the Pilaf plot hole (which means GT couldn't have taken place), and the wide fan base that considers it non-canon. We don't need a third opinion, we need you to stop ignoring the facts.--Koji Dude 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every show has plot holes(even DB and DBZ), Pilaf could have been in space when Buu destroyed Earth, Toriyama basically gave GT his full support, i've seen many fans and websites(like Pojo, which is highly respected) consider it as canon, and your only "fact" is that Toriyama didn't create. So unless Toei or Toriyama say that it is or isn't canon, then it IS debatable. TJ Spyke 02:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, there is no way to prove Pilaf was in space, Toriyama not creating it automatically makes it non-canon (out ruling anything else), the plot holes make it not able to fit into the continuity of the original manga, fan sites don't count as reliable sources, and TOEI and Toriyama stating that the movies are non-canon is basically the same as them stating GT is non-canon, as GT is the same as the movies (not created by Toriyama, and they contain many plot holes). This all proves your ONE little point wrong by a longshot. If you continue to revert the page after this, then you will be vandalizing, and you will be reported on WP:AIV and blocked for disruption eventually.--Koji Dude 02:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. There is no way to proove Pilaf wasn't in space, Toriyama not creating it does not automatically make it not canon(especially since he did have some involvement with it), Pojo is the largest unofficial Dragon Ball website(and not some random fan site), and the movies/GT thing is not the same. It's not vandalism either, it's a content dispute and you refuse to compromise because you believe you are right. TJ Spyke 02:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canon is what is created by the original author. Is GT created by Toriyama? No. So that automatically makes it non-canon. His little involvment makes no difference. The Movies and GT are the same because they are both not created by Toriyama and have major plot holes. Pojo is still a fan site and doesn't matter at all. GT is non-canon, and it is painfully obvious. If you continue to say it isn't, then you are obviousley ignoring what I say and pushing your own opinion into an article because you want to be right, therefore disrupting Wikipedia and vandalizing.--Koji Dude 03:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Canon (Star Trek) to counter your first argument. I am not pushing my point, I offered a compromise by saying it's debatable. You are the one trying to push your opinion. You do realize that you are the one looking bull-headed by not willing to compromise? TJ Spyke 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek has NOTHING to do with DBZ. The creator of Star Trek is dead, the creator of DBZ is alive. It is not my opinion, as I am listing FACTS. You even said yourself you stated why it "could be canon" not why "it is canon". So you haven't given any REAL proof or facts to support you. Also, if you wanted my opinion, the Android Saga, Cell Saga, and Buu Saga are all non-canon. Am I going to articles and making them say that? No. Am I pressing my opinion into an article? No. Am I not listing any facts, and only giving my personal opinion? No. But you are.--Koji Dude 03:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only pointed out Star Trek because it kinda moots you point about something only being canon if created by the author. Yes it is my opinion that GT is canon just like it's your opinion that GT isn't canon. That's why I suggest putting that it's debatable in the Bebi article since there are supporters for each side and we have no official word from Toei or Toryiama to prove which side is right. Why not leave it like that? TJ Spyke 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't debatable. There isn't a single thing in this god given earth that points to GT being canon, whereas there are many FACTS that it isn't. Toriyama did not make it, therefore it is NON-CANON no matter what you say, because canon is what is CREATED by the ORIGINAL AUTHOR. Why can't you simply accept that? Why is it so hard for you to stop trying to get your opinion into the article?--Koji Dude 03:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are freaking bull-headed. It is NOT a fact. It's only a fact if Akira Toriyama or Toei Animation(the studio that owns the rights to Dragon Ball) say it's not canon. Otherwise it's your OPINION. I'm starting to wonder if you actually went to school. TJ Spyke 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be announced for it to be a fact. Get that in your head. It is YOUR opinion that GT is canon. Why the hell would it have to be announced to be a fact? Was it announced that there was going to be a Trunks? No. That doesn't mean Trunks isn't canon.--Koji Dude 04:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want to consider GT canon, fine. That doesn't mean it's not canon. Go ahead and read about something called "Personal Canon". It's fine if you don't want to consider GT canon, but please stop vandalizing the Bebi article. TJ Spyke 04:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not vandalizing, YOU are. I have given a reason for GT being non-canon that nobody in the entire world can argue against, and do you know what you said in reply? " That's your opinion! Not a fact! " Well, news flash, it IS a fact. Canon is what is created by the original author, and GT is not created by the original author, thus it is non-canon. How can you debate against that? It's impossible. You're not only adding your opinion, you're adding nonsense. Please stop, this argument has gone on for 12 hours and you're obviousley WRONG. I consider you a friend, that is why I have put myself in danger of being blocked to save you from being blocked. I don't want to have to report you at WP:AIV, so please, for your sake, stop the vandalism. Listen to what I'm saying: It's impossible to debate against the fact that GT is non-canon, because GT wasn't created by it's original author.--Koji Dude 04:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to put in something that will make everyone happy. Articles are Wikipedia are supposed to have verifiable sources, and since there has been no official word on whether or not it is canon and there are many people supporting both sides, I feel it's best not say he is canon or not canon. If you can find a way to put that in the article(which is what I am TRYING to do) then go ahead. I don't think it makes sense to just say he is not canon though when non-canon though. The creater of a franchise doesn't have to be involved for something to be canon(there are many movie, TV shows, and video game franchises that have entries considered canon despite their creaters not being involved). TJ Spyke 04:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, it isn't debatable. Wether there are equal members of each side, there is no way to overrule the fact that Toriyama didn't create GT, which means GT is non-canon which means Bebi is non canon. It isn't vandalism, and it isn't my opinion, it is a FACT. How many times do I have to say it to get it through your head? It is a god damn FACT, that can not be debated against. You can't debate against the fact that the movies are non-canon, so how can you debate against the fact that GT is non-canon? You haven't given one single thing to back up your point, and it is obvious you are only thinking of yourself.

You posted for a third opinion, but when I told you we already got one from Nemu (whom sided with me) you continued to add your opinion. If we had gotten a third opinion, and he sided with you, I bet you'd say " The third opinion sided with me, so the argument is over. ". But scince the third opinion didn't side with you, you ignored it. That's bad faith if I've ever seen it.--Koji Dude 04:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to wonder if you know how to compromise. Yes Toriyama didn't creat GT, that doesn't automatically make it non-canon. Does that mean anything in the Spider-Man or X-Men universes not created by Stan Lee are not canon? No, because Marvel decides what's canon since they own them, just like Toei owns DB so they decide what is canon. I also have editors who agree with me. It IS debatable and I don't appreciate you reverting my good(and neutal changes) and calling it vandalism. If you feel like reverting it AGAIN, stop and decide to ask for arbitration instead since it is obvious that we will never agree(and since you continue to insist that your opinion is fact). TJ Spyke 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes Toriyama didn't creat GT, that doesn't automatically make it non-canon." Yes, it does. "Does that mean anything in the Spider-Man or X-Men universes not created by Stan Lee are not canon?" No, because they aren't full of plot holes. "Toei owns DB so they decide what is canon" If you said that to Toriyama, he'd say " Tch, like hell they do. It's my god damn manga. ". "since it is obvious that we will never agree" Yes, we will never agree, because all you do is ignore the facts. You're so obsessed with not losing the argument, that you've not only broken 3RR (by a longshot), you've insulted a user that could have easily had you blocked hours ago but decided not to out of kindness. You've also ignored Wikipedia's policy of original research, scince you have nothing to prove GT is canon, and you have nothing to say it's debatable. I consider you a friend and a good contributor, which is why I didn't report you for 3RR when you broke it. I don't want to continue the argument with you, because it will only end in you getting blocked, and the longer the argument the longer the block.--Koji Dude 05:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to reach a compromise here. EVERY show has plotholes, not just GT. The reason I say Toei decides what is canon is because they own Dragon Ball. It's not about losing the arguement, other editors on other GT related articles have agreed that GT is canon(just very low canon, but still canon). I don't know why this article is such a problem. Maybe we should ask other editors to say what they think and agree to stand by their consensus. We should have a vote at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga(since their is no WP for Dragon Ball specifically). If the majority of people there agree with me, will you stop changing it? Because officially neither of us are correct becuase Toei and Toriyama never said whether it's canon or not. TJ Spyke 05:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, it really isn't that important. You're obviousley wrong, as you haven't given a single source to back up your claims. Canon is what is created by the original author. Unless you can somehow change the meaning of canon, you're wrong.--Koji Dude 05:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Ahem... actually there is a Wikiproject for Dragon Ball... I was the only member for about two months, and then it all basically went straight to hell since nobody else bothered to join... Ahem... Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Ball... -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that kinda funny for some reason.--Koji Dude 05:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot guys... -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just put the issue up there, but since nobody posts there I will also put it up at it's parent project(Anime and Manga). TJ Spyke 05:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hey

KojiDude, I'm not going to lie to you. If Taracka ever finds the testicular fortitude to go and do something as stupid as that, it would be the absolute most hilarious thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Of course, most of the hilariousness would be from seeing his ass get banned again instantly for the 1000th time. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bebi (Dragon Ball GT)

Seems to me that Koji "First Timer" Dude and TJ "Clean Slate" Spyke are interested in joining "The Club" Yeah, I had to click on the "100 versions" for this one. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you guys are really going at it... -- bulletproof ^3:16

I was reverting vandalism (a.k.a WP:IAR) on this one. If I were to get blocked, that would be extremley stupid, as I am exerting as much good faith as possible, and trying to keep false info out of Wikipedia (a.k.a following policy).--Koji Dude 05:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, you were trying to assert your OPINION(that GT isn't canon) wheras I was trying to make it neutral by saying that it's debatable(which is true). TJ Spyke 05:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, read those definitions of fact and opinion I put on Bebi's talk page. =) --Koji Dude 05:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your SOURCE saying that only what appears in the manga is canon?

TJ, everybody knows that only what is in the manga is canon. Every article on Wikipedia that involves Dragon Ball says that. Face the fact that you're wrong and stop vandalizing. It's getting old. Eeveryone knows you're wrong, and you know you're wrong. You just can't accept it.--Koji Dude 07:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know i'm not wrong, the DB articles I have seen (like Dragon Ball canon) also say it's canon. They may say it's below the manga and the other two TV series in how canon it is, but it's still canon. Also, it is your BELIEF that only what is in the manga is canon. TJ Spyke 07:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a fact. You don't decide the definition of canon, and you don't decide what is canon. What is canon is only what is created by Toriyama. Only what is 100% created by Toriyama is canon. It isn't my beleif, it is a FACT.--Koji Dude 07:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the defition of canon again, it does NOT say that only what an author creates in canon. IF only the mange was canon like you claim, then a source stating that would be available. TJ Spyke

"A complete body of work considered to be authentic, particularly the books of the Scriptures (Bible) accepted as authentic, or by a particular author."--Koji Dude 07:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[2] made on August 31 2006 to Bebi (Dragon Ball GT)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Please, never revert that much anymore over what appears to be non-vandalism, as this is way out of hand. Voice-of-All 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to WP:IAR

Please read WP:POINT. Wikipedia is not Nomic. -- The Anome 23:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by disruption of the project by attempting to delete an established policy.. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastique (talk • contribs)

Nominating official polices for deletion is unlikely to succeed. Please read WP:SNOW for more quidance. -- The Anome 00:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe this block is not justified and unreasonable. Only two offenses were made and none after being warned. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, but complaining about it will probably just get it extended.--Koji Dude 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted images

Please read WP:FUC coprighted images are used in articles under a leagal claim of 'fair use'. THat does not extend to userspace. I've removed the image. Thanks. --Doc 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fake Characters" on Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2

I can't remember if you were the one who added it or not, but the topic seems to have been deleted multiple times (2 or 3 times at the least). Should we post something on the talk page, just keep re-adding it...What do you think? Sasuke -kun27 00:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resorting to an edit war would be sort of rash, even if it is just a bunch of trolls. Let's post something on the talk page first, as the paragraph helps let readers know the rumors are false, and hopefully will cut back on the number of trolls.--Koji Dude 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just wanted to get your opinion before I did any editing to either of the pages. Sasuke -kun27 00:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Koji Dude 01:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Grimes

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have given up on trying to get credited for my work as that is beyond the point now. The issue now - as best as I can see it - is whether reversions of self-reverts constitute vandalism.

Re: Vic Grimes

Hi. I appreciate the advice, but why should I accept bullet's slander of my Wikipedia integrity? Isn't it warranted for me to bring that up to the admins? Just trying to understand where you're coming from...thanks.JB196 03:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Grimes

I just can't get through to user JB196. He continues to revert the article, reducing its quality claiming that he is not credited as "The Author" in the article itself. The issue is being brought up here [3] help would be greatly appreciated. Hey KojiDude! just like old times huh? remind you of two other colorful characters we've had to deal with? -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newb Questions

Yeah it's me... Im still new to Wikipedia and Im doing some thing's wrong. It has to do with pictures and copyright. I know how to attach a copyright tag but Wikipedia has sent me messages saying that I must tell what the source is. I understand all this I just want to do it right... If you could just tell me how to send private messages and give me a moment of your time (it's up to you as to when) I would appreciate if you can talk me through how to properly post screenshots and other pictures. --Maphisto86 08:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does being calm, civil, and nice never work?

Because all the Wiki-stars, Dragon Emperors, and Tarackas of the world have nothing better to do than to annoy the hell out of you. I'm getting really tired to have to deal with this sort of thing time and time again... That's It! I'm taking a beerbreak... I mean Wikibreak-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would probably be for the best. I'll take your place and help TJ with reverting any new problems that come up for ya.--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know...

Just FYI, whether you believe me or not, I assure you that the edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APersonal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=74248329&oldid=74246726 was entirely, 110% unintentional on my part. I would never nor have I ever intentionally removed anybody’s comments from any page with the exception of my user page. That being said, I understand you’re thinking that it was unintentional, although it was not. I was simply knee deep in all of that text and was trying to cut and paste that one sentence but instead seem to have cut out the entire paragraph in the process.JB196 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 330: / Line 330: @@
 :Yeah, that would probably be for the best. I'll take your place and help TJ with reverting any new problems that come up for ya.--[[User:KojiDude|<font color="blue">Koji</font>]][[User talk:KojiDude|<font color="darkblue">Dude</font>]] [[Viva La Bam|<sup>(viva la</sup>]] [[Bam Magera|<sup>BAM!)</sup>]] 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
+==Just so you know...==
+Just FYI, whether you believe me or not, I assure you that the edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APersonal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=74248329&oldid=74246726 was entirely, 110% unintentional on my part. I would never nor have I ever intentionally removed anybody’s comments from any page with the exception of my user page. That being said, I understand you’re thinking that it was unintentional, although it was not. I was simply knee deep in all of that text and was trying to cut and paste that one sentence but instead seem to have cut out the entire paragraph in the process.[[User:JB196|JB196]] 02:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)